Pancake

https://www.fox4news.com/news/son-brings-vietnam-war-fighter-pilots-lost-remains-home-to-texas

I may be a little older than the rest here, but airing tragic video is nothing new. Kennedy assassination, Reagan attempted assassination (as a young kid, I remember watching the initial “NBC News Special Report” as it happened), that politician that blew his head off on live TV, Challenger explosion, United 232, Columbia disaster, 9/11 attacks... all of those victims had loved ones too. And America was glued to the TV for all of those tragedies; most aired live as they happened. As disrespectful as airing accident video might be to surviving family members, it’s nothing new and spans back decades. Condolences to the victims, families, friends and squadron mates of yesterday’s mishap.

The airline business model is completely different than in previous downturns (then: market share, today: revenue generation). Future downturns will have less severe impact on the airlines, as efficiencies today (and profits) and retirements tomorrow will pad a softer landing (more likely to slow hiring than produce furloughs).

Go Guard. Foster professional agility. Advance in parallel careers (civ and ANG) through your 20s, 30s, and 40s. Fly mil and begin progressing in the civilian sector simultaneously. Don’t get caught in the trap of having to start fresh in the civ world 10-20 years behind your peers. One day you’ll hang up your mil wings and rely on your civilian accomplishments to continue building wealth and living to your full potential. Better to have 20 years of civ accomplishments/progression at 45 years old than being the FNG as a middle-aged man. The active duty path includes a point in the journey where you return to “Go,” and essentially professionally start from scratch (typically the transition to civ life at mil retirement). That’s why airline pilot is such a popular follow on (especially now, as the hiring/retirement/profitability stars have aligned)... institutionally, it’s a lot like being a mil pilot. I took the active duty route. Enlisted, USAFA, pilot, Guard. If I could do it again, I would have enlisted in the Guard, gone to college, and applied everywhere to become a pilot, meanwhile pursuing a career in law. The satisfaction of a mil career far out shines the flaws of the organization. I have a civ job, but am currently on long term mil orders. Pure flying is (has become) a job (I sometimes wonder if I still enjoy flying). The mission, leadership opportunities, and commaraderie set this job apart from the rest. And you can find just as much of that (or more) in the Guard, as compared to active duty. The guys living the “best” life, IMO, are the part-timers who found the balance early in their mil careers and have squeezed the most out of both... and not all are airline guys. Good luck!

Nothing. Just thought I'd ask.

What did your boss do for n the AF?

Ha! This is getting funny. I'm not. Nevermind.

2- Hardly. It's a good fall back until I/in case I don't find that dream job. Pay/time off/bennies are great, but I don't find satisfaction in the work. 3- Not sure what you mean here. If we can only get the general experiences of the non-airline folks, void of salary, specific details of duties, sector/company name, strategies to get hired, I'm not sure how useful this thread will end up being. That said, there have been a few posts that provided tangible info useful in pursuing other opportunities. Thanks to those contributors.

I understand what you're saying with regard to sharing corporate information/salary data, but simply stating "I make good money, this job has its pluses and minuses, shoot for the stars," really isn't tangible, meaningful information. It's fun to read about people finding success outside of military, but most of the information shared thus far is anecdotal and provides little context. Old Crow, thanks for contributing the information above... helpful for those of us still mulling a career change after going to the airlines.

A couple of folks have posted about having great jobs, but leave out the specifics. Just tell us what you do, exactly. Provide specific compensation information. The airline info is out there, and really, there's no reason to be vague with the details of these non-airline careers (unless they're really not that great?). No offense, but without specific info, these jobs begin to sound like "ask me how I make $1000 a day working from home" scams. With a fresh MBA in hand, I did my diligence seeking a non-airline career when I separated in 2012. Granted, besides flying, I have a non-technical background (poli sci from the Zoo). Standard GE Junior Officer LP, consultant (Booz Allen, Deloitte), Raytheon, and the CIA were the only bites I got and none fell into "dream job" status. Other than the companies listed above, no one I spoke to was really interested in hiring someone with a non-technical degree (more likely, it was just me). I even sensed a little "military fatigue" from the recruiters I spoke to ("yeah, yeah, leadership, MBA, flying, but what else do you offer"). After considering pay/benefits versus time away from home, the stability afforded with getting in at the front end of the hiring wave (2014), and control of my life, airline pilot was the clear choice. I begrudgingly admit that because to an extent I still equate airline pilot to glorified bus driver (no offense to bus drivers... it's important work). I suspect a detail that's being left out of these success stories (except maybe Huggy's example), is networking or an already established relationship leading into a transition from mil to civ, which is difficult or impossible for AD pilots to build in anything but contracting or staff work. On long-term mil leave now and still searching/resume building for that professionally fulfilling career I can get into (or more likely do in addition to the airlines) after I retire in a couple of years. Great thread, just wish we could get some more details from the few that have found the golden unicorn.

So what does it pay and do you have to deploy?

Wow. You were a total d!ck to that kid, and the whole world knows about it. Maybe the kid needed that, I don't know. Either way, good on ya for getting thru that unscathed. For grins, what did the boss say to you when he pulled you into his office?

So where are they now? The cadet has an awesome job? What is it? How about the major? After the FW/CC's apology letter, I can't imagine the major went very far on AD. How about this letter coming up in an airline interview... Like Hindsight said, the internet is forever. I bet every airline has guys who know who the major is. Not something I'd want hanging out there going to a job interview. Hope he didn't hurt himself or his professional livelihood with an email reply...

Does it really matter what schools people are "attending?" How about applying to the schools that are HIRING... TBPDQ.

I hear ya. I enjoy going to school as well. Looking at moving to a Guard Burea job so I can attend law school in DC. However, all education should be treated as an INVESTMENT. By all means, if a degree is going to pay for itself, go get it. I think a lot of us have unrealistic ideas that attending a school in the civilian world will propel us privately as in-res ACSC propels active duty officers. Just not true... If you're going to pay for a no-kidding advanced degree, you absolutely must take advantage of every internship, apprenticeship, friendship, and network, network, network. That is the advantage of going to a brick and mortar school. Unfortunately, participating in meaningful internships, et al, is unrealistic considering the demands of active duty (especially flying). Generally, I would say that school rank is a reflection of their networking advantages (which translates to the wages graduates report in ranking surveys). Unfortunately, online degrees by their nature just don't offer these opportunities (ref: the $17k I flushed on a master's in Pol Sci from Norwich). Friends that attended HBS and Wharton AFTER separating have done very well, because they gained tangible business experience while attending business school. BL: education is an investment. Invest wisely.

Ha! I got an in-res MBA (nights and weekends) from U of AZ (3.8something GPA). Every job interview included a question along the lines of "ok, you have an MBA, but what do you bring to the table?" Needless to say, I'm doing the airline thing now. My MBA was a colossal waste of my GI Bill... haven't earned a penny with that $50k piece of paper and the education has atrophied. "Who you know" gets you the job. Network, network, network. It definitely helped in getting hired at my airline. If you need an MBA, your employer will tell you that you need one and will likely pay some or all of your tuition (like the 30 or so Raytheon "up and comers" in my cohort). Don't waste your money on an MBA hoping it will help you get a great job. "Military officer" is the resume bullet that will get you the job. Networking and experience are everything.

We have plenty of Guard Babies in our state. Most of our leadership, from flight commander to state DO are Guard Babies. Most of our active duty pilots were under the 8 year commitment and got of AD out 8-12 years ago. A handful of us are 10 year guys. Our full-timers are sharp instructors/upgrades and keep the bar high. I don't buy the AD vs Guard proficiency argument. RAP is RAP. Every AD squadron has their API-6 wing staff weenies, just like every Guard unit has their 3-day-a-month, better-get-me-a-couple-of-tankers guy. Our squadron is young (mostly Guard Babies). We have no problem keeping guys proficient and ready to go to war because we fly quality training sorties, get days for guys who need and want them (which has not been a problem for us despite "sequestration, austerity, no money" that everyone has been mongering for the past 3 years). I think the "Guard isn't as good as AD" argument only applies to units where guys don't show up and actually fly quality RAP. That's a unit leadership problem, both AD and RES, not a Guard construct flaw. BL: the answer to retention is more flexibility in the form of shorter commitments and off ramps that allow continued service in the reserve component. Right now, the bonus is all or nothing: 5/9 years, take it or leave it. Guys not taking the bonus simply don't trust leadership to fulfill the "good deal" of committing to Big Blue. Since trust is lost, how about 2 years, for $50 or $75K? I know I would have stayed on AD for two more years if I was offered that... That would have taken me to 15 years... A lot tougher decision to get out at 15 than 13. 13? No brainer: see ya! Worst case for AD, they get a guy/gal for X extra years in shorter windows vs losing them completely at the end of their initial commitment. Longer commitments=too much risk to the individual=no thanks=manning crisis. We can solve this problem if we stop doing MORE of what got us into this mess, specifically by attacking the problem from the 180 perspective. Longer commitments and bigger bonuses are not the answer.

The 10 year commitment permits Big Blue to treat people like ^^^that^^^. Two things will keep people on AD: increased control of their career or command. Nobody joined the AF for the 9 year bonus. Source the ANG/AFRES for staff and deployment shortfalls (1-3 year API-8 AGR tours to staff or AFCENT with $35K/year, for instance). Make UPT/IFF nothing but FAIPs and Reservists with the "requisite" AD chain-of-command. Put the entire RPA mission on the ANG. Let guys/gals get their airline/consultant/lawyer job after 2 assignments and flood the ANG and AFRES TFI units with mid-level O-3s off AD who have 20+ years of part-time service left (all the while maintaining RAP). Let the AD careerists focus more on flying and deployed staff and less on AADs/exec jobs/non-denominational winter solstice parties. Reward that smaller pool with command. Every USAF AD flying squadron should have an associate reserve squadron. Let them be the gray hairs. Reducing the commitment to 6 years essentially creates the defacto warrant officer program we've all thought of as the solution to the overall retention problem, as long as the reserve component is expanded to absorb the RAP commitment of maintaining an effective CAF/MAF/ATC.

Maybe it's a good thing for our overall effectiveness that so many pilots are getting out. IMO, sufficient talented guys/gals stay in for a full career, including command, to maintain adequate mentoring and leadership of the punks/FNGs. Pilots transitioning to the reserve component refresh the Guard/Reserve with the diverse experiences of different techniques and tactics found throughout active duty fighter squadrons. Speaking from my own experience, the last decade and a half of stagnated airline hiring, plus the 10 year commitment, created an huge backlog of pilots who would have preferred a 6-8 year commitment but had nowhere to go except for the next PCS, especially considering many folks were (are) only 6-9 years from an AD retirement by the end of their commitment. Hence, very little attrition of 11Fs from AD and the cultivation of a poisonous "career" culture that's distracted us from focusing on killing the enemy. Not everyone can be the commander, but the Air Force is essentially forced to tell us that we can all make O-6 in order to keep us motivated (promotion, influence, pay, etc...). The absolute best thing the Air Force could do is drop the 10 year commitment back to 6 or 8 years, with the implied understanding that many pilots will eventually transition to the ANG/AFRES, and promote the fact that AD is a great way to see the world, fly fighters full time for a couple of assignments, then transition to a second career in your early 30s (with the help of the 9/11 GI Bill) and continue to fly fighters in the ANG/AFRES. In the end, the AF essentially maintains its 11F experience level throughout all 3 components, AD becomes less backstabbing as the stakes of the "career game" begin to vanish, and the USAF maintains an equally effective fighter force at a much lower cost. Flame away...

Saw the same thing in the fall of 2000. It was a strong mountain wave/rotor day. The windsock on top of the ridge was pegged, and it was obvious the wind was starting to come down the mountain. We recalled everyone and them on the ground. Just before the gust hit, the tow planes marshaled in front of the tower to start the elephant walk back to the hangar. All 5 became airborne from their parking location, with one just about hitting the tower. They diverted to COS. Those pilots were awesome. At the time, most were retired Vietnam-era AF pilots. I once asked one of the gray-hairs what he flew on AD. He answered, "the Century series." Man, I thought that was the AF I was joining...

Agreed. The most effective argument for mothballing the A-10, IMO, would be "Our strategic threat assessment and a war-weary political environment do not foresee the US participating in any major, protracted ground wars in the next decade. Considering the fiscal environment and capabilities of other platforms, at this time we are willing to accept a CAS and CSAR capability gap and recommend retiring the A-10. Additionally, we request funds to explore a dedicated CAS replacement" (or something along those lines). Up front, honest, and most importantly, an argument that's marketable to Congress and Big Green. The Air Force's biggest hurdle in retiring the Hog has been getting anyone to buy their pitch. People understand that we're approaching significant fiscal austerity. The way the Air Force is going about it projects that they're poo-pooing CAS, which upsets a lot of powerful folks and makes the fight personal. Isn't there anyone with a marketing degree or MBA up at HAF?!

Other than stand-off weapons, I can't agree the B-1 is better than the A-10 at those other missions pawnman mentioned... Missions which the B-52 and B-2 are at least as equally capable at as the B-1. We can hang out all day on BO.net and argue about who can do what better. BL: the A-10 is not single-role, and eliminating the airframe effectively compromises the Air Force's CAS and CSAR expertise and legitimacy. Other airframes can accomplish those missions/roles, but the expertise lies in the A-10 community. The Air Force's approach to mothballing the A-10 looks a lot more like a personal beef than logical reasoning. Using the same logic, we should also be shrink wrapping light grays and Raptors. "I have gun camera video of dark grays and Vipers doing a great job at OCA and DCA" (Air Force leadership, 2014, mimicking similar quote made about CAS in OEF). Can't operate in a contested environment? Gulf War 1, Bosnia/Kosovo, OIF... All contested. We train for and are effective in contested environments. Saying we can't operate in a contested environment is like saying Vipers and Bones can only do CAS against static targets in Afghanistan. I'd love to see anyone else do CAS in a dynamic armor war and how those results would change this whole CAS/A-10 debate. OEF is the only reason other airframes have become legitimate CAS platforms, not the other way around, like mentioned in your post.

Neither is the A-10.

Better yet, move to a state that offers free college tuition to ANG members (i.e., NJ). Serve, earn a usable graduate or professional degree at little to no cost, maximize this opportunity.