Removing "Cadet" "Senior" and "Composite" From Squadron Names

Started by RiverAux, March 29, 2009, 10:40:17 PM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Should we remove the words "Cadet", "Senior", and "Composite" From Squadron Names

Yes, remove Cadet, Senior, and Composite from Squadron Names.
37 (40.2%)
Yes, Remove Senior and Composite from Squadron Names, but keep "Cadet" Squadrons
5 (5.4%)
No, keep things as they are.
50 (54.3%)

Total Members Voted: 92

Short Field

Quote from: RiverAux on March 30, 2009, 01:27:02 PM
However, I'd like to ask those folks to take a step back and provide some reasons WHY we should have Cadet, Senior, or Composite in the squadron names in the first place.  Imagine that we were starting from scratch.  How does including those names help us in any way? 

I served in Strategic, Strategic Reconnaissance, Strategic Intelligence, Tactical Fighter, Tactical Air Control, and Composite wings.   The USAF still has Fighter, Bomber, Reconnaissance, Air Control, Network Warfare, Air Base, Command and Control, and Range wings.    It helps identify the units primary mission.

^^^A solution in search of a problem...
SAR/DR MP, ARCHOP, AOBD, GTM1, GBD, LSC, FASC, LO, PIO, MSO(T), & IC2
Wilson #2640

RiverAux

Quote1) The cost of changing unit specific hats and patches is expensive and with the economic hit many members have taken inadvisable.

2) Units can not afford the changes to letterheads and other necessary office materials.

3) We have serious branding issues already without the added time and confusion to propagate name changes.
It would not be difficult to phase these other changes in over time to eliminate any impact of the chance so I don't see cost as an issue.  Is anyone actually purchasing letterhead anymore as opposed to having an electronic version that is used when the letter is printed? 
 
Branding would only be helped by this change as discussed already. 

Quote4) There are far more important issues that require time and attention.
Yes there are more important issues out there, but that is irrelevant.  Just because it isn't an earth-shatteringly important issue doesn't mean that it can't be dealt with. 

QuoteA solution in search of a problem
I swear that at some point I am really going to start inserting this comment in every single thread.  I gave several examples of problems that would be solved.  You may certainly think that they aren't important problems, but they do exist. 

Earhart1971

Quote from: Stonewall on March 30, 2009, 01:45:13 AM
Honestly, I don't care either way, but if given a choice, I'd lose the designators.

I've always dropped the squadron type when talking about my squadrons.

Jacksonville Squadron

Fairfax Squadron

Mount Vernon Squadron.

In fact, on all 3 squadron badges it doesn't identify the type.

I agree unneeded name baggage lets lose the designations.