hindsight2020

Linky? LOL

Negative, this was in lieu of the current flight pay structure.

u fvcking new, right? Cuz that's most fvcking new guy thing to ask I've heard this month. Just letting ya know. Return to Go do not collect $200 for you.

I dunno. It's part of the AvB FY18 AFRC bonus announcement on myPers, under Tier 2. But it's pretty clear it's a bonus contract, not a permanent raise to the 558 SSR tables. Payable at the anniversary of every full year accomplished (no credit for partial years accomplished) and can be agreed between one and whatever years you want, not to exceed 25YAS. Some other provisions in there I didn't care to read. But it's on mypers.

What do you mean "unlike" the airlines? That's not what @LookieRookie posted. He said the brief specifically mentioned pay that's re-assessed EVERY YEAR based on market indices specific to your civilian equivalent . I want zero to do with my hard-pay indexed to airline hiring. Soft pay, knock yourself out, but not hard-pay. That's why I don't support going to the doctor model for a 'pylet'. This skillset is simply not that market resilient in the civilian world. But this is all to do about nothing. This proposal has fvck all chance of getting passed by Congress. Stop loss has a higher chance of happening in earnest on FY20 than this pipedream. Either way, we're kind of a captive audience here in the mil side. The only play is to exit stage.

AFRC AGR bonus for FY18 is 35K/yr throttable between 1 thru 3 year contracts, no apparent discount for renewal contract versus initial, which is a change from previous years. Also, everybody gets the 35K up to 24 YAS, which was the other big change. ART bonus is 18K/yr with one year minimum to a maximum contract length to 25YAS. All in all, thanks for the free money Blue, but it's not changing the calculus of those who are intent on getting airline jobs. Once they get the airline job, they'll cash this bonus, but not a day before. Not sure how this changes anything in the AFRC. The TR invol IA are absolutely killing morale and retention down here, fix that instead. There's no pay problem here (well, TRs getting their flight pay still jacked up is a problem), only a QOL one, and its costing them the kitty, just like the regAF. As to them going to a dedicated career field incentive pay on a year to year float index, to the tune of 6K/mo increase over today's water line? ROFL. You guys crack me up.

Try DOD 5500.07-R , DOD JOINT ETHICS REGULATION, Section 2, subsection 206 and further. Here's the bottom line: AGR is Active Duty for the purposes of civilian employment. As such, you need a DOS, or authorization to work that civilian job in lieu of. Your chain of command is never going to approve it, which is why your buddy would never intend to ask for it anyways. So when your friend interviews and gets that CJO as an AGR, he is specifically directed to provide a verbal and/or written statement of availability date based on a DD214 separation or a DOS in lieu of DD214. Your friend as we all well know, wouldn't be in a position to fulfill the request, so he'd perjuring himself in the eyes of the airline. Once that blue falcon attempts to drop long tour MLOA, he'll furnish an AGR order (the only one he's always had) with a start date that precedes the CJO date, and he will be summarily dismissed by the airline with cause for lying on an application. He may also face administrative punishment on the military side for accepting and engaging in outside employment (even half a day at indoc) in violation of DOD ethics rules, nevermind conduct unbecoming for being a lying POS. A complete layup for non-judicial punishment IAW the UCMJ as an activated member on status. The legal way of doing it is to provide an availability date to coincide with the curtailment. Most AGRs interview, get a CJO, then proceed to submit curtailment paperwork that allows a DOS to be established and that falls prior to indoc (with the exception of terminal leave, which is legal). But they show up with a DOS in hand when they step foot at the indoc building. Then and only then can they attempt to seek a new AGR tour with effective date post-hiring. Don't kid yourself, NAF may also have a bone to pick with that stunt. This isn't conjecture, this became verbal warning circa 2013 by (nn)NAF/CC when United started hiring in earnest and AGRs started pulling that very stunt I describe. NAF is fully in their legal right from stop you from getting re-hired by your sweetheart unit doing ya that solid. And I say that as a career AGR myself who would face that very scenario if I decided to go airlines before my 20. It's just a terrible precedent in my eyes, and unabated blue falconry against both your airline peers and your squadron peers. But it would technically be legal. The former scenario of never curtailing however, that would be patently illegal. In short, blue falcons is why we can't have nice things.....

Agreed @Stoker. Besides, the main vector for illegal immigration is overstaying of visas via airline travel, not foot traffic. You want to curb the so-called problem, address it via punishing the US employers who break immigration/labor law (generally socially conservative voting block too, the hypocrites). Now, what I would like to see on the constitutional side is a repeal of the jus soli statute behind section 1 of the 14A. It made sense in 1868, but it's been wholly subverted in its spirit of intent. I'm fully in support of the jus sanguinis concept, but the jus soli interpretation has got to go. As someone who lives in the border, I can tell you with good % confidence that such an amendment to the 14A would do more for illegal immigration than the ICE gestapo, perennially-fearful-white-nativist appeasing antics will ever accomplish.

You have a pretty good case for the IG due to the stonewalling of not getting a signature on 1 and 2 QTR FY 18. Unless the non-signature is for cause (pending FEB, MEB, admin UCMJ action), they're gonna have to honor your November date, which would fall well before the 4 April date they have given as the deadline for honoring requests. But we simply don't know the circumstances behind your loss of qualification. That may be the sticking point and you may not want to expand about it on here, which is certainly your prerogative. As to the practical implications of this scenario? Just like @SocialD described, it's basically high time to idle-boards participation. UTAs are the only required periods needed to gain a good Reserve year, and AT are the only days your SQ/CC can legally compel you to the squadron and away from your civilian responsibilities (plus the MUTA(s)). If you've already burn those, they can't do fog all. For someone who is already dead to the unit due to the loss of qualification, this is only being done to pad the numbers. What is most likely to happen is you'll submit your IG, everybody will get umbraged, you'll get your signature effective 1 Oct 18. Then, just like two years ago, loss management will get lifted on 1 Oct 18 and you'll be on your way out. I don't have any reason to believe based on earlier loss management that they will concurrently implement loss management on 1 Oct 18 to keep folks for the entire FY 19. Usually these implementations have happened mid-FY, just like this one. Personally I think it's a complete loss on everybody's part that people end their service tenure on such jaded and toxic terms. It truly is a loss for everybody involved. Then again I've also encountered the opposite, people whose attitude is so price-elastic that the second they make a nickel an hour more per duty period at the airline than at the unit, having two jobs is all of a sudden the biggest affront to their livelihoods and the welfare of their children you could ever impose on them. It's a bit much sometimes. That said, the invol IA BS is what's killing manning these days, I'd say even above and beyond TSPs and/or unit-wide mobs.

It's not a joke, and it's not new. We had it a year or two so back as well. AFRC calls it loss management. It's essentially a freeze from moving to IRR or retirement until 1 OCT 18. 4 April or earlier signed will be honored. Beyond that, sorry johnny, you wait til October. It's a shell game. Yeah, it sucks for that guy trying to cut ties completely, but there's ways of min runnning the snot out of the rest of the year. Now, if they invol IA ya on top of that, yeah that's a cold dagger to the back; I'd prob be pulling some TR shenanigans too if that were the case. The trick is to have that IRR/retirement request in and approved before the IA drops; then you'll be alright, even if you have to wait until November to quit. People can still 1288 internally within the SELRES. What do you mean "now"? It's been on since last Fall; we've already filled 2, and there's more to come I'm sure. I've been harping about it for the past 4 months on here. *snaps fingers* I keep telling y'all need to pay attention, shit's not blowjobs and unicorns anymore in the ARC. I'm in no way suggesting people stay in RegAF over it, but the Guard/Reserve party was OVER on 9/11/01 period dot. This is the culmination of more than a decade of ARC leadership top-cover erosion and regAF power grabs via the QOL concession we call "Total Force Enterprise", formerly Total Force Integration. Joint-basing initiatives, host wing functions dependence, proliferation of GSUs (geo-separated units) and classic associations (active associations are still considered a good deal...for the regAF member at least). And now the no-shit, straight up NAVY RESERVE KOOL-AID, involuntary individual non-flying deployment of a billet that was sold to the member as a deployed-in-place-institutional in the first place. Unabated bait and switch. All for no other reason than 19th shielding their guys from it in order to fulfill the new bad idea of the year from the HAF: the UPT production surge boondoggle. And hoo boy you guys should see the stuff they're doing to the syllabus. B-course IPs, lock your harness and stay on your Gs. All this of course, to distract from the retention blood bath they're not going to address in earnest, EVER. It's all a trade, and precisely because 19th has more pull than 22nd. We all smile like we're friends, but all we are are competing fiefdoms, and that goes especially so for the architects of this blue falconry, the COCOMs. CENTCOM in particular. Read above, just like I told @Duck, this is a robbing Peter to pay Paul dynamic. Of course they know the pilot production ruse is bullshit. You can't take what HAF edicts in official channels at face value, that's a checkers move. You guys are gonna absolutely love what's coming though. It's gonna be MAJCOM on MAJCOM crime, octagon style. Give you guys a hint. R_ _ _ _ _ A. And I fully welcome it; it's time to tell CENTCOM they're not special. They don't get to blow up the service just because they want to retain footprint while contractors rob the kitty blind. Meanwhile you spend another Xmas updating slides and meat gazing away from your kid and frau, just to incur requal expenses while a so-called production crisis is simultaneously ongoing mind you. And there's skydiving and a shopping mall outside "the wire" for the cherry on top. GTFOH with that rent-seeking nonsense. And they want to question my patriotism?¿! MF please. *mic drop* It's not a rumor, and they are part of the same Group; that's not a distinction without difference either. For those who fell off the wagon early: These are Institutional Reserves tasked with COCOM BS rent-seek IA as TRs. It's the same pot brother. It affects us all the same. If you're asking that question because you still think this is a matter of if and not one of when for the UPT GSUs, you must not be part of the 340th, otherwise you wouldn't be making such a distinction. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on that one and assume you're not privy to what's going on. Now, let's reiterate: there's return fire coming. Suspense was this week, so sit back, grab a corn bag from the "heritage" room, and enjoy tonite's selection... they're about to dial up the drama to 11 at the MAJCOMs.

Thank you Captain Obvious, but that's not what is in dispute. If it were so simple, we wouldn't have the retention problem we have. I find it incredible that this would have to be re-stated, but the punchline here is that: you dont get the goddamn latitude to exercise the discretion you're talking about in the first place as a 12+ year guy. What part of indentured servitude don't you understand? As has been stated before, slick wing O-3 and younger, by all means you can nap of the earth and focus on flying with a large level of success. But beyond that, especially as demands on family and children start to encroach into the demands of the job? Poof goes that fantasy about scoffing at the qweep unabated and just focusing on the love for "military aviation". You can retain a semblance of the freedom to do what you suggest as an O-4 if you go part-time, but no way Active Duty allows you that discretion. Granted, outliers abound, but that and a $1.20 gets the median a cup of coffee. And if you do make it a point and be a visible shitbag on the qweep front , they'll make sure you don't have any access to a cockpit ever again. Your masters are that petty, and they're not in the business of bartering with their human property. And I digress cuz I'm repeating myself.

TR positions are harder to get than full time these days due to the preference for airline work. Lot of turnover and burnout in the full time cadre, which affects the ability to process the TR needs. The ART hiring is a complete dumpster fire. Nobody that can actually get hired by an airline (or wants to) takes one. Which no offense to the legitimate ART guy who has a family setup where he doesn't need the money or whatever, but what ends up happening in the aggregate is that it attracts the very agents you don't want in unit leadership in the first place. But whatever, whoever wants to get umbraged about that statement be my guest. Go take it up with AFRC, they're the ones with the 55% manning command wide in ART hiring. Dont shoot the messenger type of thing. AGRs are slightly better but still in historically atrocious low numbers. The airline dudes reeeeally dont want to touch until AFTER they get the airline number, since nobody is gonna release you to curtailment outside 18-24 months from your original contract, so you'd be an idiot to do that if your goal is airlines. The problem is that it has become a real revolving door of people, some who don't give a shit about the job, and TRs suffer. But that's my bias as a career AGR who takes pride in taking care of my TRs and happy to act as kevlar on their behalf with a smile on my face. I just don't appreciate people shitting where I eat, but admittedly that's the 1% that makes the rest of us look bad. My advice to you, look for non-TFI units if you can help it and damn make sure and ask about involuntary individual mobilizations. Stay the eff away from those two, especially the latter, if you can help it. Good luck.

I was in the last class at -6 PIT to have to demonstrate TAC for msn qual. By the time I drove back to DLF , it was nixed from the syllabus and never taught it to T-6 studs. Didn't think there was much to it but your point is noted, T-6 PIT circa 2010 had hella more washouts than the hamburger helper factory they got going on today. I'm a 38 IP these days, so it's a bit easier to tell no slack to someone without getting someone triggered, though it's starting to happen too. I'm afraid they're softening up things here too. But the AF has a production crisis they say, so standards will come down. My conscience is clear though, I document everything, and I'm 100% batting average on students I knew weren't gonna pass the B-course and got sent anyways. 2 of them in the 4 years I've been on this side of the house. One 15C and a 22. Waste of taxpaying dollars, but beats a class A, especially in the latter. I still keep the HUD tapes of the TP stall in the pattern the day I saved his life the first time (I saved his life a second time a month later) as a momento. The AF doesn't listen.

Except, you're not employed *until you show up at indoc. Ever heard of anyone dropping long tour mil leave one day after a CJO is granted? Of course not. But we've heard plenty of that one jackalope that did do such a thing on the first week of indoc (after he got an unwanted domicile on day 2, to be specific). Why do you think that is? That's the *distinction, and the reason why. The airline has zero legal obligation to protect your employment if you''re not yet employed by them. BTW, this isn't the only scenario where this applies. I've had peers get pinched by a reserve service commitment balance that yielded a denial of curtailment and involuntary retention (whoopsie!), which yielded the expiration of a CJO, fair and square. Yeah buddy. Otherwise every AD cat could interview with Delta, get CJOs then say hey I've been invol retained, which clearly isn't the law. Now, that guy got lucky in that he had interviewed with a second legacy and by the time that airline's training date was offered to him he was able to re-submit his curtailment request outside the RSC balance, get approved, and make the class date. Big brass ones on that guy.... Look, this is just like the Cuban wet foot dry foot policy. You gotta touch sand before USERRA kicks in hermano. You think people are gonna gamble with a multi-million dollar job offer over mickey mouse, invol Operation Deny Airline Blue Dick fucketry in the AFRC? I certainly wouldn't and I'm a lifer (for reasons that don't pertain to this thread). But this new "wellness and morale" program we're rolling out in the ARC is already making it difficult to keep the lights on in the place, let alone legitimately staffed.

This is the part where regAF guys don't have the full picture when it comes to retention. See, when 19th went to HAF and told them to carve AETC out of the bullshit make-work so-called deployments that the USAF historically and institutionally has used to justify its money-footprint and existence to the Joint Chiefs and the Congress, they scored a win for their fiefdom. But there isn't much understanding around regAF low level circles as to where that pound of flesh was gonna be taken from. As you're finding out, that's coming out of ARC, which you folks commonly know as the AFRC and ANGB Command/Bureau. Picture this little happy Bob Ross winter scene for a second: You're a regAF dude. You're happy to get paid O-3/4 money with tax free 25% of your check on the 15th and 30th and get free medical, plus 30 days vaction a year you can't use but at least you're banking. Then regAF grinds you to a pulp. You try to hold on to the end of the commitment but say fuck it, I'm out. So you look up the hill to the AFRC/ANG. While you're tripping over yourself to submit that palace chase application to the Dementors at AFPC, 19th is scoring a big win on the QOL by shielding their boys from CENTCOM's rent-seeking combat desk 179s/364s non-flyings' to Bullshitstan. But by the time you get out it's ripe time for AFRC to get hit with the new word of the day: involuntary individual mobs for all TRs. Coincidence? If only. So now here you are, happy wife happy life, never gonna do that again and wham! You get hit with the very tasker you quit Active Duty over in the first place, while the peers you literally left behind in Active Duty are shielded from it. Which is noted, you're going in their place after all. And you potentially lose your CJO at Delta for all your troubles. How you like them apples? Think I'm kidding? Like you said yourself, "not asked, but fvcking handed". Try hiring folks in that environment, plus a double commute. So that's what's going on right now in the ARC. Caveat emptor.

Well, that's kind of orange and apples. The decision matrix question only exists because you have the seat available in the first place. In its absence you're expected to dead stick it obviously, so the question is moot. Actually in the -135 I heard they used to carry spare chutes for a manual bailout, but took them out. So there's that I suppose. As to T-6s. I disagree with the dilution of the syllabus, but it's always been understood that it is preferable for the student to punch himself out than mishandle a forced land recovery and mort himself. the Air Force has also officially codified the lack of emphasis of single engine aircraft recovery with total power loss. That certainly has always been the imparted standard on our illustrious middle eastern "partners" to say the least, and they still manage to mort themselves stateside. So the practical application on the question of solos hasn't really changed, but the dilution of the syllabus and training is truly something I can't endorse as reasonable, if we're trying to remain leaders in military aviation that is.

Indeed, and I'm certainly not advocating affirmative action is the solution to the "now" problem. And the whole canard of re-segregating races in training is an absolutely boneheaded and tone deaf utterance from the CSAF. I still can't believe they let such a tired ethnocentric utterance out as an official statement. My only point was to disprove the notion that there's an anti-Anglo conspiracy behind the Air Force's present inelasticity wrt addressing non-economic retention metrics. This is easily illustrated imo, by the fact the USAF has always been this inelastic in addressing QOL metrics for the 12-13 year O-4, along with those without ADSC balances. Particularly in a world that used to be even more white than today mind you. Thence, no conspiracy, just dereliction of duty by our so-called leaders. What I want to avoid is giving credence to the production problem in the first place. I don't subscribe to that. I do not believe in the production problem narrative. I believe there's only a retention problem.

I think you're off target insinuating the retention problem is being purposely fostered in order to de-throne white nativism from white collar pay grades. Take a paper bag, breathe into it, and internalize viewing "American" identity from the prism of that anachronistic 1943 Norman Rockwell portrait may be your formative experience, but no longer represents the experience of the American Street by and large. By mid 21st century, Hispanics (Mexican Americans specifically, which does not equate to all Hispanics mind you) will be the majority of the USA. It is what it is. The sun will rise tomorrow. No need for the swan song. Second, you're conflating issues here. There is NO production problem. Don't buy into that narrative. There's only a retention problem. What should put you at ease that they're not merely trying to run your white ass out of town, is that this retention problem has existed before, when there were even less non-whites in the pilot ranks. Historically, management has always banked on "run the clock offense" in order to solve it. That being, economic hiccups that stop airline hiring have always yielded those loud-mouth military separatees to crawl back to Uncle Sugar's teet when the airlines unapologetically give them the F-word treatment the morning after the economic crash. The problem here is that in 2013, this is no longer the historic case. Specifically, the boomer retirement numbers, plus the post-BK and targeted consolidation of airline capacity (and rocketing load factors) by the remaining airlines has made a one-two punch that promises to last too long for the DOD to be able to effectively rely on 'run the clock offense' in order to solve this iteration of the same retention problem of yesteryear. As a result, they're flailing publicly. Instead of being leaders and having the stones to publicly acknowledge the problems that make the 2013+ exodus different, they coward like the derelicts they are and create the fallacious "production problem" narrative, breaking AETC's back in the process, especially when you consider the absolute zero chance of the T-X being fielded in time to make a difference. That's it man. Two different issues. No conspiracy theories here. You want to focus on the first one? Have at it hoss, but it's got zero to do with the second one. The airlines have had that issue forever too (read late 80s affirmative action hires at US legacies, military females included at the time mind you) so this theory isn't unique to the military. Don't be this guy if you can help it...

I'm willing to give fingers the benefit of the doubt on the whole attempting to acknowledge the socioeconomic and cultural reasons why the pilot corps is predominantly white, but man the follow-through needs some serious work. It's incredibly condescending to suggest minorities don't pursue pilot work and/or thrive in said training environment because the demographics are white washed. Ask me how I know. Segregation is categorically not the answer. The problem is that the suggestion itself is indicative of the very tone deafness he accuses the Service of having in the first place. The fucking irony. Tweaking standards is nothing new. Actually segregating classes though, that reaches a whole new level of FUBAR, in 2018 no less. What strange times we live in. What blows my skull is that all of it fundamentally stems from not wanting to give 13-year O-4s some measure of QOL control. That level of visceral recalcitrance against ceding even an RCH on the one-sided nature of military indentured servitude is why this won't ever be solved by so-called leadership. They almost rather lose a war than ever catch themselves negotiating with their 'human property'. In a way I understand the civilian trope about military membership being cannon fodder and "it was this or Walmart" economic draftee dynamics, as a collective. With the level of treatment we get out of management when it comes to non-economic retention measures, can we really say civilians have it wrong? Don't get me started on the UCMJ in garrison in a military with 1069% more women than when they wrote the god damn thing. Fact is, only a peer war will rip these derelicts off the helm.

I just bought one, should be here this week. I'll try to PIREP when I get a chance. My setup is Fltplan Go with an android tablet. The form factor leaves something to be desired with the external antennas, and battery pack being strapped together with a velcro strap all bush league. But I just wanted the cheapest compatible ADSB-in for my EFB client, which this one is. For the past 6 years I've used an old single-band Skyradar puck with its dedicated software. It's wifi is only detectable by iCrap products and I got sick and tired of toting a second device (disconnected iphone 4S acting as a de facto ipod touch) in order to run the skyradar app when I need to play frogger with the weather. Can't believe the thing retailed for 700 bucks in 2012. Things have come a long way. My only interest in ADSB-in hardware is the FIS-B feed goodies; I couldn't care less about TIS or portable AHRS functionality, though I'm sure it's fine for it. Now, if you're asking about attempting to sneak one of these things for work as a "SA builder"? The form factor is a no-go for me. I'd want an all in one puck in order to keep everything simple and FOD-proof. But of course this is all hypothetical because we AETC warriors don't do EFB. We very much prefer to get violated while shuffling through reams of ripped apart charts and [crewdog-standard] hastily stuffed bible-page approach books at mach snot into DFW class B, busting headings and altitudes with a CAPster in the FCP, while everybody else taps on a glass screen and voilá. LOL

Ah yes. Scorched Earth. My personal favorite. A toast!

All "volunteer" force....

I'm still amazed at how they can get away with painting a fake target on the production side and so egregiously dismiss and deny the retention side. Basically that means, as has been posted on here ad nauseam already, that senior management point blank knows the issue IS retention, but has fvck all interest in acknowledging the retention grievances. Basically writing off retention as a sunk cost. WOW. The level of misappropriation of taxpayer funds that goes along with that attitude is epic. Their only problem is they can't stand up in front of C-SPAN and give such a ballwalk-level allocution of their sentiments, and immediately be called out as derelict by Congress of course. So all you'll get is this troll level 69 obfuscation of the facts at hand, and the privately-held HOPE the economy tanks and they can solve retention that way (the historical way). Forget dereliction, that's borderline documentable cowardice in the conduct of their duty. Didn't we hang people for that in the past?