Spartacus

NO, it's not that important. (Except for the shoe clerks I guess) My point is that the AF makes it important or at least thinks that it is important and that annoys the hell out of me.

Rainman, That is a crazy story, but it shouldn't surprise me. Props to you for having a set of these: This is Rainman's truck too btw. One question for you Rainman... After seeing crap like that at SOS what made you stay in the AF? (I'm sure WIC helped but still.) What advice would you be willing to offer to those of us who saw crap like that at SOS and are tired of it all? Is it going to be worth it to stay in? I know that each one of us has to find out that answer for ourselves and it is a personal thing but looking back on it all is there any advice you could give us?

Just my 2 cents... SOS is completely worthless and one of the biggest dick dances I've ever seen where everyone O-6 or higher that is there was an SOS DG or SOS class president blah blah blah and they make sure that you know it. I've never wanted to throw up as much as I did at SOS. It opened my eyes to what the AF really is and the people who lead it. May God have mercy on your souls who are about to attend.

The ASS agency.

I see this cut as a definite negative for the force in general. I agree with what everyone is saying about the AF throwing money around for worthless things, but the answer is not to cut TA IMO. We all know that there are going to be many fiscal challenges in the coming years but reducing or cutting TA is just the first sign of future things to come. Cutting TA is an easy kill for the AF to do, and I fear that it is only the beginning. Let's call this what it is... a cut to service members' benefits. What will be next? Instead of reducing TA for everyone I think the answer should be to change how the AF handles advanced education. Mask masters degrees for promotion to Major and maybe even Lt Col. This would hopefully lessen or stop all of us going out to get worthless degrees from for profit schools and in turn would reduce how much the AF spends on TA. I believe that the AF should also institute a policy of not paying TA to for profit schools, but only to schools that have an actual physical campus that have been around for a while. This would also reduce how much the AF pays out in TA. In addition, the AF could increase the amount of officers who attend IDE in-residence so that more of the force gets that "been there done that T-shirt" and would be educated in something a little more applicable to serving in the AF. (Whether IDE is actually a good way to get a masters or is a good way to build leaders is another discussion, I know.) The AF just seems to be so concerned about everyone having a masters when in reality it should be looking at the quality of those masters degrees and actual leadership potential and job performance when considering people for future advancement. Performance and skill in your AFSC along with how you interact with those around you is much more important than whether you have a masters degree or not. Then, if the AF deems you to be future leadership potential then they should require you to get AAD's, but by sending you to get a degree in something that will also benefit the AF from a brick and mortar school. Like I said in the beginning this is a cut to benefits and to me seems to be a stupid way to handle things. The AF could probably save just as much money if not more by just tweaking how it handles AAD's. Many more cuts and a lot of people who are on the fence will punch... me included.

A few years ago while pulling G's I felt a pop and compression in my lower spine. It really scared me and I felt immediate pain. I could hardly get out of the jet after this happened due to my lower back muscles tightening and cramping up and once I got home, which was very difficult, I could hardly get into bed let alone get out of bed. I went into the flight doc the next day because of the extreme pain that I was in and he didn't seem too concerned after I answered his questions, and he said that he was going to treat it acutely. Basically I took ibuprofen for a while. After about one week I could function normally again but still experienced pain and have always had pain now off and on. When I really up my physically training like running it really flares up or when I do any sort of twisting. (Went wake boarding and it felt like I had totally re-injured it again.) I am currently going through a period where it is really hurting and it becomes difficult to sit or stand for any length of time because of the pain, but I know that it will pass in a few days like it always does. After doing extensive research online I really think it could be a sacroiliac injury. I feel a lot of movement in there and when I twist my torso and "pop" that area I feel relief. I am really worried that this could turn into something more or that I could hurt it worse by continuing to pull G's over my career. What should I do? Does anyone know if this sort of injury is disqualifying from ejection seat aircraft or if treatment for it could end up disqualifying one from flying? Also, a crusty old Lt Col told me before this even happened that if I got any sort of neck or back injury from flying to get it documented so that you could get disability upon retirement. Is he right, and if so what should I do to get it documented more? Thanks for the help!

I just applied for the LEAP program and am waiting to hear back about it. Has anyone on here been involved in the LEAP program at all? Also, I have been looking into the Olmstead program, which looks awesome. On the official site it says that each service gets 10 people per year but it looks like the AF only selected 6 out of 61 last year. Anyone been involved with this as well and have some info on the process and how to get selected? Thanks!

I'm in if there is still room.

I was just looking into how I could write my congressman on this and it is incredibly simple. I just Google searched my congressman and went to his official site. I also looked up several others' sites and every single one has a simple way to email them with an issue or concern. Even though I don't think this is something that will happen tomorrow I do think that the military retirement could be taken away soon enough to hurt a lot of us. Maybe we should all start thinking about writing our congressmen with this concern and see if we get any responses?

NO! It is a great benefit (I know... my family has used it way more than most) but taking away the pension, especially from people who have spent the past 10 years deployed, is nothing more than a big F-you.

I am naturally a pessimist so I can't help but think that this is going to happen. It seems like more than one think tank or committee keeps on bringing up cuts to military pay/benefits/retirement. In addition, look at what is going on in Washington right now. The budget and economy are huge issues and the main talk is focused on cutting spending. Naturally defense is going to take a hit. In looking at current and former Air Force policies I don't think that the Air Force is going to try really hard to take care of its people here either. I don't care how you slice it, every proposal that I have looked at to change military retirement is pretty much a slap in the face to those in uniform. I don't doubt for one minute that this could happen and we would see a mass exodus from our armed forces. For many that I talk to including myself it just plain would not be worth dealing with the b.s. and time away from family in order to not get a pension at the end of 20 years. It's just not.

I went to work today with my Friday shirt, nametag, patches, and pencil patch and didn't get a word from anyone. I even strolled by my SQ/CC, DO, WG/CC, OG/CC, and OG/CV and they didn't bat an eye. I felt like such a rebel. I doubt I'll have the same results next Friday if I do the same thing. I found it interesting though that so many of my bros were already thinking of ways to counteract this and how a lot were saying that it is only a matter of time before it gets changed back because it is such a morale killer.

I bet you that that guy "StoolSoftener" had something to do with this. It seems to match the kind of ideas that he has come up with.

Mr cynical here again... but another reason to punch at the end of your commitment. What is our AF coming to?

So here is a question about this. I PCS soon and we have two cars, and we were thinking of doing a partial DITY but only using our two cars and just filling them up as much as we can with the stuff we don't want the movers touching. Would we weigh our cars empty and then filled up or does the government not pay for that? Would it even be worth it to do that?

Jeez. I can't believe how stupid the AF really is. 8 WEEKS? My experience at SOS was ridiculous. The flight commanders and leadership were either totally out to lunch/incompetent or just complete idiots/ass lickers. My favorite was a briefing by a WSO who thought he was a brain surgeon telling us how the brain works. WTF? I can't tell you how bad I hated that place. I wanted to throw up during the graduation ceremony, and I am 100% sure I was the first person to leave from my class because I literally ran to my car in service dress after we were released and sped out of there. I didn't bother to change clothes until I was 4 hours away at a gas station because I wanted to put as much distance between me and that place as possible. I actually didn't mind the AF up until SOS but my experience there is actually what has started to make me think that I don't want to stay in once my commitment is up. I feel really sorry for those who have to go there for 8 WEEKS. May God have mercy on your souls.

I've heard some rumors that Congress is considering taking away TA to save money. Anyone else heard about this? All I have to say is if they take TA away then they should completely mask masters degrees. Maybe that would be a good thing?

Yeah, that seemed high to me as well and that was why I was asking. Your explanation for the number needing to be higher than 22% does make sense though. Does anyone know where to find some sort of statistics on the final percentages of Majors who end up attending some sort of in-residence IDE?

Ok, so to clarify this... Around 20% get selected at their Majors board for IDE. After that everyone gets 3 looks, but only about 5% of those get picked up? I thought I heard someone tell me that by the time everything was said and done around 40% go to IDE when you combine the initial selection with everyone else who gets picked up over their 3 looks. Is that not right? Also, what is ASG? Thanks for the help!

Does anyone know what the overall percentages are for those who end up attending IDE in-residence? It sounds like 20% get selected at the board but how many end up going in-residence eventually?

There is a huge difference between working in the military vs. working in government or the private sector. Yes, the military is voluntary but once you sign on the dotted line that is it and you have given up a lot of your freedoms to serve. As a pilot you are looking at 10 years minimum before you can get out. You are subject to deployments, TDY's, frequent moves etc that can seriously degrade your quality of life. I personally have had a nice ride so far and I can think of 10 friends/acquaintances without breaking a sweat who are no longer with us most of whom died in the cockpit. Can you really tell me that this life should be compared to the private sector? Do you really think that the military should be willing to give up their retirement benefits when a lot are faced with what I have outlined above? How many times has a CEO or a bureaucrat been stopped in a store or airport and thanked for their service to their country? What those in the military do is important and is a service to the country. By taking the retirement away you are slapping the proverbial face of the military and saying that we don't think you are worth it. I guarantee you that if the retirement is taken away retention will be very low. Where would the military be then? The other thing is that the retirement is not really anything that you can reasonably live off of in your 40's without working another job anyway. Most will still have to find other jobs to support their families and put their children through college. I would then kind of think of the retirement as a supplement to ones income after they left the military and as a way of saying thanks for serving and we hope that you can still do ok in the private sector being that you are now in your mid 40's and might have a hard time finding a good paying job. I am also reminded of what Obama wanted to do to shortly after he took office. He tried to take away tricare/healthcare benefits from military members who had been wounded in battle after they had left the military. His response was, "They volunteered for it. We need to put that money other places." This notion of taking away military retirement or delaying it smells the same to me. This is a way for the liberals to weaken the military and to take money away from it. I also tend to think that when a liberal government takes money from one place that they don't use it to pay off debt. They use it to pay for something else that they think is more important. I guarantee you that if the military retirement is taken away that those funds will be used to pay for more entitlement programs and won't be used to reduce the national deficit. So, NO it is not reasonable to ask military members to give up their retirement benefits. When Congress, the President, the Supreme Court, and all other government workers give up their retirement benefits then maybe... no, no the answer will still be no. The members of the military didn't make this mess and we shouldn't have to take a bite of the sh!t sandwich then either.

Well said!

You make some good points but I'm still not buying all of it. If it was appropriate, but it's not, I could give you a list of five people that I know who are jumping ship in THIS economy because they are done with the military or can't get back into their airframe so they are leaving. One thing that some might be forgetting is that many might be willing to leave for lower pay but I don't think there are a lot who are willing to stay for lower pay. When you are already on the edge and are trying to decide if you are going to stay or go and then the AF kicks you in the nuts and takes the bonus away then that is probably going to be enough to push a lot of people over the edge. The thinking would be, "well I can stay and make less or I can leave and make less? Hhhmmm, I think I'll leave because of (insert whatever you want... ops tempo, deployments, additional duties, leadership, or whatever.) Whether it is true or not most pilots feel like they just might have a lot to offer. Take a guy with a masters level education and 8-10 years of military officer/pilot experience and I think most people are willing to take the risk of leaving and competing in the private sector, and I don't think that is a stretch. As far as the airlines go most people that I talk to wouldn't touch them with a 10 foot pole. It just does not appeal to a lot of people. This is not a stay and fly in the AF or leave and fly for the airlines only situation. A lot of people have vastly different plans that do not involve flying when the get out whether that is at 10 or 20 years. However, if you are going to go to the airlines you cannot say for sure that that is going to be a bad move. It might look that way now but you never ever know 100% for sure. Just like with everything luck and timing is what will largely determine how things go for you, and that definitely applies to working for an airline. However, I'm 99% sure that what you are saying about the airlines is true and I agree with you but you just never know. Sure I am biased because I am a pilot and this would affect me but I think it is a really really stupid idea written by a guy who knows nothing about flying. Correct me if I'm wrong but this guy seems to have a pretty comfortable setup. Has he ever deployed? Has he ever even been stationed outside of the US? Has he ever lived at a base other than a missile base or the academy? It's really easy to crunch numbers and to make something look good on paper but what are the practical implications? I have always wondered when I walk into finance or the MPF if the shoes really understand what a pilot does all day. It's my hunch that they think that we drink every evening and spend the day barnstorming. Perhaps part of this is a perception problem too because I sure a lot of shoes who really do not like pilots and this paper really gives me the same feeling. If people really understood what pilots go through then maybe things like this would not be written? I don't know I'm just thinking out loud. Maybe we pilots have a sense of entitlement on certain things... I will concede that but you still can't take away the ramifications of something like this being put into practice. People will jump ship and this will only create a lot more problems than it will solve!

I just don't know about this. I don't claim to be as smart as this guy or a lot of you who are countering his arguments, but the ACP will be a huge part of my decision matrix when the time comes. With a reasonable education and average social skills it seems like most military pilots could do very well just about anywhere in the civilian world. I hear people in my squadron say all the time that they are going to get out because they know they can make more money on the outside and won't have to worry about ops tempo and deployments, which take them away from the fam. (None of them are considering the airlines that I know of either.) If you take away the ACP it just seems like you're going to lose a lot more people than you normally would. Also, most people once they reach the end of their commitment are able to go to a major versus regional airline where you are going to make a lot more a lot sooner, and sure there are trends etc right now with pay but that seems like a huge bet to me. No one knows where the airlines will be next year let alone 5-10 years down the road. What if they start paying more and hiring more again, which will happen at some point. It just seems like there are a lot of assumptions that could really hurt if you are wrong. Like someone else on here said, "it will be a lot easier to get rid of the ACP than it will be to get it back." What if they take it away and then suddenly need it back because everyone is jumping ship? This dude just pisses me off. He has no credibility in my mind because it's like he is trying to piss in my cheerios because he is jealous of what I have. If a pilot had written this I think I would be more willing to consider what he is saying because it would affect him too. This all just seems like another example to me of the shoe clerks trying to knock down the pilots because we have it too good or something...

If you go to the U-2 as a younger guy what will your career be like? U-2 the whole time or do you do a 3 year tour and then never back? Thanks :)