Avatar feed
Responses: 3
MSgt Michael Bischoff
4
4
0
Why in the world would maintenance personnel want to work for flyers? This has been tried before and failed miserably. AMU concept drove the FMC rate in the toilet with unit moral.
(4)
Comment
(0)
Lt Col Scott Shuttleworth
Lt Col Scott Shuttleworth
4 y
I was at Minot when they combined the MX with OPS...bad idea...to very distinct and unique leadership challenges.
(1)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
Lt Col John (Jack) Christensen
3
3
0
Oh Lord, not another restructuring!
(3)
Comment
(0)
SSgt Auto Total Loss Claims Associate
SSgt (Join to see)
>1 y
Lt Col John (Jack) Christensen but, sir, this restructuring looks like it might actually be a useful one. Getting rid of middlemen is rarely a bad thing. ESPECIALLY when they tend to muck it up! LOL
(2)
Reply
(0)
1stSgt Nelson Kerr
1stSgt Nelson Kerr
>1 y
This time at least they are not ADDING bureaucracy.
(3)
Reply
(0)
Lt Col John (Jack) Christensen
Lt Col John (Jack) Christensen
>1 y
If you believe the PR :-)
(2)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
Lt Col Scott Shuttleworth
0
0
0
It is going to be the same structure we already have...take a name away but keeping three "advisors" at the wing level is what you have already in the group commanders. SO much gets filtered and handled at the group level before it gets to the wing allowing the Wing CC the ability to focus on the strategic actions for the wing versus the day to day ops issues. Also it removes a appeal process for persons that get in trouble. If there is no Group CC, when a Sq CC prefers charges the next person in the chain for appeals is a the GO level bypassing the Wing CC...been there and tried it...not a good concept. IMHO.
(0)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small

Join nearly 2 million former and current members of the US military, just like you.

close