Leaderboard

Lower base pay and introduce location pay. The new total pay for the force should stay the same. Then places like Randolph and Hickam will get say $100/mo in location pay. Places like Cannon and Laughlin will get $1000 in location pay. Then people put in their dream sheets and AFPC actually uses them. After the end of each fiscal year, AFPC can then determine if they completely filled the billets. Too many people want Travis? Lower the location pay $50 next year. Too few people want Vance? Raise the location pay $50. After about 5-10 years, the system should be working itself out. Just put a cap on the min/max location pay. People will still get non-vol'd to locations, but at least they'll get a new flat screen out of the deal thanks to their buddies living the high life on the Vegas Strip.

The main point he's making, which I think is correct, is that instead of bouncing every officer from assignment to assignment as if they will all need that breadth of experience, instead of taking stock of just how many staff jobs there are versus cockpits open, is hurting our retention, hurting our budgets, and hurting our continuity. What may be a decent solution is a preference-plus. How about if officers got the same "base of preference" options that the enlisted do after completing a 365 or a short-tour in Korea? How about if a guy states flat-out, "I'm not in the running for SQ/CC and above, I just want to keep flying airplanes...why don't you send the fast-burner over there to the staff job?", we actually listen? How about we pay attention to personal preferences instead of what leadership thinks will look good on the next board? All that requires leaders to know their people and their people's goals. Maybe one guy's goal is to provide some stability for his family, stay in one place for three more years while his kid finishes high school with his friends, while another guy's goal is to climb the ranks, no matter what base that takes, and another guys goal is to get an overseas assignment and see some of the world. Is it really so hard to give officers more of a voice in where they PCS? And if, as would likely happen, people don't go to Cannon, or Minot, or Laughlin...then you can non-vol people. But it should be a rare thing, not the normal operating procedure, to drop orders on an officer's desk every three years, using only the ADP as a guide to what the officer wants.

It took me a couple of years in the ANG to fully appreciate this, but it is a difference in perspective people on AD will never know. I fell into that trap as well. The AD thrives off squeezing every ounce out of its people with the promise of future gains, at the expense of your family, friends, hobbies, and own well being. Is it worth it? In today's environment of no transparency or loyalty on the part of leadership, helllll no! At least with the airlines, they are contractually obligated to advance you in seniority order. There is no thinly veiled promise of being the next big thing. Just show up, do your job well, and go home. You'll get advancement in due time. Sounds like a good plan. After guard bumming for years, I can tell you that there's something to be said for slowing down to smell the roses. Especially after having your balls dragged through the dirt for years on AD.

You only get one true choice in the AF and it happens 10 years after you graduate UPT, much sooner for clerks and Navs. Screw Minot, how would we man Laughlin or Cannon if everything were by preference. Didn't some general try this in the 90s? I've heard some old hats bitching about getting superFAIPed because they couldn't leave until enough people wanted to PCS to their base.

You shut your dirty whore mouth!

Discuss...

Did we just get spammed?

I just had an TCFSD ETP and an age waiver completed by NGB. I'm a prior Army Guard Infantry officer with over 5 years commissioned service (which required an ETP) as well as an age waiver, just in case the process took so long to complete. Be forewarned, this is not a fast process and I was turned down to even interview at several units due to prior commissioned service, as well as being 27 at the interview. I was hired in JUN 2013, service transferred and swore into the unit in DEC 2013, and I just received the papers back at the end of DEC 2014. Granted, I believe this could have gone a lot faster had the recruiters not changed over and been in possession of what an ETP/Waiver package looked like. Consequently, I dont believe my unit will be hiring anyone with age/ETPs in the future due to this headache- sorry guys! My unit could be an exception and I highly recommend EVERYONE try for it!

Here goes nothin... I've re-enabled the site. Old usernames/passwords will not work. It's somewhat barebones, but should be safer than the last couple of tries at this. If it starts getting attacked like the last few, I'll just take it down for good.

No, Jesus did not have a referral report...He walked on water.

I saw this floating around FB the other day, lots of bitter individuals posting about getting screwed over and having to live in [insert terrible base]. Most of the arguments this guy makes are very abstract or big picture ideas (service before self, population growth of a city) that he tries to tie directly to individual behavior across the service. This makes his arguments invalid in my opinion. Trying to say Airmen should/will put service before self and choose a "bad" assignment sounds like a ridiculous ROTC case study that shoes think has a black/white answer. We can certainly do better at matching talent with the right jobs. I think that starts at the SQ/CC level. These are the folks that (should) know their people the best and be best equipped to find the correct next assignment for them. But giving commanders the ability to hire subordinates (outside of BNR billets) or officers the opportunity to hand pick their assignments will certainly creat a whole new batch of favoritism issues and bitter underperformed who post on FB because they don't get to homestead at Eglin. In the end, the assignment system would be significantly better if leaders would simply lead more and worry about what their boss would think less. I guess the same thing can be said about all issues in the AF.

Red Fox just summarized how insane it is we spend millions of dollars dropping some of the most technologically advanced weaponry on dudes in toyota tacomas. seriously, there is a place for low tech/high numbers flying with cheap planes and cheaper ammunition

I think our success in Desert Storm has been a detriment to our strategic planning. I think the success of our PGMs and LO assets have caused us to become too technology dependent and risk averse. Yes technology is great and we are able to execute missions while risking fewer lives, but we haven't fought a large scale conventional war against a determined foe since Vietnam. Yes, PGMs and newer technologies would have been a great help to us then, but if we had had them, the Vietnamese, most likely, would have also. At some time in the future we may have to fight a determined adversary with equal technology if we want to maintain the current status quo within the globe and will have to accept loss of large numbers of pilots and aircraft to win. Is it possible for us to develop weapons so expensive that our military leaders and civilian authority will be scared to employ them for fear of losing such high value equipment? We lost about half of our F-105s in Vietnam. Imagine losing half of our F-35s/F-22s. I doubt we could afford to recapitalize and then where would we be in maintaining desired global status quo? Personally, I think we should invest in some LO, but not solely LO. I think we need to invest in cheaper aircraft where we could buy more, perhaps many more. They would be more cost effective in operations similar to Iraq or Afghanistan and we would maintain a larger number of trained and proficient fighter pilots. One day we may have to rely on numbers and not just technology to accomplish a mission and we will have to accept losses. This is akin to the Normandy invasion or Iwo Jima. We would not have achieved success there without overwhelming numbers of young men willing to die. We may have to do the same in an air campaign some day. So, I believe it is in our national strategic interests to maintain a large fighter fleet,and fighter pilot force, to maintain a skilled defense/aircraft industry labor force, and to keep more than one company in the business of manufacturing fighter aircraft. We can't do it by buying only the F-35, IMHO. A bit of a ramble. Hope it makes sense. Regards, RF

My best friend's sister's boyfriend's brother's girlfriend heard from this guy who knows this kid who's going with the girl who saw Ferris pass out at 31 Flavors last night. I guess it's pretty serious.

Jesus. Did he have a referral report?. The reg says you can use other reliable data. Edit: not that it makes it right. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk