Leaderboard

For all of you "doing the math" and coming up with these "what if" scenarios, realize that people were doing that back in the 1990s and I can guarantee you not one of their predictions came true. Like anything, an airline career is based in part on timing. Some of the guys at my airlines were hired during the good times, made captain and have been in the left seat through most of the "bad years". Other guys got in right at the tail end of the 1980s hiring wave and they've been sitting reserve as an FO for the better part of 25 years, and furloughed 1+ times. The airlines isn't a panacea. It will not cure cancer, make you rich or make you happy. If you love flying, you'll enjoy flying for the airlines, but it is a change in pace, especially in the beginning. The first few years, you won't have too much control over your schedule and you'll be going into work as everyone else around you hits the lake or heads out to see family for the holidays. But given the realities of airline staffing, your schedule likely will get better. Short of a massive economic hit (where we're all pretty screwed), you'll still go up the seniority list. The mandatory Age 65 rule will see to that. Even with us losing about 250 pilots a year to mandatory retirement, we're losing almost as many to medical retirements (it's a lot harder to keep your Class 1 when you're 62-63)...and to that issue, we're still understaffed somewhat, despite hiring constantly. For those of you that don't really care if you're flying an airplane or not, I'd suggest finding another way to make a living, because the first few years are going to burn you out. I'm writing this from my crash pad, having had to say goodbye to the wife and kids on Labor Day while all my other friends are out barbecuing. I'm betting on quick movement up the list to where in another 2-3 years I'll have weekends off and maybe even some holidays off. As for vacation, having a legitimate vacation week off when you want it will still be further down the road, but as they say in this industry, "that's what sick leave is for". My advice...forget the number crunching. Do what you think is best for you and your family. If you can find a AFRC/ANG gig nearby, then it's nice insurance, additional income during those first couple years, and a good way to get to 20 and get something for your troubles while Active Duty. If it would require commuting somewhere else to do it, I'd forget about it because it'll cost you way too much in QOL to make it worthwhile. If you love aviation, fly for the airlines. If you don't, then don't. I enjoy my job even though I'm pretty much at the bottom...so in my opinion, it'll be an awesome job once I have some seniority and relocate to live in-base. As for the bonus...you'll never be happy if you're chasing money. If you stay in, do it because it's the right thing for you and your family at the time, and if the military pays you a little extra for the decision, then great. Otherwise, pass on the money and find the opportunity you're looking for elsewhere.

I’m less concerned with active-duty vs. airline pilot balance sheets than I am with an ACP program that makes no sense. I have yet to read a rational explanation for how/why ACP program decisions are made. Discussion below: I’d love to be proven wrong, but I’m not optimistic: - It’s not about seeking to gain or maintain 100% manning in different pilot communities . . . which is what I thought is the whole point of the program o The 11S and 11H communities, which at least last I checked, are worse-manned overall than the 11F community, did not get offered the same enhanced options that the 11Fs were. Weird. - HAF A1M has no idea whether/not they’re really being effective o Per rtgators, “I'm not sure I have anything to do with what flavor of rated has expiring UFT ADSCs.” o They know what their “Red Line” requirements are, as well as their “Blue Line” inventory. They could have found out from AFPC how many eligibles there would be—and could have known with pretty darn good certainty what take rate they’d need to meet their requirements . . . but they didn’t bother - The 11M community is likely screwed o All A1M apparently cares about is overall manning o Overall manning for 11Ms will likely always remain close to 100% . . . because of the relative ease of producing 11Ms and 10 year SUPT commitments o If, and more likely when, 11M bonus take rates and retention plummet due to airline hiring, A1M will continue to remain unconcerned (because they’ll have enough folks to fly the line) o Mobility leaders will be selected from small pools of candidates after the retention carnage . . . which increases the odds that there will be some really poor leaders in the heavy community. The ongoing JQP “toxic leadership” discussion might very well be indicative of the same dynamic § I’ve never had anything to do with Rhatigan, but you’ll note he was one of the few mobility pilots in/around his year group left in the Air Force after the late-90s through 2000 airline hiring spree The scary part is, every time I bring up a point on this forum, the response from rtgators and General Chang is never, “great idea--we thought of that, but this is why your idea won’t work . . .” The response is, instead, to cite irrelevant historical statistics (low airline hiring between 09-13 [forgetting to mention Age 60-65 rule change], mil pay going up every year [but disregarding need to retain folks in the middle of a war]). TT

So you're point is that just because the illegal crossers will look for another avenue of illegal entry after they find the usual route too difficult or impossible after being fortified / secured then we should not even try it? That is the point of strategic fencing, to force them to only have very difficult avenues to attempt with low probability of success and/or high likelihood of capture during the attempted illegal crossing. Of course they will try something else, for every move there is a counter-move. And it will not be trillions of dollars, not even REMOTELY close to that. Besides which, you can pick your poison for how much illegal aliens cost the United States in direct cost and indirect costs and it dwarfs the cost of a reasonable security system on the border. Crime and illegal aliens in the U.S. From 1980 to 1999, the number of illegal aliens in federal and state prisons grew from 9,000 to 68,000. Today, criminal aliens account for about 30% of the inmates in federal prisons and 15-25% in many local jails. Incarceration costs to the taxpayers were estimated by the Justice Department in 2002 to be $891 million for federal prison inmates and $624 million for inmates in state prisons. That's just to house them at our expense after they committed some crime, just about 1.5 billion. The Israeli security fence system cost about 430 million for about 135 miles, just assuming you kept out only 50% of the would be convicts you could recoup your build out costs for building 6 135-mile sections of security systems in about 3.5 years and you have the benefit of having those prison beds available for some homegrown criminals who need a longer stay in the big house. The Fiscal Cost of Unlawful Immigrants and Amnesty to the U.S. Taxpayer In 2010, the average unlawful immigrant household received around $24,721 in government benefits and services while paying some $10,334 in taxes. This generated an average annual fiscal deficit (benefits received minus taxes paid) of around $14,387 per household. This cost had to be borne by U.S. taxpayers. Amnesty would provide unlawful households with access to over 80 means-tested welfare programs, Obamacare, Social Security, and Medicare. The fiscal deficit for each household would soar. In 2011 there were about 320,000 apprehensions for illegally crossing into the USA, even if you only deterred 50% of them and assuming a them to be a head of household situation you would save on average per year in government benefit programs approximately 1.6 billion, just about enough to pay for the above six sections of 135-mile border security system and then every year you would have enough to maintain and man it. Last point, why do we (being the United States of America) have to change because someone from a foreign country doesn't like an aspect of our society, that is a legal system that somehow 1,000,000 people managed to use legally in 2012 and they somehow can't? I guess some people don't have to file their income taxes because they find the form confusing and cumbersome... The burden is on the immigrant to use our system rather than the US bending for them. No apologies for who we are or how we live, if they don't like it, figure it out somewhere else.

This conversation is for adults.

Nice, I stand corrected... Love me some Oklahoma, enjoy OKC when you get the chance

Congrats! Heading to 38 PIT (then back to Mejico...) myself. See ya there.

END T-38 Posted from the NEW Baseops.net App!

Bender hits the nail on the head. The airline gig isn't for everyone and comes with its own unique set of challenges. Bottom line: do what's right for you and your family. Just make sure you do it with your eyes open.

All of this assumes the individual is interested in flying for the airlines. It also assumes that one is punching as a O-5 at 20 years. After 20 years of service, I would think one deserves to get a second career that would make one happy...I find it hard to believe that an airline gig really fits that bill for the majority. From a money accumulation standpoint, I see the logic...but, I think I departed that path when I commissioned with an engineering degree (that I chose based on income potential to boot.) Best of luck to each of you in determining what's best for your livelihoods here. Bendy

Always marry your second wife first..

FIFY Posted from the NEW Baseops.net App!

1. Go with him, it's better to be with a significant other than without there. 2. Get married (JoP if you want to wait for a real wedding) so you can use his benefits, get free healthcare, and make a lot more money as a dependent. Or breakup...but you should know by now after 4.5 years Posted from the NEW Baseops.net App!

Honest to god, I said to myself that it would take less than 3 posts following mine to see the 'San Diego case study' posted...I suppose I overestimated. I won't even entertain the suggestion that Israel's circumstances are applicable. Pointing to the fence bordering San Diego as indicative of anything regarding border control in whole indicates either a complete lack of understanding regarding human behavior, or a willful ignorance of reality. Illegals crossing the border look for the path of least resistance, just like everything else in nature. Their desire to make the crossing might be so strong that they'd be willing to swim through 10 miles of human shit to the other side, but if it's not necessary, they're happy to walk across into comfortable San Diego. Put a fence up blocking San Diego? Illegals crossing into San Diego drops by 95%. Because you've thwarted them? Give me a break. Although not by much, El Paso is still easier than 10 miles of excrement, so they'll cross there. Block El Paso? Fine, they'll walk through 50 miles of mountainous desert with half a gallon of water. Fence of the desolate desert areas? Fine, they'll dig a tunnel, or cut a hole in the fence, or obtain a counterfeit passport and cross 'legally', or a thousand other options. OR, maybe they'll exploit the Gulf of Mexico, or that marginally large body of water called the Pacific Ocean. Raise the bar high enough and the coyotes will start employing submersibles like the Central/South American cartels use. Those options aren't used today because they aren't the path of least resistance. Put up a fence at enormous cost and the stream will just shift off land. Put the Coast Guard on it? They'll think of something else. Want to raise the bar high enough that none of those options are viable? How many trillions of dollars are you in for at this point? Maybe reasonable border control measures coupled with policy that makes legal immigration the path of least resistance is a better option than a 2000 mile long electrified razor wire fence (and yes I'm aware that you, Clark, aren't advocating that, but some are).

Nobody is asking for change for somebody else's benefit, any change would be for our benefit. You can take the 'burden is on the immigrant to use the system and we're not going to change' stance, but there's just one problem...we've tried that over the last 30 years and it isn't working. They see an easier alternative, so they take it. 5000 people circumvented an 80mi long Berlin wall under threat of death, and there weren't oceans on either side of the wall. If the desire is strong enough, people will find a way around any wall that gets put up. You have to attack the bulk of the problem from a different angle. Either eliminate the appeal of making the crossing, or find a way to deal with the inevitable flow of people. And just for the record, aside from its comically short length (relative to our circumstance), Israel's wall doesn't aim to stop millions of people seeking to cross for a better life. It aims to prevent small isolated cases of crossings by people looking to do harm to the Israeli population (and isn't entirely effective at that either). It's effectiveness would be exponentially less if there were hundreds of crossing attempts a day. It should never be brought up in conversation about securing our borders.

So would the plural, as in a herd of them, as they sometime travel in packs; be Dependopotami?