Leaderboard

Maybe because there are other, better ways for him to do his job and meet his requirements; than to try and restrict the ability of people to make a living once their service commitment is complete.

Why do we keep talking about 120 day deployments? When I signed up, 90 days was the normal AEF and I'm not that old. Transportation to/from deployment costs a whole lot less than replacing people who get out. Even the spin up argument doesn't make sense with more numerous but shorter deployments. If I'm in Afghanistan 3 months out of every 15, how much spin-up do I really need? And 3 months is far more tolerable to my family. Every additional month is like a year to a little kid who can't remember what Daddy looks like other than on a computer screen.

Is a solution that ignores the real problem(s) a viable solution? I'm not sure CSAF gets a pass when he acts like a high-turnover ghetto landlord that makes tenants sign a longer lease or burns down the neighboring complex, but doesn't fix the broken heater, dishwasher, and moldy carpet.

You guys write so many words. The art of brevity is lost on all millennials. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ridiculous but predictable from the 9th...seems they missed the point entirely. Pretty dumb that the standard they used is that no one committed a terrorist attack from those countries...I thought we wanted to prevent them, not react to them. The list was made up of countries that, 1) are unable to properly vet travelers, and 2) have elements of their populations that are a high risk and are therefore a risk to the US. It's specifically NOT a list of countries where people who have attacked us have come. Why this is considered a bad idea is beyond me. It's just a pause to make sure we're doing the right thing to verify visitors to our country.

TT, you're way off base on this one. I understand how this can be perceived as an administrative move to shore up numbers. The problem is that when your means to do so is to alienate the people you claim to care about the most, we are smart enough to see through it. We've been talking about crap leadership in the AF for many years - managers who get where they are by filling squares and walking over people. When a new boss takes over and opts to fight this battle before meaningfully addressing the myriad of reasons that we're running for the door, we will rightfully assess that he's another asshat incapable of righting the ship. I hope Congress laughs in his face.

You asked for a reason as to why, in your opinion, people seemed upset. I gave you one. As for my own personal situation, no it does not preclude me from making a living. However, I am not an airline pilot; I'm an engineer and a business owner. I employ aerospace engineers, aircraft maintenance technicians, as well as pilots and flight engineers to fly my aircraft. From the perspective of an employer, yes it appears that an effort is being made to restrict the options of those looking to get out (further down the line) in order to shore up numbers. A spade is a spade, I call it like I see it. Other things may be going on, but it doesn't change perception.

The 1500 hour rule does a ton of good things for pilots that Fingers is trying to undo. 1. Enhances flight safety. If you have doubts, go watch the Colgan crash video again. 2. It makes the regional airline model unsustainable. Most of the majors are already moving former regional routes back to mainline. Good for pilots to not work for regional slave wages, also means more majors hiring to fill expanding routes. This is driving a lot of the hiring. 3. It shifts the supply/demand for pilots. They aren't going to run out, they just can't be as choosy as they were for the last 15 years. They have 10K apps on file and the military putting out 1k+ a year. A lot of the apps are those they'd rather not hire for various reasons. To ensure they're getting quality candidates (mil pilots generally fall into this category) they are having to up pay and benefits to compete with other carriers. Look at pay rate rises over the past 18 months. It still never ceases to amaze me that the AF has made me count the days until I get out of a job that should be so awesome. I love flying fighters, but I hate being in the AF. The solution to keeping your people is not to try and reduce their prospects of future employment, or make that employment less desirable. I think that is a total shitbag move. If I ever had a doubt that I'm nothing but a number to the AF, it is completely erased with this line of effort.

I too have been lucky enough to have good leadership that practice what beerman has observed. Most threads on this forum seem to drift closer together then finally meet along the topic of "what's wrong with the Air Force", and when that happens, in my 13 years in the AF, no one has come up with a fix- from crew dogs to leadership. I will say since my transition to the guard my level of job satisfaction has increased considerably. I can fly as much as I want and there's little pressure to do the things that many people bitch about. There's something to that, and REGAF knows this but it doesn't work in their system- yet. As for Gen Goldfien, good on him for speaking up in the interests of national defense. I disagree that a 1500 hour change will solve the problem because we are already competitive for the majors at the ten year point, and the concept of working 12 days a month and making 200k plus is something that the AF can not and should not be able to compete with, but I don't get all butt hurt about it and whine like a little bitch because shit isn't going the way I want it to. Can you imagine the shit storm from ALPA and the congressional hearings that would occur if the government outbid the private sector for labor? That's some ed up shit that most here would call Orwellian yet on the other side of their mouths complain about the pay/work ratio. I guess I don't understand the vitriol. Don't like the green dot program? Me I either, but pint the finger at civilian leadership who bares the responsibility for this and most other worthless programs. Don't like deployments? They're trying to trim the fat but again, who's really responsible for mandating those deployments to the 'deid? Not flying enough or your equipment is old as shit and broke? Who ed up defense spending (and I'm so bored of hearing it's the f35/Welsh's fault, it's at a higher level than that)? We have a leadership problem alright, but it goes beyond the CSAF. The Schwartz days are behind us. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Observations: - Nothing we've discussed in this thread involves Goldfein in any way restricting AF pilots' ability to get out at the ends of their respective commitments and pursue employment with the airlines. The only restriction is on those with commercial licenses (250 hrs min) who previously could have served as airline first officers -- His recommendation would, however, ultimately expand competition for those jobs--a free-market principle which many on this forum typically espouse - I have yet to hear how life has improved for civilians with less than 1,500 hrs since the FAA rule was enacted. While QOL prior to the ruling might have been a horror show, how is life any better now for those who are trying to build their hours, without the regional airline option available to them? -- As amply discussed on this forum, life is good for those who are already airline pilots (ALPA = the white-collar version of the Pipefitters' Union), and the prospects are pretty darn good for those with essentially a free ticket to the union (prior-mil pilots). Since I've heard no evidence yet to the contrary, I presume that QOL/safety issues have gotten worse for civ pilots who're now having a harder time getting past the higher barrier to entry -- BTW, nobody forced anyone to take those crap regional jobs in the pre-1500 hr rule days Don't get me wrong; I'm the son of a retired airline pilot and a current AD AF pilot. I really like the position of advantage I'm currently in--thanks, FAA/ALPA/rapidly-retiring Baby Boom generation! I just find much of the discussion on this thread to be a bit disingenuous. TT

You think the leadership problem is between the O-3 and O-6 level? Really? AFPAK Hands. Worthless 365s/179s to shitholes to do busy work. Silly additional duties. A broken, archaic promotion system. Flight pay that hasn't changed since the early 1990s. A bonus that hasn't changed since 1999. Rampant micromanagement of squadrons/groups/wings by the NAF/MAJCOM. Have those very solvable issues been fixed yet? No? How many of those things are solvable at the O-3 to O-6 level? Yeah, I didn't think management was serious about fixing things either- easier to just send your top "leader" (LOL) to whine to the FAA.

Why TF would the FAA give two shits about this? FAA: Why should we do this? Goldfein: All of my people are leaving for a better QOL. FAA: Your concern is noted.

Harrumph bitches.

The ATP requirement to fly for 30k a year for a regional is a legitimate problem for industry. While it puts separating military pilots at the front of que for the majors, it breaks the entry level pipeline on the civilian side. Entry level wages need to go way up to provide a ROI for the years spent slumming as a CFI, or the 100k + needed to get the flight time. Legitimate problem, but where does the Air Force have a dog in this fight? Big Blue has it's own pipeline, thousands of people wanting entry level positions, and job security independent of the economy at large. Not to say you have job security, because hiring and firing are bureaucratic decisions, not rational ones. As much "effort" as the military puts into retention, the single overriding factor is the economy. If you can get equivalent or better compensation/QoL out the military, then you leave. If we can't, then we stay. Doubling a bonus won't move the needle nearly as much as 9/11 or the great recession.

So is the next step for the USAF to lobby the FAA to stop the Commercial Pilot or CFI equivalency programs? That would certainly serve to place another barrier up to try and stem the tide. Should Goldfein lobby individual airlines to stop adding .3 to military resumes? Should he lobby them to stop accepting military time altogether? There are real debates to be had about the 1500 hour rule and its effects on the aviation industry. Solving the USAF's pilot shortage should not be the driver of that discussion. Goldfein is out of his lane. He should concentrate on the myriad of issues that he CAN effect WITHOUT help from the FAA or airline industry.

Hey dudes, I'm putting together a complete list of all fighter units and when their next UPT boards are going to be, along with a link to their respective UPT package information. Let me know if you would be interested.

Marco, I had a chance to go to Botswana 3 years ago and do some teaching in those CF-5's. I was sure tempted. But my looming retirement, and the complications of teaching foreign military while still on active duty was just more than I was willing to tackle. You're right though. The Canadians did a nice job on them.

When can I have my patches back? Also... crew neck under-shirts in blues. It's 2017... how is this still not a thing?

Rest assured, my airline pilot colleagues and I are dead set against any effort by the USAF to impede our quality of life. Congress and the FAA passed the 1500 hour rule to address the safety of the flying public. I'm pretty sure the USAF's pilot retention problem does not trump public safety. Repealing this rule would signal a return to regionals hiring at substandard wages, commuters showing up to fly with little rest, and generally drive down wages and QOL in the airline industry as a whole. If I may, I would suggest those of you currently employed in the industry contact your union representation and urge them to oppose this underhanded effort by Air Force leadership.

Do you really think you'd be unable to make a living outside of the Air Force, if the 1500 hr rule was rescinded? If so, you're completely ignoring decades of pre-1500 hr rule history (and/or you have a very low opinion of your own marketability as an AF pilot). You've apparently ignored my references to the late-90s (read pre-1500 hr rule) hiring spree. Folks hired by the majors back then weren't exactly starving. BTW, the anti-1500 hr rule argument isn't the only thing he's doing to try to stop the hemorrhaging.

Umm, since before the Air Force was an independent service. There's a whole lotta butthurtness on this forum over something they really need not to be butthurt over. There was no 1500 hr rule in the late 90s, yet folks had no problem getting hired then. If the airlines keep hiring at the levels they're projecting, you're worth your salt, you'll have no problem getting hired--even if they rescind the 1500 rule. For Goldfein, the issue is that the 1500 hr rule screwed over Air Force pilot retention even more. At least before, there was a marginally financially viable way for folks to build their hours through the civilian-only route. Folks would take the financial risk of paying for all the training and quals, and would suck up flying for peanuts in the regionals, since they had the hope of eventually reaching the big leagues, with their big league pay. The 1500 hr rule screwed that whole path up. Once the pool of maybe 3,000 (I get this number from a previous poster--can't vouch for its accuracy) well-qualified folks dries up, where are the major airlines, regionals, business aviation companies, etc., going to find their pilots, other than the military services--most notably Air Force, but also Navy, Marine Corps and Army? Rescinding the 1500 hr rule would at least offer a little bit of relief, and at this point, every little bit helps. Goldfein faces a further problem, in that a surprising amount of the military mission is executed by civilian contractors. The 1500 hr rule thus not only makes AF pilot retention harder, but it threatens the national aviation industry, by raising the barriers to entry too high for pilots. USTRANSCOM, for instance, contracts a helluva a lot of cargo movement; what happens when Atlas, Kalitta, DHL, etc., can't fly due to aircrew unavailability? It's not like they'll be able to task more C-17s to meet mission requirements, since--you guessed it--the AD and ARC C-17 units will have been gutted by airline hiring. In my mind, it would help if Goldfein approached the problem as a threat to the national aerospace system and industry, than "simply" a pilot retention problem. TT

Heard a great quote on a show I was watching recently. "I'm not talented enough to be unprepared." Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

How does it end, I fell asleep at 2:11.

He a buisiness man, not a politician, he's doing what he knows.

Worth framing..

Dear President Trump, It's now been three weeks and one day since you took your Oath of Office. I don't mean to be unkind, but we all expected you to have solved everything, everywhere by now. I mean your predecessor had already issued his first executive order to close Gitmo and would soon abandon the agreed-upon at some risk to themselves missile defense systems in the Czech Republic and Poland at the behest of Russian demands. Speaking of dang foreigners, you replacing the bust of Winston Churchill in the Oval Office during your first week in direct contrast to the last guy who removed that thing in the same time frame absolutely merits the Speaker of the British Parliament not wanting you to speak there. I mean, really, recognizing in a very public way "the special relationship" in direct opposition to the way that relationship was immediately telegraphed in 2009 is the height of ill manners. Your, perhaps, negotiating ploy of not calling the Russian president a psychotic publically would seem weak sauce compared to being caught on open mic with his creature Medvedev and "having more room to maneuver" in order to appease Putin. I am truly surprised you haven't sent your Secretary of State over with the whited-out reset (translated incorrectly) button. The guy's been sworn in for nearly a week. Time's awastin' it would seem to most of us. Please don't even think of establishing any red lines anywhere either. And while your predecessor had already made his plans for the first of his 'round the world apology tours denigrating the idea of American Exceptionalism and been brushing up on his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech for not being GWB, you seem to be fixated on trying, however inartfully, to follow through on some of your campaign promises. And please don't even think of resurrecting that Monroe Doctrine also publicly repudiated. Everyone gets to interfere now, right? Except you and America. You and she should lie back and think of England... I mean really, is stopping the flow of unvetted refugees from failed nation-states that have a history of trying to kill 'Muricans really something you should be bothering with now especially since the last guy did the exact same thing and for a longer period of time? Lena Dunham and Madonna have called you out. I respectfully recommend you "Giddy-up" on burnishing your talk show appearances and not waste your time or my tax dollars on cheaper F-35s, defunding locales that refuse to follow federal law, or such nonsense. You might upset some folks and that's not acceptable.

Regarding the vision tests, this is the best advice anyone can offer. If you want to be a pilot, your eye exam at Wright-Patt is the most important eye exam of your life. Prepare for it. Get examined by a civilian or military doc and figure out if there is ANYTHING wrong with your eyes. If so, fix it if at all possible. I can assure you that if BEEPBEEP had not be so proactive, he would not be heading to UPT today. His work ethic and attitude was the difference in passing and failing. Obviously, some things are not within one's control, but give yourself the best chance possible.

Congrats on getting through that! Just like most things in like, having the right attitude really helps. My personal opinion is that they were slightly more lenient on people that obviously had the right attitude.

A T-6 FAIP who never flew the 38 (flew T-1 in UPT) went out to Beale for the U-2 and was made a 38 IP after a very short time...

Will his successor institute "Cross Dressing Day" for field grade and above, to better understand our military members that serve under a different gender?

What happened to the commitment to the RPA community?

I get what you're saying. The issue--and trying to keep this related to the "fighter enterprise"--is that unity of command for the CAF, but particularly fighters, fits well with unity of command under geographic COCOMs. You deploy to CENTCOM with your A-10, you're never going to support anyone other than folks in the CENTCOM AOR. For heavies, the issue is whose unity of command is more important: the geographic combatant commander, or the functional combatant commander? Unity of command for CENTCOM suggests the CENTCOM/CC (via the JFACC) should have OPCON of all the heavies in theater. Unity of command for TRANSCOM--with its responsibility for airlift & tanker ops around the globe--would suggest the TRANSCOM/CC needs to exercise OPCON through the TACC and manage heavies globally (rather than giving each GCC his own rice bowl of assets). We don't penny packet out A-10s to each Army division, for the same reason we shouldn't just penny packet (CHOP) heavies to geographic commanders, when those heavies can support multiple COCOMs from one day to the next. Anyway, sounds like we both agree--we'd both like to have more C2 tail at home (sts). TT

I've not seen the brief you've seen, but a few things just don't make sense to me: - There should be no 11F required 365s? I agree that requirements need to be scrutinized, but c'mon, man--if 11F experience were that valueless downrange, Big Blue wouldn't be quite so concerned about 11F retention. The point is to have competent folks in force application/other 11F-relevant billets. Who else would you suggest fill those CAF-type downrange billets? 11Ms? Intel officers? Space officers? It ain't like the 11B community is awash with extra bodies. - Re: IDE, I'd say this should be the other way around--follow the Petraeus model. If one wants to go to IDE, or especially SAASS, he/she should have a meaningful overseas deployment under his/her belt. Too often the bright and shinies find ways to avoid ever doing much of anything operationally relevant as they work their way up the ranks - Airline hiring is a major factor. I'd say you need to think a bit bigger-picture: -- There is a very clear historical negative correlation between a-word hiring and AF pilot retention. This is true in all AF pilot communities -- Going back to the discussion above, even if a-word doesn't necessarily make a direct difference in 11Fs' decisions to take the bonus, the indirect impact is huge. Let's say Big Blue works to limit the number of 11F-required billets downrange, and adds other sweeteners (beyond pay) to encourage 11Fs to stay on AD. Guess what--the billet will likely still be filled. Problem is, it ends up being filled by an 11M or perhaps 11R--which our primarily fighter pilot leaders have blithely decided are somehow healthy on manning. Hmm--11Ms have the choice between either getting beaten down on active duty, or heading for the exits and within a year enjoying better pay, better quality of life, and freedom from getting tagged with downrange deployments that should in fact be filled by folks with force application backgrounds (not to mention the many other 11M-required billets). At a very minimum, the airlines drain the Air Force of all the other folks that are backfilling 11Fs in jobs around the globe. -- I would be curious if the survey only focused on those approaching the ends of their SUPT commitments, or if they also surveyed those hitting the 20-yr retirement decision. The choices then are even more stark--one can remain on AD and effectively work for half pay and postpone building airline seniority, or get out at exactly 20 years, and within a year be making more--between AF retirement and a-word paycheck--than they ever would have on AD. In sum, I get that 11F manning is a substantial concern. I agree the Air Force needs to make a number of changes--not all of them costly--to encourage folks to stay in (reviewing AFSC requirements for various billets, minimizing unnecessary PCSs, pushing back against stupid COCOM requirements, etc.), no argument there. The above said, AF senior leaders are rightfully acknowledging that airline hiring is a big deal, and they need to continue working to find ways to minimize its negative effects on retention. Perhaps just as importantly, they need to stop insulting our intelligence. All the public handwringing over 11F shortages (with little mention of other pilot communities) implies that other AF pilot communities are somehow fat, dumb and happy. Nothing could be further from the truth, and a-word hiring is just getting warmed up. A sure way to keep retention low is to stay on this fighter-myopic track the USAF is currently on. TT

It was pretty good info. The dip in production from 08-14 has rightfully got HAF scared. If they have 30% retention, which I think is very possible, most of those year groups will have 25-40 11Fs, just enough to fill OG and FW/CV. They expect experience ratios to slip and it to get worse before it gets better. Expect to see the quality of the students coming to a squadron near your drop as they cram more through the B-Course. To try and keep guys around they are revamping the assignment system. The goal is more choice and the ability to stay at one place longer. That seems incompatible with cram more through the pipeline, so we'll see. You can get most of the info from the slides and exec summary that are going around. They said goal is summer 17 VML. They trying to reduce strain on 11Fs, but not hard enough. Still 21 365s out there, but no 365s for 11Fs unless it requires an 11F. If they really gave this its due attention, that number would be zero, not 21. They're also looking at how to incentivize hard to fill spots. Whether that is guaranteed IDE or assignment choices, TBD. They're still pursuing pay increases. The numbers mentioned were 50-60K bonus and $1,500 flight pay They still have their head in their ass about the airlines. Overview slide listed airline hiring as the top item. Slide from aircrew survey had airlines dead last. Top 3 from aircrew were Assignments, home station ops temps and promotion. Side note, I also found out that 11Fs are not officially listed as critically manned. WTF?

There's only one SpecOpsFighterPilot...

I can tell you (at least roughly) how it's going to play out for the MAF year group(s)--like the one that's currently graduating--which get shorted for bodies, in favor of the CAF: - They'll all start their flying careers being really busy, flying a bunch and getting sq jobs folks in prior year groups would never have gotten so early - Way too early in their careers, the bright and shiny types will be identified, and will quickly join the protected class which rarely flies or deploys/is set up for the string of jobs/assignments that will make them really promotable. The next tier down--the ones not on the leadership track, but who are competent/dependable--will get crushed with all the important, yet non-sexy (read hardship) deployments & home station jobs. The middle of the packers--good flyers, but not great leaders/staff types--will fly their arses off and also get crushed with deployments. Those (at least according to AF perceptions) who are at the bottom of the pack will likely enjoy a level of job security that in prior years they never would have had. That is, until such time that they get RIFd--because, of course, the AF needs to retain its critically manned 11Fs (even though in this year group the 11Fs will be overmanned relative to 11Ms/others). - About 10 years from now, the bright and shinies (the ones who bother to stay on AD) will be in IDE & will already be largely disconnected from ground truths in the mobility community. The second-tier & middle of the road guys--if the civil sector is hiring--will get out in droves. The bottom of the pack folks will likely stay in. - 20 years from now, the bright and shinies will still be bright and shiny, and more importantly will have had careers that in no way reflect the experiences of the masses. The second-tier and middle of the road folks will all be retired, or--at best--will still be on AD, but enjoying cush jobs (the only kinds of jobs that could entice them to stay in). The bottom dwellers who survived being passed over/RIFs/etc. will still be on AD, too. They'll be the middle managers. The O-6 and above MAF leaders will have some really awesome ideas, after having spent so much time in schools/as execs/on staffs. Problem is, their middle managers--the passed-over O-4 and O-5 types--will almost exclusively be the middle of the roaders and bottom dwellers of yesteryear. Those executing the missions will almost exclusively be folks with less than 10 years rated service--i.e., folks who haven't yet had the opportunity to punch. In sum, we'll have a whole bunch of good idea generators, but lack adequate numbers of competent people to put those ideas (whether good--or more likely good-sounding but questionable) into action. Funny. This situation I describe twenty years from now kinda sounds like where the MAF is today: out of touch O-6 and above types, a razor-thin slice of competent O4s and O-5s trying to keep the ship afloat, and a bunch of junior dudes who are 1) eyeing life outside of AD, and 2) unimpressed by the AF clownshow. Problem is, ten years ago, we had the "good fortune" of 9/11, the Great Recession, and FAA rule changes to encourage folks to remain on AD. Consequently, we were able to retain at least a degree of talent. Barring another catastrophe, I don't see the Air Force future as being quite so rosy for the current crop of recent MAF SUPT graduates. The MAF will be even more broken, but at least there'll be enough CAF bubbas to fill the AF's senior leadership roles, going forward. So we'll have that going for us. TT

Our corn popper actually has a recipe posted on the outside ala 781 - complete with notes warnings and cautions. One of the warnings is to drain the excess jalapeno juice before adding them to the oil - something to the effect of causing excess smoke, coughing, and extreme eye irritation. Ops tested...drain the extra juice.

The way I was able to free up a TON of time at UPT was to track into the T-1 program after Tweets. Besides, skydiving doesn't really take as much time as it may appear in the movies. I jumped twice (before UPT) and each one was over in like 5 minutes. Plenty of time at UPT for that.

Is that more dangerous than taking a dump?

It's been approved/pseudo-expected to be worn for some time in AFSOC...I wish they would just officially go to OCPs as the only duty uniform, and have the entire service in the same uniform, all the time. Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

I would say that Fingers is trying to find a way to keep adequate numbers of pilots on AD past the ends of their SUPT commitments, in order to meet warfighting requirements. The 1500 rule works directly and dramatically against Fingers' efforts, as discussed above. Rescinding the 1500 hour rule is no panacea--the Air Force will continue to hemorrhage people anyway; the economic and QOL benefits are too substantial even without it. I simply don't understand why folks on this forum are upset with him trying to do his job. There are plenty more valid things to complain about than this.

Let's see... 1. Both the Captain and First Officer in the Colgan Air crash had well over 1,500 hrs, yet they still died. Total flying hours was not the issue. It didn't save them that day. 2. Who is flying the regional jets--mainline or regional airlines--still doesn't fix the fundamental problem--there has to be a financially-viable way for folks (outside of the military) to get to 1,500 hrs. I don't see what your solution is to this problem, other than jacking up mainline payscales so much that the financial incentives are so great that nobody will stay on AD. Seems like a concern the CSAF should involve himself with. 3. As I wrote in a previous post, rescinding the 1,500 hr rule wouldn't preclude a quality prior-mil dude from getting hired when he retires/separates (see late-90s AF retention woes). It'll just tweak the supply/demand curve a bit, so you don't get quite so much cash as you would with the rule still in place. In other words, the concerns you voice are primarily economic/financial; what Goldfein & Co. are doing to try to make is comparatively irrelevant--it's all about the Benjamins. I get it; senior Air Force leaders can/should do more to eliminate queep/refocus on the mission/etc. Objections to the CSAFs efforts to have the 1500 hr rule rescinded, though, sound suspiciously like whining. TT