HeloDude

If the threat of 365s is why the take rate is so low, then the take rate would have been just as low (if not lower) 6-9 years ago when there were much more 365s. It's a perfect storm right now: Economy is doing well, airlines are hiring at higher rates than seen in the last 15+ years, the wars have not gone down to pre-9-11 rates, more queep, lack of faith in senior leadership, and on and on. This arguing about 365s wrt to the bonus/getting out is silly...all non-vol 365 requirements could go away (most have) and the vast majority of guys who are getting out would still get out.

Haha--you are the delusional one! Progressives now upset with Trump pulling troops out of Syria are the same people 1-2 years ago who said Trump will get us in a war with Syria. Saying Trump is pulling troops out of Syria to appease Russia is the equivalent of saying Obama pulled troops out of Iraq to appease Iran.

Why? I thought standards were still the same...

For what's it's worth, I personally know of an enlisted flyer whose FEB recommended keep his wings, the NAF CC non-concurred, and the MAJCOM CC concurred with the board and retained the member's wings. Again, the FEB is his chance to make his argument and defend his record...which is very fair. None of us have an inherent right to fly for the Air Force, and if we give our leaders legitimate cause to question whether we should be in this business, then there is a process to make this decision. The MAJCOM CC knows how bad the AF is hurting for pilots and if he believes the Air Force can benefit from giving someone another chance/keep them flying, then that is what he will do. But let's face it, on the rare occasion, we have all met that guy who we scratch our head and wonder how they made it through UPT/graduated X course, passed their checkrides, etc. Well, the FEB is the formal process to decide whether that person should continue or find a different job. And as for the U-28 (if this indeed in the aircraft in this situation), I'm not aware of the community having a high washout rate during initial qual (but perhaps I'm wrong?). So if the min standards are successfully achieved by 98% of their students, this unfortunately doesn't say much about the rare exception. Just food for thought.

It appears that the FTU/convening authority think your flying skills are sub-par and don't wish to pass you on to the next/3rd airframe which could also potentially be a challenge for you. I have been a reviewing/voting member (whatever that role is specifically called) on an FEB and IMO it's a pretty fair process. The board members, covening authority, and the MAJCOM CC will take this process very seriously and most likley give you the benefit of the doubt, not to mention they are also very aware of the pilot manning situation. If your record shows that you should be reinstated/keep your wings, then that is what will happen. Good luck and make sure you are taking care of yourself outside of the FEB process by going to the gym, eating well, getting adequate sleep, keeping positive relationships, etc.

The 'previous Vance CV', as in the new Laughlin Wg CC?

Do you know the real reason they decided to make filling join spouse assignments a priority?

Not merit based but just because they're an engaged couple (not legally married)? I serious doubt it...and I'm a join spouse who is very familiar with the assignment process.

I apologize for commenting nearly a month after your post, but that was not the 'outrage'. The issue was that the movie omitted planting the flag on the moon. A simple google search will explain in further detail.

Again, civilians do it all the time. When there's a will, there's a way.

The same programs that civilians use everyday to become pilots...or do these programs not accept former enlisted dudes?

Low cost = cost passed on to the taxpayer. If an elitsted person wants a career in civilian flying post military then there are plenty of existing ways for them to do so.

Once again you guys only hear/read what you want to. I have never said debt is bad...hence why said this isn't about purchasing a house which holds value, can last several decades plus, etc. It's about buying luxury items that lose value quickly, when you obviously cannot afford it outright without taking on more debt. I find it hilarious that you guys think I'm spouting nonsense, yet a little research will show you that the majority of Americans have a problem buying things they can't afford. But hey, it's your money...or not lol.

My current prediction is that the GOP picks up 1-2 seats in the Senate. As far the House, I have done some research on some individual races that are competitive/Dems believe they'll flip, but have obviously not researched to the extent of the professionals. That being said, my current prediction is that the GOP loses the House by a few seats. I imagine it will be a late Tuesday night in a little over a couple of weeks. It will be interesting to see if Ginsburg or Breyer leaves SCOTUS in the next couple of years...or if Thomas retires early so Trump can name his replacement.

Why are you purchasing such an expensive car that you can't just afford outright without a loan?

No, I'm suggesting then suggesting that you don't buy a new car.

A little more than two weeks out from the midterms--any projections?

No...it makes no damn sense to spend money you don't have on a luxury item. What other luxury items (especially those that depreciate) are you ok with purchasing that requires a loan with interest?

You can't buy a 2006 Honda Accord for a few thousand dollars? Kelley Blue Book says you can.

Why would you buy a new car for $58K if you don't have the cash and your investments/savings aren't in solid position? This is what you guys are missing: An expensive car (i.e. one that you cannot afford to pay cash) is a luxury item, and one that will begin to lose its value relatively quickly. Why are people purchasing luxury items on credit, incurring additional debt with interest payments, instead of saving/investing the money, paying down your house, etc? And we wonder why so many American (2/3 plus) do not have more than a few months income in savings. Live within your means, make smart/mature decisions, and make your money work for you.

We're not talking about buying a house. Why would you borrow money to purchase a vehicle when a vehicle that costs just a few thousand dollars (or much less) will work? I'm all for buying nice cars (i.e. toys), but not when you don't have the money.

You think it's a bad idea to have a credit card and pay it off every month? Why?

Are you suggesting it's a good idea to spend money you don't have and incur even more debt on a depreciating asset vs buying a vehicle that you can afford without incurring any debt?

Not at all.

I would strongly advise not to take out a loan to purchase a car.