Jughead

In related news, Jughead has a new title at the top of his "must-see" movie list...!!

My technique was to DITY anything (a) I would need immediately or (b) didn't want to send with the movers (breakable, pilferable, irreplaceable, etc.); the rest of the stuff was in the "more hassle than it's worth to me" category, I let the movers take that. If you have a vehicle that can haul all those already-packed boxes, and you don't mind putting some sweat into it, moving it yourself shoud be a very attractive option. You may be surprised just how much you get paid--mine was never less than 4-figures. If you don't have such a vehicle, re-read AnimalMother's post.... This. Best bet? Buy a trailer that's small enough, or specialized enough (e.g., enclosed motorcycle trailer), to fit TMO's rules. That way, you not only get paid for moving your stuff, but also for the weight of the trailer. Mine paid for itself by the second PCS, and was pure profit thereafter--all for stuff that I didn't want to send with the movers, anyway, and would've taken with me even if the DITY program didn't exist....

Perhaps if she'd gotten her AAD done, her speaking would've improved along with her writing....

What these guys are trying to point out to you--and the point you are evidently missing--is that did not do your job well, at least in this one area. Like it or not, think it's stupid or not, hate the correspondence-as-prerequisite for residence, etc... PME is a job requirement and one that is rather well-spelled out by your former employer. Just for reference, IMHO: PME is a good thing (but the implementation is terrible); correspondence-as-prerequisite is just plain dumb; AAD requirement is full retard. Work to change the system, and you'll have my full respect and support. Make a personal choice not to accomplish a job requirement (that is not mandatory for current job but required for promotion, even if only in a de facto sense), and I still respect & support that choice & your right to make it--so long as you're willing to own the consequences of that choice. In the sense that you apparently are happy & successful in your post-AF life and don't regret how you got there, good on you for owning it; in the sense that you're whining here about how screwed the system is and how you "did your job... and well," that's where you've lost me.... EDIT: grammar/spelling

This is the funniest thing I've read here in a while....

May I ask why (and/or, what was lacking)? Did you go through Atlanta, or had they branched out to other locations? I had a mixed bag when I went through (ATL)--some of the instructors were solid, others... not. Agreed on getting comfortable with the airplane before ever actually flying one (hell, before ever actually seeing one)....

"UAV," got it. "365"--that's a dangerous game. If your primary (or at least a significant) motivator is to avoid a 365, taking a PCS (w/ it's two year commitment) may land you a 365 six months to a year down the road that you can't decline....

I assume the U-haul you have in mind is a truck (vice trailer), since you say your vehicle can't tow...? U-hauls ain't cheap--depending on how much weight you get into it, you may not get all your money back (and if you're strapping the bike in, that will take up a lot of room that might otherwise be carrying your heavy stuff that could make it worthwile, financially). Make sure you crunch the numbers first. If you can figure out a way to tow, I highly recommend buying a trailer. It will pay for itself by the second time you PCS with it, is tax-deductible (you bought & used it to produce income--your DITY pay), and the weight of the trailer counts toward your overall weight (make sure it can legitimately be called a "motorcycle trailer"--things like a ramp, wheel chocks, tie-downs, etc.--or else this last bit isn't true). Good luck!

Makes it easier to see the receivers' tail numbers....

As I believe others have stated here before, I suspect items like these were sent up more to illustrate how stupid the process was than any actual thought of the "offending" items causing a hostile workplace....

I'll take you up on that. Both the beer and the discussion!

Thinking about this reminds me of another one--during my timeframe, so it's less legend & hopefully more dependable. Any falsehoods in the following are likely my own misunderstanding, but: A KS Guard E-model tanker from Forbes was at McConnell--more accurately, at Boeing-Wichita--getting an "upgrade" to the fuel system, something to do with a Teflon lining in the tanks that would prevent fungus growth. Mod is done, FCFs complete, crew comes to pick up the jet, takes off for the short flight home--and loses an engine at gear retract. Interesting, but no real pucker, practice it all the time. Heading toward holding & cleaning up the failed engine, and a second one quits. YGBFSM, screw the checklist, let's get our asses on the ground. Turning base on a bastardized visual VFR pattern-ish approach, third engine quits. Last engine got them to the flare, then it quit. As I heard the story, the only thing they broke on the landing was a couple of blown tires when they lost SA on the antiskid in all the excitement. Investigation was short. At issue was the wonderfully fungus-free Teflon lining--turns out that JP-8 is a solvent for it. (Seemed like a good idea at the time...?) Lining shredded itself, gunked up the entire fuel system until the point of fuel starvation to all engines. Jet never flew again--last I heard, they canned everything they could off of it and are using the airframe as a cargo load trainer.

Last engine quit on short final (or so the story goes)....

Only solo landing AFAIK, too....

Everyone's talking about the weight savings. In the KC-135 at least, it was done for man-hours purposes. I suspect the same is true for other airframes that formerly carried 'chutes. Given the metric shit ton of other life support gear we carried around with only a very limited set of useful scenarios, the "save weight" aspect is a fringe benefit at most....

FIFY Only reason bailout procedures are still in the -135 Dash-1 is for post-depot FCFs--where the escape spoiler is charged & the crew is (theoretically) wearing their 'chutes.

I was hoping this nonsense would continue just long enough for the first disillusioned passed-over 1Lt to write a "do not promote me" letter to the board & walk away from his 10 year commitment in six months....

Seize the asset to force a sale, yes. Keep more than what they're owed plus expenses of getting that money (cost of sale, legal, ongoing interest during foreclosure, etc.), no. That's the part of your statement that was incorrect (the bank keeps your equity). If you get foreclosed, will it be expensive as hell & an enormous hit to your credit (not to mention a humongous PITA)--no doubt, and it should be avoided if at all possible. However, it's inaccurate to state that the bank gets to keep all your equity. You possibly lose your equity, if that equity falls short of the expenses involved (plus a potentially low-price foreclosure sale), but that's a case-by-case situation, generally applying to those with minimal equity.

I understood the words you used in your original post. I was wondering if you understood how foreclosure works. It is now apparent that you do not. Nope, no dick measuring here.... EDIT: grammar/clarity

Say again? That's the dick-measuring contest you want to start here...?

Naturally. C'mon, everyone knows that Okinawa has outriggers designed to keep it from capsizing. Guam should take a hard look at installing those....

Yes. That's the joke. And here HU&W thought he was being too subtle....

What everyone else has already told you--makes no sense to pay off ~2.5% money with 5%-10% (or more) money (Google "opportunity cost" for details). The one exception to that is an intangible, i.e., if you can't sleep at night, then paying off the debt is "worth it" in that sense. Just have your eyes open to the fact that you are paying real money for that peace of mind. ALSO: if you're unable to stomach debt, then you probably should re-think the rental idea. The sweet spot for a rental is to have positive cash flow but still show a loss for taxes (i.e., your income minus expenses is zero or greater, but less than allowable depreciation). Even a negative cash flow isn't all bad, so long as your budget can handle it, as you'll net more after taxes. Then, at tax time, you show an "above-the-line" loss that reduces your AGI, which plays into a whole host of other tax figures (say, your 2%-limited itemized deductions). On the other hand, if you make money (after depreciation) on your rental, that's an above-the-line gain that has the opposite effect on your AGI (and all the other numbers it affects). OH, and now you have income "sourced" in the state where your property is located, so you get to pay state income tax on that amount as well, regardless of where your state of legal residence is.... So long as you have a lease, the bank will take that into consideration. Varies from lender to lender, but typically you'll get "credit" for 75% occupancy on a new, one-year lease--i.e., all of your expenses count against your debt, and you get 75% of your rental income considered for calculating your debt/income. That percentage may go up as you gain a longer history showing consistent occupancy and/or longer-term leases (again, varies from lender to lender). If that additional 25% "cost" is enough to put you in a different category (higher debt ratio), then it will hurt your rate (or potentially even keep you from getting the loan); if your budget can cover that "cost," then no impact. Way too many variables to give you a firm answer, talk to a mortgage lender for your own situation.

Isn't this how "regulations" became "instructions," followed shortly by "COMPLIANCE WITH THIS PUBLICATION IS MANDATORY" being printed on all the "instructions" that we were supposed to treat as general guidelines...? Welcome to the mid-90s....

What, this wasn't legit enough for you...? [skip to 2:02 for some really legit racing footage!]