Knackered Old WOs - A Question!

[Stax]

Perhaps only offering people a limited signing on extension, ie person gets promoted to Cpl after (lets say laughingly) 6 years, If they are signed on for 9 at the time, offer them 3 extra years of service. This could mean that if they did want to carry on up the ranks they would have to continue to prove their worth. If they did not they would know that their service ended at the 12 year point. Carry this on with the next rank, get to Sgt before 12 years, offer another extension and so on.

Basically how it worked when I joined, you could only join initially for a max of 6 years (9 for techies) then had to be promoted or recommended by your hierachy to sign on further. Prior to that we had 22 year SAC's, they had no interest in promotion, most had 2nd jobs and they were happy! The problems came under various "Options for Change" in the late 80's early 90's where people with 8's and spec recs were being signed on to 15 years to enable them to get to Cpl! You have a different problem to other trades due to the nature of your job and (too) young SNCO/WO's do cause a bottleneck, you have my sympathy (not too much though, can't let the side down now can I?)

 

[DET1]

Revamp the trade completely. The only Officers required would be a SATCO and 2 Flt Cdr's, the rest of the controlling staff would be SNCO's. Perhaps you could even introduce (I don't believe that I am suggesting this) WO and WO2. This would allow the RAF to manage the trade easier, and perhaps to get rid of the 'you are only a Sgt/FS of 15 years experience so you cant be a Sup or on the ATCEB. Stands back and waits for explosion.

 

[HilstonPols]

Revamp the trade completely. The only Officers required would be a SATCO and 2 Flt Cdr's, the rest of the controlling staff would be SNCO's. Perhaps you could even introduce (I don't believe that I am suggesting this) WO and WO2. This would allow the RAF to manage the trade easier, and perhaps to get rid of the 'you are only a Sgt/FS of 15 years experience so you cant be a Sup or on the ATCEB. Stands back and waits for explosion.

Great ideas there DET1 - now we have WO Sups so we are heading in the right direction at least. Why does the ATCEB have to be officers? Last refuge of the jolly boys outings.....<duck>

Allegedly it is because the JOs have to run thier trips to minor units, so a WO or FS could not do that! With a WO or FS on the board it would mean less flexibility and therefore an increased workload for some.

Personally I feel that it is a mind set, we are the RAF therefore the officers lead. They are the ones in positions of responsibility, however if a WO can supervise (as if they couldn't ) then surely the maturity and professionalism exists to be a board member.

We live in hope at least.

 

[Visitation]

Blighters on the Board

Blighters on the Board

Bahh Humbug!!

Blighters on the Board - whatever next, more WAFFS?

No, this suggestion simply will not pass muster.

The ATCEB needs to be Officers only to retain 'Tone' and 'Character'

Visitation

 

[SirSaltyHelmet]

"Bahh Humbug!!

Blighters on the Board - whatever next, more WAFFS?

No, this suggestion simply will not pass muster.

The ATCEB needs to be Officers only to retain 'Tone' and 'Character' "


Just trying out my be nice to people New Years Resolution.....


Yup its working, Ill keep my mouth shut!!

 

[Retard Retard]

The ATCEB needs to be Officers only to retain 'Tone' and 'Character'

Then pray tell why have/are the biggest reprobates in the Branch on the Board?

If I had been an Officer I know I would have easily qualified!

Maybe we should move this over to a new Thread?

 

[You Can Call Me Al]

to retain 'Tone' and 'Character'

I think I know Tone, but who's the Character?

 

[The Controller]

YCCMA...

I think I know Tone, but who's the Character?

Obviously none of our Commissioned colleagues know what character is???

 

[You Can Call Me Al]

Visitation - can we have another input please? Preferrably as witty as the last (and first!)