We are akin to Supply or MT
Run to the Air Forces requirements rules and for their benefit…
…but manned by an outsourced organisation - in our case volunteers
3 Likes
From an outsider point of view, @Squadgy it looks like you have formed an opinion and are now trying to back it up with facts. It doesn’t appear the facts do that though, so I’m not sure what else this is going to achieve.
And, the reality is, no one does really care any more. It was a rubbish rebranding, but it’s done.
Conversely, I actually think it was a good rebrand.
The old Air Cadets brand was poor. The logotype was hideous (that’s a personal opinion I’ll grant you). It showed no obvious link to the one element of the organisation which makes us who we are - the link to the RAF.
I never much liked the strapline to be honest, but now that it appears alongside the RAF logo it makes a lot more sense. It finally has a context, instead of just being a Star Trek knock-off.
On a different point - The move to CFC instead of an RAFVR commission is not “at odds” with the rebrand in any way. RAFAC Officers perform the same role they always have, the link to the RAF is still there in the use of “RAFAC” as a postnominal instead of “RAFVR(T)”. It’s just a different type of Queen’s commission.
In addition to that, the balance was further pushed towards an increased link to the RAF by bringing all the WOs and SNCOs under the same RAFAC umbrella where previously we had no such obvious link.
I’m afraid that to claim that we have reduced the relationship with the RAF just sounds like the sort of thing that an officer who is disgruntled at no longer being able to claim RAF Volunteer Reserve might say.
As to whether we have the ‘right’ to use the word “Royal” I’d say that we are owned and operated by the RAF under control of 22 Gp… They can call us whatever they’d like, including using their own name.
We are not alone in the realms of pulling brands closer in. The umbrella term of “RAF Reserves” is now commonly used to refer to the Royal Auxiliary Air Force in just the same way as RAF Air Cadets is now commonly used to refer to the ATC.
9 Likes
*and the CCF(RAF)
1 Like
if we instead consider the flip of your question.
rather than why are we the Royal Air Force Air Cadets
but instead ask
why are we not the Air Force Air Cadets
firstly the repeated use of “air” is pointless - easily deleted and thus being the “Air Force Cadets”
however Air Force Cadets not only is ambiguous but makes no reference to the RAF if only because there is the dropping of the Royal.
Although colloquially persons may say “…when I was in the Air Force…” it is recognised that they are referring to the Royal Air Force - but the brand/name/title for the organisation should not be colloquial and thus no need to drop the Royal.
So why are we not the Air Force Air Cadets?
the title “Air Force” makes the link to the RAF ambiguous - in the same way the Air Scouts title sits with the RAF.
Not only this, it has a repeated use of Air - for no reason.
Thus by including the Royal in the title, it makes the rest of the name make sense as a name, and makes a direct link to the RAF who is the sponsor and manager of the organisation.
and can fully see the argument that if the Sea Cadets aren’t referred to as the Royal Navy Sea Cadets why should the Air Cadets be prefixed with RAF, but the two situations are not apples Vs apples.
the Sea Cadets are handled in a vastly different way by the RN that the Air Cadets are by the RAF
there was also a general RAF branding exercising bringing everyone into line with a standardised logo and title
2 Likes
This topic was automatically closed 60 minutes after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.