1
1
0
24 units accounting for 2,600 soldiers across the country were removed from jump status.
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."
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?
Posted in these groups: 
Compensation
Army
Compensation Army
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 4
1
1
0
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, but I bet it didn't). 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 (just with out the extra pay).
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
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?
(0)
(0)
CSM Mike Maynard
CSM Charles Hayden - good one!
Don't mean to hijack the thread, but...............
You do bring up an interesting point though - if the "pass" rate for females is less than males, and if we are determined to use a quota system or affirmative action to load each class up with a certain amount of females, then it will require more classes to generate the same amount of Rangers. Is that a good use of our dwindling training dollars?
Don't mean to hijack the thread, but...............
You do bring up an interesting point though - if the "pass" rate for females is less than males, and if we are determined to use a quota system or affirmative action to load each class up with a certain amount of females, then it will require more classes to generate the same amount of Rangers. Is that a good use of our dwindling training dollars?
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
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.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google