ViperMan

Legal answer? Because the JTR says so. It's literally that simple...and that's my only beef. The studs (IMO) are picking a straw man battle. Philosophically? I totally agree. There is basically, qualitatively, no difference whatsoever. Difference? Students should be pissed at what the JTR says, not that the base leadership is following it (appropriately so). Or alternatively, that the AF puts them there in TDY status vs PCS status.

Ok, but the the government's "should" beats your "want to" every time. Probably not, honestly. I would be upset if I was forced to live (for > 1/2 year) in some of the sub-standard billeting I've stayed in. However, my point is that it is not always the CCs in charge of the base that make decisions like these. Everyone has a boss (including wing/CCs), and when I first became aware of this "issue" at Holloman, I was a little surprised because my reaction was "it's not within the Wing/CCs authority to override the JTR, what are these people complaining about?" (then again, that's only my "thought"...who knows, maybe they can override it and do what they want...). I sport bitch all the time about stuff that is annoying and irritating about the Air Force - and I agree that this is one of those things...buuuuutttt, I don't start Facebook groups and letters petitioning for O-6s to change policies over which they have (I think...) little to no control. To me it just seems like this group is highlighting that they are completely out of touch with how the military operates and who and what it reports to. I like that leadership angle, but I'd rather have the guy tell me "hey I hear you and it is BS, but that's not in my power to control. When you get out at the end of your commitment, cite the JTR as your reason for separating, and maybe it'll change for the next guy...see ya."

From defensetravel.dod.mil: "Uniformed Members 3. Is a uniformed member required to check availability/use Gov’t Qtrs? A DoD member ordered to a U.S. installation (as opposed a geographic location like a town or city) is required to check Gov’t Qtrs availability (e.g., through the CTO/TMC) at the U.S. installation to which assigned TDY. The AO may direct adequate available Gov’t Qtrs use for a DoD uniformed member on a U.S. installation only if the DoD uniformed member is TDY to that U.S. installation. The DoD member should use adequate Gov’t Qtrs on the U.S. installation at which assigned TDY. FOR COAST GUARD, NOAA, and PHS PERSONNEL ONLY: Gov’t Qtrs are available only if use is directed in the travel order, per JTR, par. 2550 . The DoD member is not required to seek/check for Gov’t Qtrs when TDY to a U.S. Installation/ Reservation after non-availability documentation has been initially provided (JTR, par. 2560 )." Don't feel like diving into a 1000+ page pub right now, but I'm pretty sure the JTR will say the same thing. I don't disagree with people being upset about being forced into a housing situation, but I do struggle to understand why they're making the base leadership out to be in the "wrong" somehow, when it is clearly the government's policy that TDY members should use base billeting...

How is forcing 18Xers to live on base different from forcing 92T0s from living on base? I went through pilot training and had to live in quarters (mandatory) until it reached a certain level of occupancy.

Exactly 0.00% (repeating, of course) to do with anything.

Like this:

Do you have to be airdrop qualified?

I think the BAH rates are broken down into something called MHA, which are further sub-divided into zip codes. The most expensive currently (for those with dependents, because they're not exactly the same as for those without) is "CA019," which includes more than 50 zip codes...which is San Fran. Here's your top 10: CA019, 5310 NY219, 4704 NY349, 4602 CA044, 4170 NY218, 3981 MA377, 3909 HI408, 3786 MA120, 3744 CA037, 3630 CA018, 3627

F bombs...

^^^This x 1000. IMO, enlisted drone operators will only serve to worsen the USAF's manpower problems especially considering the limited throughput of the training pipeline. What in the world is going to keep an E-5 in who's doing the same job as an O-4, but who is paid 1/3 of the salary? Said person, who could command the same salary as the O-4 on the outside from "name-your-contract-drone-operator"? What, are we going to make QOL so much better for the Enlisted drone corps that they wouldn't dream of getting out? Fat chance, $hit still rolls downhill. The basic problem that is causing our manpower issues hasn't been solved. Just simply throwing different meat into the grinder isn't going to be this magical panacea the AF is hoping for. I'm sure, though, that volunteers will be clamor to the entry gates, and this volume will serve to reinforce the narrative that "wow, that was a great idea!", until the 1st ADSCs start to expire...

As a pile-on / slightly different perspective to this, I'll say that the debate isn't really over whether someone who is enlisted could perform the task - of course they could, and maybe they should. I do disagree that having enlisted drone operators is the panacea that internet message board comments abound would have us believe, though. The notion that they "couldn't hack" the mission is a red-herring. The real issue is that enlisted drone operators would have an even greater incentive for getting out than the currently fielded solution does (i.e. the officer core). The reason for this is because the work is the same, but the pay differential for the same skill set on the outside is even larger for TSgt Joe Schmo than it is for Maj Umpdenuts. Hence, in what universe does a TSgt S (who's being paid $42K/yr) look at that contract drone salary and decide he's going to stick it out for the long haul, but Maj U (who's paid > $100K/yr) decides the stress is just too great, and jumps out to increase his pay and QOL to a lesser extent than the TSgt? If anything, having enlisted drone pilots (may) would only exacerbate the current retention issues facing the drone fleet. If it was simply a matter of throwing flesh at the solution then the AF could send these motivated Es through OTS (for what, like $12K?), and probably have to deal with less "institutional" upheaval than "plan B"...

Average retirement worth between 2 and 3 mil...call it 2.5 mil. 2.5 mil / 5 years of work = 500K/year.

Lots of talk about money here, and while I recognize its importance, I feel like the drive to bail on the AF is all about how to wind up with $11M in your bank account when you die (which, BTW, when you die, your Uncle Same is going to recollect around 55% of that cash you didn't spend)...OR is all about how much you hate the AF - one feeling likely justifies the other. Not liking the way the AF is run is a separate subject and a valid one to critique, but without any knowledge of the airline industry, I guarantee, you a trading one shitty bureaucracy for another. I'm not sure how much more I would enjoy the $11M vs. $3M the AF will pay me in the long run - maybe 69% vs 68%? I'm sure some people are more creative than me out there and will immediately educate me on what I could use the extra $8M for, but I enjoy dropping bombs and shooting shit - yeah, if you're flying from A to B, then it makes sense to trade one A to B for another for cash, but in my world, flying from A to A with bombs in between is much more valuable from a QOL standpoint than sleeping in a Motel 6 (or Hyatt) 8 days a month - but to each their own. What I really don't get is the "shocked disbelief" that other people display when others choose to get paid the equivalent of 400K to 500K the last 5 years of active duty service...somehow that's "not worth it." That equivalent salary puts any "line" airline pilot's to shame no matter how senior they are. Yeah, being a pilot in this day and age is valuable, and that's what we're seeing in both the AF and in the airline world. Why complain about what decisions other people make?

1. Entourage. 2. The Office. 3. Point Break.

Last time I checked, the constitution didn't mention not being kept in a tent for 21 days if you're a possible vector for a level four biohazard... Call me when this happens...

Valid.

Ehh, don't worry about it...we'll make up for it with the new flat-rate per diem that was just established for TDYs that exceed 180 days!!! https://www.af.mil/News/ArticleDisplay/tabid/223/Article/503463/af-to-implement-tdy-policy-changes.aspx /sarcasm I wonder how long it will take for this new policy to make up for the "nearly $500 million in U.S. funds spent on the program"...without doing the math, what's the over-under on that timeline reaching into the 100s of years? Putting them out on the Nellis range and letting me drop live (or inert) -12's on them would have been $$$ better spent...

Another possibility is that statistics are kept regarding how many individuals 7-day or 3-day an assignment, which is then incorporated into the overall equation that is used to shape the force; which would be a fairly quick and easy way to trim different AFSCs: i.e. if it takes a 3:1 7-day opt ratio to get one to stick, and they're 3 guys heavy, they let it bounce around until the 11X equation is "balanced" and then this: Just a thought.

All you need to know about Lagavulin: ...and, if you've got 3 minutes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1naXHTHiHZc

It's like the Assistant to the regional manager...

Neil trap: bait.

"Or draft, coordinate, and publish a PSDM correctly?" Too soon...

Wouldn't that be great? Get retained by the RIF board and then immediately passed over for promotion…there'll have to be a few...

"made it clear that money, not ADSC commitments, would be the driving factor for how many folks would be let go voluntarily." To be fair, not waiving the service commitments that are payback for > $1M in training IS a budget/money decision... Replacing pilots takes a lot more time, $$$, and wear and tear on aging resources than it does to train most other (dare I say ALL) soldiers in the military.

"A war that, after 12 long years, is finally over…" Did I miss something?