CSM Mike Maynard 13886 <div class="images-v2-count-0"></div><div>24 units accounting for 2,600 soldiers across the country were removed from jump status.</div><div><br></div><div>The Army stated "paratroopers continue to train and maintain readiness to execute airborne operations should a mission arise, the impact on the reduction of paid parachute positions will not degrade the capability of the Army."</div><div><br></div><div>Is the Army getting by on the cheap? Are we requiring the same training/capability for those not getting paid as those getting paid proficiency pay?</div> 2013-11-30T21:52:18-05:00 CSM Mike Maynard 13886

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div><div>24 units accounting for 2,600 soldiers across the country were removed from jump status.</div><div><br></div><div>The Army stated "paratroopers continue to train and maintain readiness to execute airborne operations should a mission arise, the impact on the reduction of paid parachute positions will not degrade the capability of the Army."</div><div><br></div><div>Is the Army getting by on the cheap? Are we requiring the same training/capability for those not getting paid as those getting paid proficiency pay?</div>

2013-11-30T21:52:18-05:00 2013-11-30T21:52:18-05:00 LTC Jason Bartlett 13937

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><p class="MsoNormal">There are plenty more PPP out there that we could do away<br />with, the argument has been made strategically there is no longer a requirement<br />to keep the two OCONUS ABCTs let alone a division (great lead in for another<br />discussion). Many of the positions are designated as PPP although jumping is<br />not an inherent and essential part of the positions duties. A revalidation should<br />be conducted for all PPP across the services (or just the Army) and validate<br />authorized PPP (I would assume this happened already, but I bet it didn't). Anyway, the way I see it<br />is that paid paratroopers are like the rest of us who came off jump status, we<br />can be called upon at a moments notice, receive refresher training and out the<br />door we go (just with out the extra pay).<p></p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><br></p><br /><br />

2013-12-01T00:45:53-05:00 2013-12-01T00:45:53-05:00 LTC Jason Bartlett 13939

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>There are plenty more PPP out there that we could do away with, the argument has been made strategically there is no longer a requirement to keep the two OCONUS ABCTs let alone a division (great lead in for another discussion). Many of the positions are designated as PPP although jumping is not an inherent and essential part of the positions duties. A revalidation should be conducted for all PPP across the services (or just the Army) and validate authorized PPP (I would assume this happened already). Anyway, the way I see it is that paid paratroopers are like the rest of us who came off jump status, we can be called upon at a moments notice, receive refresher training and out the door we go...

2013-12-01T00:48:52-05:00 2013-12-01T00:48:52-05:00 MAJ Private RallyPoint Member 13940

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>This is such BS. There is enough money wasted on things like the CHESS program that requires me to pay 3 times what a computer/printer is worth. Personally I have loved jumping over the past ten years but many are not going to jump if you are not going to pay them for it.

2013-12-01T00:49:48-05:00 2013-12-01T00:49:48-05:00 CSM Charles Hayden 974016

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>CSM Mike Maynard, Yes, almost two years since your post re: saving money by reducing jump paid positions. Now we know; the Army was trying to save up a portion of the cost for training "female Rangers". And we have one more in the pipeline on her "-" attempt?

2015-09-17T21:15:29-04:00 2015-09-17T21:15:29-04:00 2013-11-30T21:52:18-05:00