Do these Air Force Inns fall under the installation command or something like the commissary where the civil engineers are restricted from maintenance/repairs? Is that installation commander having to choose between an F-35 squadron hangar or fixing dorms?
Yes and no. The dilemma is pretty much what you describe, but the decisions are made way above the installation level. HQ AF decides, for example, to reduce infrastructure maintenance budget, and with that, reduce civil engineer staffing. The installation commander is not shown the detail of these decisions or explained clearly what is happening or why. They are simply told to do their best with what they have. Which leads to endless wheel-spinning and futility.
For about 20 years, the USAF has not trusted installation commanders to make budget trade-offs. The presumption, likely accurate, is that they'd manicure operations to avoid making things impossible for everyone else. Given we do a lot of operating that isn't necessary and yields no upside but do it nonetheless because someone says so, O-6s being handed the reins would potentially reduce waste and free up a lot of money for support.
But we're now talking about a model for budget and ops prioritization that hasn't existed for a long time.
Tony, I find that most of the Air Forces leadership are pilots or other flying status Airmen. Do you think this bias towards operations and flying hours over time has degraded infrastructure and other parts of the Air Force?
Maintenance and small repairs can be made to hotels using the base Civil Engineer labor force. All of these costs are reimbursable from NAF to AF, so in the end the money actually still comes from NAF which has nothing to do with mission execution. Two completely different lots of money. But there is the matter of maintenance technicians time. Do we prioritize 1st line mission facilities or support facilities.
Larger projects are funded exclusively by NAF money. So no mission overlap.
Employees are once again paid through NAF funds. No mission overlap.
So while there’s a slight tension with mx technician time use, the money side is not really in tension.
Basically, the air force just doesn’t want to do it anymore.
Maintenance and small repairs can be made to hotels using the base Civil Engineer labor force. All of these costs are reimbursable from NAF to AF, so in the end the money actually still comes from NAF which has nothing to do with mission execution. Two completely different lots of money. But there is the matter of maintenance technicians time. Do we prioritize 1st line mission facilities or support facilities.
Larger projects are funded exclusively by NAF money. So no mission overlap.
Employees are once again paid through NAF funds. No mission overlap.
So while there’s a slight tension with mx technician time use, the money side is not really in tension.
Basically, the air force just doesn’t want to do it anymore.
Maintenance and small repairs can be made to hotels using the base Civil Engineer labor force. All of these costs are reimbursable from NAF to AF, so in the end the money actually still comes from NAF which has nothing to do with mission execution. Two completely different lots of money. But there is the matter of maintenance technicians time. Do we prioritize 1st line mission facilities or support facilities.
Larger projects are funded exclusively by NAF money. So no mission overlap.
Employees are once again paid through NAF funds. No mission overlap.
So while there’s a slight tension with mx technician time use, the money side is not really in tension.
Basically, the air force just doesn’t want to do it anymore.
Do these Air Force Inns fall under the installation command or something like the commissary where the civil engineers are restricted from maintenance/repairs? Is that installation commander having to choose between an F-35 squadron hangar or fixing dorms?
Yes and no. The dilemma is pretty much what you describe, but the decisions are made way above the installation level. HQ AF decides, for example, to reduce infrastructure maintenance budget, and with that, reduce civil engineer staffing. The installation commander is not shown the detail of these decisions or explained clearly what is happening or why. They are simply told to do their best with what they have. Which leads to endless wheel-spinning and futility.
For about 20 years, the USAF has not trusted installation commanders to make budget trade-offs. The presumption, likely accurate, is that they'd manicure operations to avoid making things impossible for everyone else. Given we do a lot of operating that isn't necessary and yields no upside but do it nonetheless because someone says so, O-6s being handed the reins would potentially reduce waste and free up a lot of money for support.
But we're now talking about a model for budget and ops prioritization that hasn't existed for a long time.
Tony, I find that most of the Air Forces leadership are pilots or other flying status Airmen. Do you think this bias towards operations and flying hours over time has degraded infrastructure and other parts of the Air Force?
Maintenance and small repairs can be made to hotels using the base Civil Engineer labor force. All of these costs are reimbursable from NAF to AF, so in the end the money actually still comes from NAF which has nothing to do with mission execution. Two completely different lots of money. But there is the matter of maintenance technicians time. Do we prioritize 1st line mission facilities or support facilities.
Larger projects are funded exclusively by NAF money. So no mission overlap.
Employees are once again paid through NAF funds. No mission overlap.
So while there’s a slight tension with mx technician time use, the money side is not really in tension.
Basically, the air force just doesn’t want to do it anymore.
Maintenance and small repairs can be made to hotels using the base Civil Engineer labor force. All of these costs are reimbursable from NAF to AF, so in the end the money actually still comes from NAF which has nothing to do with mission execution. Two completely different lots of money. But there is the matter of maintenance technicians time. Do we prioritize 1st line mission facilities or support facilities.
Larger projects are funded exclusively by NAF money. So no mission overlap.
Employees are once again paid through NAF funds. No mission overlap.
So while there’s a slight tension with mx technician time use, the money side is not really in tension.
Basically, the air force just doesn’t want to do it anymore.
Maintenance and small repairs can be made to hotels using the base Civil Engineer labor force. All of these costs are reimbursable from NAF to AF, so in the end the money actually still comes from NAF which has nothing to do with mission execution. Two completely different lots of money. But there is the matter of maintenance technicians time. Do we prioritize 1st line mission facilities or support facilities.
Larger projects are funded exclusively by NAF money. So no mission overlap.
Employees are once again paid through NAF funds. No mission overlap.
So while there’s a slight tension with mx technician time use, the money side is not really in tension.
Basically, the air force just doesn’t want to do it anymore.
Another example is privatized housing. What a joke.