jazzdude

I would've considered it. The challenge is that same offer would've gone to my classmates, who may be thinking about buying off the available assignment I want, even though my class ranking may be higher. If no one in my class wants what I want, there's no pressure to take it. But if several people want what I want, then the option becomes more appealing. Then again, my class got a few RPAs, so there'd be more incentive to take the extra ADSC to get something that at least gets my butt in the air.

A poor performer probably still won't go to staff. But there's always Maxwell for SOS/ACSC instructor. Or out to an AOC/TACC. Or to any other must fills a squadron gets tagged with. It would free up the opportunity for average guys to go to staff, since retention of people with the timing to go to staff would've increased with an extra 3 years of ADSC. Then the AF has a carrot to get them to stay in after the ADSC-requalification in an aircraft, which buys one more assignment and puts the pilot one assignment away from retirement. The other option is to try and jump ship to the airlines non-current, and that'd be dependent on how the airline industry is doing at that time. Don't agree that this approach is "right" for fixing pilot retention, but I do see why big AF is considering it.

Congress already knows we have a problem, and DoD had to report on it last summer. But it's unlikely Congress will give the DoD or AF more money period. So it becomes a zero sum game for the AF: to increase the pilot bonus, money gets cut from elsewhere. Here's some napkin math: 1200 pilots per year produced 65% take rate (target) yields 780 pilots on bonus Assume 5 year bonus, $35k/year Each year group would cost $27.3M per year Stack the 5 years drawing bonus gives you a cost of $136.5M per year. Assuming a 40% take rate/35k/5 year bonus, it's still $84M per year. Let's say we up the bonus to the $60K/yr RAND recommended, then the cost for 40% take/60k/5 year bonus yields $144M. So what gets cut in order to fund an increase?

Bold of you to assume that: a ) the AF cares if it's predatory or not (how many of our enlisted have good things to say about their recruiter...) And b ) that someone on this deal would be flying a plane from 11-13 years of aviation service I'm guessing that increased bonuses are a non starter on the air staff now.

Absolutely. And that extra 3 years fixes the staff/non-fly/mid-career manning problem, and enables the AF to produce it's way out of the pilot shortage. I'm guessing this idea is coming from the 15 year UPT commitment (with mixed AD/ARC service potential) idea that was floating around a few years ago panning out as not feasible.

If the UPT commitment wasn't 10 years already, then it might make sense. A good UPT IP would point out to the studs that those extra 3 years would likely puts you in a non flying assignment at the end of your commitment, and that they shouldn't expect to fly for all 13 years of their ADSC. A cynical person would point out that drops you off at the 14.5-15 years of service, and would probably cause those that take the +3 years ADSC up front for assignment choice probably won't be offered a retention bonus. Even though an experienced gray beard IP brings value to line squadrons, line fly billets can be filled with young guys (produce your way out of the shortage), and the longer ADSC already allows the AF to fill it's needs for experienced pilots in non flying jobs, driving down or eliminating the need to offer an aviation bonus. So the AF gets the retention it needs to fill it's requirements for much less cost (increased ADSC is basically free), while studs that take the deal may not really know what they are committing to. ETA: 5 year promotion opportunity, and eliminating the 2x passed over exit option means someone could serve that entire commitment as a captain, and can't get out earlier due to being passed over for major.

Had a similar situation with my shoulder. Vitamin M and more physical therapy to get through a PT test, then ended up getting surgery. The clinic really didn't want people on profile either...I had to ask to be put on profile a few times when recovering from shoulder surgery (I mean, having your arm in a sling isn't duty limiting at all, right?)

Well, the Air Force is facing very high retention right now due to the pandemic. Overall retention is to a point that voluntary (and I'd bet involuntary shortly after) separations are probably going to begin in the next year or two. There's a limited number of seats available in the AF, and you can't take one until someone separates/retires. And of the seats that become available on the officer side on active duty, Academy grads fill them first, followed by ROTC, and then OTS fills in the gaps (unless you have a critical skill that the AF is not getting through the other commissioning sources). Can't speak to the guard/reserve side specifics, but I'd imagine they have a system to balance the number of new pilots needing UPT (with limited spots available nationwide) and experienced pilots leaving AD, some of who need no additional training (i.e. cost/time) to be useful to the hiring unit. It's just luck and timing, and unfortunately right now it seems you have bad timing. It's probably not anything personal, but the AF is a large bureaucracy, with limited end strength allowed. Keep following up with your recruiter though, and good luck

100% agree here. Maybe it's a matter of poor career expectations management? I know when I was a 2LT, the expectation/"standard" was 2 ops tours, and one outside ops (UPT, FTU, white jet, AMLO, WIC IP, etc). Want to make Lt Col? Probably need to go to staff after 3 flying tours. If not, you probably can just fly your entire career and still make it to retirement, but likely as a major. Sure, there are non standard paths, like green door, TPS, U-2, etc, but they have their own path. So it shouldn't be "crushing career expectations" when following the career path norms. But like you said, it's a matter of matching talents to missions suited to their personalities and desires. I think the MyVector assignments process helps here, since there's more visibility on the different jobs out there as well as the ability to bid on the desirable jobs. I'll admit I wasn't happy I got sent to be an UPT IP, especially as a C-17 airdropper, but it turned out to be my favorite assignment so far in my career. I just didn't know what I didn't know. The AF is trying to fix not taking care of officers who fill jobs needed in the AF that traditionally have not completed well for promotions (AETC/formal instructors). Increased emphasis on promoting formal training instructors (and maybe school selection?) should help. The AF needs good people out in the ops units, but it also needs good people in training units as well. It also needs good people on the staff. And each one of those organizations plays an important role in keeping our AF strong.

The good in that is those tactically minded instructors can instill that sense of mission and tactics early in a pilot's development, and build a solid foundation for the ops units later down the road. Or they can send the bottom folks to the FTUs, and then turn around and complain about the quality of the new pilot and how the FTU sucks at producing a tactically minded pilot.

It's a stupid question that ignores the original, more important question: does the waist measurement add or measure anything to what makes a good Airman? The AF is clearly saying "no, it doesn't," and is deleting the requirement. Is a skinny person better than a fat person? Is it more important than primary job performance? Not to say height/weight standards won't be captured elsewhere. Still have to run, and if you're big waisted and out of shape, you're probably still going to fail anyways.

Wow. Looks like the rated community is going to lose it's voice in the staffs (at least at the AO level), and staffs are going to continue to push their work down to the line units, both of which will just make life harder for the line flyer.

Nurses probably can move easier. But doctors are pretty much locked in. An ER doc or surgeon can't quit and move to family practice-they are locked into their specialty, and to switch specialties, they'd have to go back through a residency (which has limited seats already, so it'd be like stealing an FTU seat for requal in place of a initial qual). Maybe something along the lines of a cardiologist or pulmonologist could break out from a hospital, but then they're having to either find an outpatient clinic that's hiring (at likely lower pay than a hospital) or start a private practice business in the middle of a pandemic, and in both cases still having to treat COVID positive patients (though not in an ICU setting, but still donning PPE). But a doctor that quits is likely out of the business of treating patients, and the pipeline to replace them is much longer than creating a military pilot (4 years med school plus 2-5+ years of residency, vs 1 year UPT plus 1 year FTU plus 2 years as wingman/copilot).

I do think one of the good things in the response has been states taking an active or leading role for their states. Much closer to their population, so local areas can have mitigations based on their needs (or based on what they value). It's probably one of the clearest points on the need for strong state governments and not just centralizing power in the federal government. COVID (and to a lesser extent all the race/BLM issues that have flared up) also bring to light the importance of local and state elections (just as important as the federal level). As an aside, it has made me reconsider (or at least added a consideration to) where I'd be willing to retire based on the state's pandemic response. A nation-wide lockdown, or other heavy measures, don't make sense at the federal level. The situation is different in different parts of the country. Plus we're a very large country, spanning many different climates and population densities, so comparisons to other countries (like New Zealand, which is much smaller, and an island) may not really be valid. Rather, the federal government should be funding research (CDC, vaccine programs, etc), publishing recommended guidelines, and making resources available as states need them while balancing limited resources.

I would agree with you that ICU beds probably aren't a national problem, but rather a state/local problem. The federal problem is how to help states share limited resources, and maybe procure extra resources to help the states. Just be careful looking at federal stats vs state/regional stats for hospital resources. Just because the US has extra capacity doesn't mean an individual state/city does. Throw in the complication of stabilizing and moving a COVID positive ICU patient, and they may not be able to move very far to get treatment, not to mention insurance/payment issues with potentially moving out of network. Moving 1 or 2 patients is probably easily doable, but if you have to move dozens, it gets much harder, especially when distances increase. We're also semi locked down, so fewer people are out driving, going out, etc, which may also be driving down the demand for ICUs. I think the concern with the healthcare system is that we can't surge indefinitely like we have been so far in the pandemic. And burn out is a real thing, and unlike military pilots with an ADSC, medical staff could just quit if they don't want to deal with it anymore. There's a similar parallel to the AF pilot shortage-ops units are manned at about 100%, and the missions needed are getting done. Pilots on average are exceeding their minimum dwell time requirements. So that must mean mean there's no pilot shortage...

Fair enough, thanks for the correction. My numbers may have been based on retirement money in the bank at 42 with the typical 4% withdrawal rate starting then vs at 65

Completely understand your reasoning. But for me, as I was weighing staying in vs getting out, and bonus vs no bonus, it didn't make sense for me to stay in and try to make retirement and not take the bonus. Couldn't see me realistically 7 day opting an assignment close to being retirement eligible. And given the current state of pilot retention and the bathtub in my year group, I don't see a high likelihood the AF would RIF me before retirement. The MyVector assignments process seems to be an improvement (or maybe I just got lucky last time around). And the bonus was a nice addition to the "pro" column in the decision making process. But I had my wife's support to stay in and shoot for retirement, so we decided it was in our best interest to take the bonus, work to control what we can, and roll with the punches of we need to. And just for reference (in case it matters), I'm not a shiny penny type, and have had my share of both good and bad luck in my career. Not saying my reasoning is right for everyone, or better than yours, but it's what works for me and my family. Don't think AFPC considers ADSC for assignments, but could be wrong. It might make sense on the surface (though it's probably just being paranoid), but I think the flesh peddlers at AFPC don't really care/don't keep it in their cross check. Maybe they do put out the feelers for bad 365s so they don't get a wave of 3 day opts, but I doubt they put the same amount of attention on regular assignments. Plus with where pilot manning is, if you don't want to go to staff and just keep flying, you probably won't go to staff. Which is why I like MyVector, I can rank order everything available out there that'd I'd be fine with, improving my odds of getting what I'd want or at least be fine with (lots of jobs out there that I didn't know existed, or wouldn't waste space under the old dream sheet), while making AFPC's job of meeting AF needs while lining up people with assignments they want easier for them.

FLEA, also some well thought out points on what a fly only track would look like and how they could be utilized. I get this sentiment, the hard part is that everyone values different things. Yeah, compared to working out in industry, 30s-40s should be your high earning years, with his contributions being made towards retirement. (The next couple paragraphs aren't to say you're wrong, but it's just my personal calculus on career earnings and retirement planning) But with a potential for a government pension, I think you could change the math a bit, and even though the bank account may not need big now, having that defined benefit (which starts when you're relatability young, i.e. early 40s) is valuable. I think retired major's pay is roughly equivalent to having $2-2.5M in the retirement account at age 60, with the added benefit of not having to manage an investment portfolio. Risk though is not making it to retirement (separation between say 14-18 years of service). Cheap access to decent healthcare for life, and maybe passing down GI Bill (plus any yellow ribbon programs states may offer) to your kids also has monetary value that you can add into your compensation calculus. At least that's my reasoning for staying in, and deciding to take a bonus that took me to 20 (which gives a nice pay bump at the career sweet spot you mentioned, and helped push me over the edge to committing to stay in to 20, and is getting invested in my retirement accounts for a second retirement income stream). I still scratch my head at people that take a 3 year bonus, unless maybe they're hedging their bets on a second, better bonus, since getting out at 15 years generally doesn't make sense to me, especially if their goal was to go to the airlines. The other problem is what you identified. How does someone on a fly only track feel like they are progressing in their career? That one's tough, especially since there's a lot of type-A personalities in military aviation, and there's no real position/job to aspire to on our current structure, or likely any future structure, for a fly only track. I'd imagine it's the same problem as being a line pilot at the airlines, though without being paid a lot of money with time off to spend it. I know the Brits have Flight LTs, who are fly only; maybe it's a cultural difference or career expectation difference that keeps those guys happy flying the line when compared to peers on the leadership track. This is the harder retention problem, meaningful work and career progression, and the AF listening to individual officers about what their goals are. Sure, there are crap jobs out there that need to be filled (and minimized), but maybe the AF can sweeten the deal with assignment of choice (with orders in hand before the crap deal) or some other incentive.

There's one paper difference between an O-3 or O-5 line IP; one will be a basic pilot (or maybe senior pilot), and the latter will be a command pilot, which at least captures flying gates/time/hours experience in the paper record. I agree it may be hard to quantify the value of having an older, more experienced instructor pilot though, since they both could fill the same spot on the manning document. 1) Not sure you'd have to broaden a Fly Only guy- they are there to be a technical expert. So I'd guess they'd work in training and stan/eval only, and be your core group of evaluators. But opportunities for CATS/MECOC, WIC, etc should still be afforded to them, or maybe emphasized for them. On there flip side, does someone on the staff need to be an instructor to progress? 2) I think the AF doesn't see a way to compete directly with the airlines anymore, and it's just banking on the airlines not being able to hire everyone, especially if there's a bigger pool of CGO pilots to begin with. Even if they get out, there's a good chance they'll go to the guard or reserves, so the AF still retains the experience. But you've got a valid question- maybe a pro-pay for fly only guys that pays them on par with a major? Doesn't help with the budget, but helps with numbers in each grade. 3) I think you're in the right ballpark here. The other challenge would be commanders using them appropriately, especially since they'll likely have less tolerance for BS since there's fewer carrots out there for them (command, etc) Another question is if you can cross between tracks. Maybe allow that Capt who's been in for 16 years up to the staff to bring their operational insight there. Or allow a major that isn't going to command to go back to line fly only. Would having an operational equivalent to AETC's master instructor make sense to differentiate the extra experience? We may start looking more like the Navy, where there's a good number of aviators that get out/forced out of they don't even for department head. I don't think comparisons to army WOs make sense, since those guys can't make a direct jump to the airlines (even with the rotor-to-ATP path some regionals were doing given the state of the industry right now), so it makes it hard to draw parallels.

I think that's just getting good/competent people up to staff, which has been undermanned for most of my career and has been getting worse every year. And you need good representation from the crew force across the staff, at least A1/5/8 as well needs some level of rated experience to provide good COAs recommendations to the GOs within those lanes as well. So the fly only guys in my mind would be just that- they'll live at the sq or group level and be the technical expert. Otherwise, what's the point out having that track if they are going to go to staff anyways?

You don't need an O-5, you need someone with experience. With a 5-year promotion window, that could be a really old captain or major. I'm guessing that shooting for a larger pool of young pilots (producing our way out of the shortage) is based on the assumption that retention percentages will stay the same. If the percentages stay the same with more pilots, you'd get more pilots to start filling back the staffs, as well as a bigger pool to draw from when selecting commanders. Not sure what the crossover is for paying for extra pilots vs increasing the bonus or flight pay. The push for the guard/reserve is also a push to keep the experience at far less cost than AD. And that checks with how we've been using the reserves for the last few decades: rather than only keeping basic currencies to stay warm and do just in time spin up going into conflict, we've had our flying reserve maintain the same level of readiness as the AD, but at a fraction of the cost. Not saying I necessarily agree with the approach, but that's what it looks like the AF is doing

From the article: "The Air Force is about 2,000 pilots short of where it needs to be, about the same as before the pandemic, Kelly said. It’s still gathering data, but had hoped that the airline hiring slowdown would stop pilots from leaving. 'At some point in time, that will recover, and airline industries will come back,' he said. 'A lot of what we’ll be focused on is how do we produce more, and make sure that we can close the gap by being able to produce more pilots on the early end.' ” So yeah, COVID hasn't really affected overall pilot retention rates, and it still looks like the AF solution is to produce it's way out of the shortage. So I wouldn't hold my breath for a more generous pilot bonus next year.

Realism... ...vs Liberalism (not to be confused with US political definitions). Are people (or countries) acting only in self interest, or altruistically? Are people inherently lazy and need external motivation to work, or are they inherently motivated to work? All this gets even murkier considering different cultures and the values attached with those cultures, especially when a country internally is made up of several diverse cultures like ours.

Don't forget that generally the winner in conflicts get to write the history, and pretty much everyone sees themselves as good and their opponents (who lost) as evil. There's a super fine line between a freedom fighter and a terrorist, just depends on if you win or not. And the US isn't exempt from this either-we've done stuff throughout our history that could be viewed as evil, or at the very least makes us have to question if we were the "good guys" at that point in history in retrospect. Some of that could be tempered by a belief that a state/country will act in its own best interest, and conflict is messy, but to ignore the darker parts of our history allows it to potentially happen again.

Legal doesn't necessarily mean right or moral... But I get your point. I also agree with Clark that it's not likely to be heavy handed (mandated vaccinations), but "highly encouraged" (aka required to participate in society/work/travel/etc). There's also legal precedence built around typhoid mary (forced isolation/quarantine). Though this creates direct conflict between an individual's freedom against what's best for the society as a whole. And yes, vaccines are generally good. Not debating that point. I will admit I'm a bit wary of the accelerated testing/trials though on the COVID vaccine, so I'm more willing to wait to get it vs being first in line for it