Leaderboard

FIFY

Semantics, but doing the T-6 NAV block as out n back was always an option in the syllabus. So nothing has been "taken out". It's just some decision the muckity mucks made to save a nickel and spend a pound (and piss off mx in the process, as their overtime gravy train was the weekend XC). Ah big blue, a-word hiring like gangbusters and they're still pissing off the rank and file. LOL Holy cognitive dissonance batman. Stand by for decision reversal....

Further proof the shoe clerks think they run the Air Force - why does military clothing not sell rank for flight suits anymore? I went there today and they only have 1st and 2nd Lt rank, absolutely no Major or Lt Col and not even a spot on the shelf for it. They told me to order it on the exchange website, but you can't even get it there. I tried to go to alterations and they would only give me one set of take-offs because they have so many people asking for it. I guess I'll just start flying in ABUs since there's no problem finding all of the ranks for that uniform. Doesn't this f*cking service exist to fly airplanes? Then why the f*ck can I not get rank for my f*cking flight suits? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You don't need two assholes up front as it is. Half of the problem on a 73 is the terrible PVI and Boeing's insistence that "Pilots have to flip switches" and panels from the 1960s. You can fly and manage the plane from the left seat. (Oh the horror, the pilot flying might actually have to spin his own heading bug or raise the gear by himself!) I don't get why you think that extra seat would have to be converted to anything. Lots of aircraft have two seats up front but can be flown single pilot. It's not about adding another $150 on the flight, but reducing the labor costs of that extra pilot - which airlines would love. As for being a single point of failure, I think that's like the need for Navigators and Flight engineers. The automation has overcome the need. I think it's a lot more likely that we'll see single pilot ops than full autonomous drone passenger ops, though. People need that warm-fuzzy that some human is in control up front.

Sure, as long as they're retired military pilots.

A few words of caution. First, never believe the buy/hold/sell ratings from banks, they don't actually mean buy or hold or sell. I suggest reading this for a quick explanation of how sell-side equity research works: https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-01-20/wall-street-analysts-give-investors-what-they-want Second a stock split cannot change the value of a company. If you think AMZN is a good value after the stock splits it is an equally good value today. 477M shares at $845 gives a market cap of $403B, if they split 2-for-1 you have 954M shares at $422.50 which is still a $403B market cap. On a stock specific note I disagree with your assessment of Amazon. The retail business has negative working capital so when it was growing rapidly they could reinvest that float into other business areas. As that growth slows they lose that excess cash for investment. With the exception of cloud services they continue to invest in low margin or no margin businesses that don't earn an ROIC above their cost of capital. Growth without profitability is value destructive. Groceries are a terrible business, the music and video offerings have escalating costs and Amazon has no competitive advantage in either of them. Nobody is making money in the restaurant take-out business. At 172x P/E (think of a bond with a 0.58% interest rate and no guaranteed payout), 3x Sales and 34x EV/EBITDA you are betting everything on profitability 10+ years in the future. Maybe you'll be right but there are many other, lower-risk options out there in my opinion.

Yeah... this will fix the problem. Lol Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

Where if you finish your T6 syllabus and they push you up into the class ahead of you. Pretty non-standard in the past. Typically guys who hooked and went to CR and got retained or went DNIF for a while get pushed 1 or 2 classes back, hence "washed back."

This has been a problem for a while; just getting around to squaking code-2. I am only able to open ~1/4 of posted links at most. They neither open in the app, or push over to another browser. So if I'm really curious about a link, the fix has been to open up BODN in Chrome. Any fix within the app for this? Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

Oh if only it was isolated to that one UDM at one base. Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

(assumption based on previous posts: I think you are at DLF) If so you need to tell your UDM to do his job. It's been a problem and something that has been addressed. If you are not getting need from him let his boss now. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

ARC retirement in a nutshell. Good article for the uninitiated, which included myself before I joined the guard. And I'm still a padawan at all this so if you're an old crusty guard dude and I'm wrong, feel free to chime in. You're right that the effect of the pension multiplier reduction is less the fewer points you have. For example: Old system: 2.5% * 20 years = 50% of high-three BRS: 2.0% * 20 years = 40% of high-three - a 10% delta Guard Old system: 2.5% * 10 years in points-equivalent (3,600 points) = 25% of high-three Guard BRS: 2.0% * 10 years in points-equivalent (3,600 points) = 20% of high-three - a 5% delta That being said, I've run the numbers based on my worst case Guard participation and it's still well worthwhile to stay in the old system (i.e. 2.5% multiplier for the pension annuity) and give up TSP matching rather than accept TSP matching in exchange for the 2.0% multiplier on the pension annuity. [feel free to stop reading here if you believe me..] Personal specifics and math in public Even at the more favorable 5% delta, the BRS annuity would spit out $454 less starting at age 60 (assuming O-5 with 38 YOS [you accrue YOS for pay purposes while in the retired reserve] and 2017 dollar). That's $5,448 per year. My TSP would need to have 25x that amount for me to safely withdraw $5,448 per year (up for debate, but that's the assumption I'm comfortable with i.e. 4% withdrawal rate). Also not gonna count any money I'm saving, just the government's match since they don't get credit for dollars that are coming out of my wallet in this comparison. BL: Account balance derived from TSP matches needs to be $136,200 or higher to offset the reduced pension annuity payment. Assuming 5% annual growth of my investments (up for debate but again, that's the conservative assumption I'm comfortable with), the 5% TSP matching over the course of a 10 year guard career is well short. As a part-time Guard guy, assuming 123 points is my min-run participation, I'd only be pulling 34% of full-time pay. TSP account value, only considering the government match, at age 60 would be $49,343. Big picture: if you're going to make it to 20 YOS, either on AD or in the ARC, absolutely do not choose BRS. It's less generous for those full-retirees. Those entering service after the cut-off date who do eventually make it to 20 YOS will be getting a worse deal than their predecessors. The upside is that BRS gives some benefits to a new category of "retirees," i.e. those who leave the service before 20 YOS but still have something to show for their efforts, namely the government's TSP match. Showing my work for those who care. Edit to add: I'm too perfectionist not to actually run the right numbers. Updated my spreadsheet and the post accordingly after realizing two initial errors. This now accounts for an additional 18 years of growth (60 minus my "retirement" age of 42) with no additional contributions for an equivalent withdrawal for both the pension and TSP starting at age 60.

Will post this here but I suggest we take this sidebar conversation on single/automated airliners to a new/another thread: https://aviationweek.com/technology/nasa-advances-single-pilot-operations-concepts So NASA is working on the one butt in the cockpit and one butt on the ground concept. Why hate on the flight deck?

I know it's been a few months, but this video shows why these are pretty much useless (may required a Facebook account to watch)...

Except doctors. We're conditioned to accept that we can't recruit/retain them (by specialty) without extremely large bonuses.

Are they? I didn't get a DP because the people I was stratified against were the DO of the SFS squadron and a flight commander with 200 people reporting to him in CE. It would be in our favor if boards actually cared about combat time or flying hours, but what they seem to care about is exec time and SOS DG.

Because then we could abandon this idiotic, childish idea that all officers at the O-3 level are the same, and should be compared as such. Captains are not generals, and nobody should give a fvck about SOS or the other "common discriminators." The very idea goes against the AF's own doctrine of CGOs getting in-depth knowledge and experience in their specialty.

The Air Force could make a blow job terrible.

As opposed to crashes now? Germanwings, EgyptAir, et al are just some where the guy in the cockpit intentionally took paying passengers with him. Run of the mill crashes happen now as well despite having two guys in the cockpit now. Pretty sure the insurance premiums are hefty now. "Reduce" the human error rate, as those seeking automation are claiming, can only reduce those premiums as well. I'm not advocating for this, just acknowledging that it is happening and much research and time/money is being spent on making it happen. The interesting NASA study shows that our own Uncle Sam is opening his wallet to making it happen.