From: here@home.net
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 01:08:04 GMT, Andrew Chaplin
wrote:
>
>The sentiments voiced by Brendan and "Avn" concern me. I always served
>in regiments that were undermanned, but that undercutting of those
>regiments' manning was done on the side of what we needed for combat,
>and we thought we had a reserve component of tens of hundreds of whom
>we were confident and who we thought would back us up. The government
>could not commit us to combat on particularly short notice, so we felt
>we ready for anything to which we thought their small minds might
>commit us. I can tell from Brendan's and Avn's posts they feel they
>are stripped to the bone and do not have the confidence we had 15
>years ago. I think the CF ought to at least strive for that level of
>confidence and, by extension, morale.
Hi Andrew.
I agree that the level of confidence and morale are down and we have
often had talks about what to do about it. Many I know would have
liked a bonus on accepting the contract after 20 years. They have
quite a bit to offer the service and decided to stay in rather than
take their knowledge and experience elsewhere.
Pay raises mean very little, and working conditions are hard when out
of a crew of 15 (was 35 ten years ago) there are a handfull of
qualified techs and the rest are learning.
The ball was dropped several years ago and there have been some
unsuccessful plans to get things going again. The worst in my opinion
was trade amalgamation. Five trades in the airforce was turned into
one. The is on the AVN side. Instead of taking 5-8 years in training a
tech to be competent in one trade, now there are five trades they have
to learn. Would you feel good as a pilot climbing into a jet now?
It was then decided to pump up recruiting. guess what, the training
side of things can't handle the influx and Borden is way backed up.
Any answers, none here I'm afraid. It's gone past the point where
anything I can think of would work.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|