ViperMan

I cynically do believe that certain ones do care more about such calculations, but I still don't buy that they would give more weight to an airlines' complaint about USAF 11F salaries than they already do - I mean if they cared so much, why did they implement the 1500 hr ATP rule? That arguably will have a far, far greater impact on the airlines than will the "delay" that a higher military salary would have on staffing the airlines' rosters, since retired guys at 20 years would likely go to the airlines anyway.

I agree with you, and in my humble opinion, the USAF doesn't want to set the precedent of paying certain line officers double or more what they pay other line officers - it would likely cause "morale" issues in other parts of the Air Force - that is their real reason in my calculation - not the fact that they can't actually compete with the private sector (airlines). Which is why, every time I've heard it 'discussed', it's always brought up as a non-starter: "well, we know we can't compete with the airlines, so therefore..." Really? The DOD has an enormous budget - they could squeeze a couple rocks and put a major dent in their problem using nothing but money, if it was no object.

So? Senators care more about an airlines' bottom line than they do national security?

FYI getting to a fully autonomous car is a much more difficult problem than a self-flying airplane - basic reason, the driving environment is drastically more complex than the aircraft environment.

What about upping the retirement age to 85?

It matters because if you don't ID the root cause of an issue, you will never solve the problem. Nothing is wrong if the FAA lowers the hours for an ATP, but that's not the complaint. We (the pilots here) all know that it wasn't a flight-hour issue that caused the Colgan crash, and the subsequent rule-change doesn't really enhance the flying safety of the public. People's issue is that the USAF is addressing an issue that's not causing its problems.

I have a feeling this is ultimately a response to a number of "crash pads" that have cropped up around places like PIT and Shaw that take advantage (rightfully so) of the rules of the game regarding long-term "deployments" to places like AFCENT/CENTCOM, or TDYs at Randolph, etc. Bros notice that there is a huge economic disconnect between what is being paid for vs what is received on base. and have rushed to fill the gap. This undermines the "monopoly" system, takes money from someone's pocket, which powerful entities don't like, and hence a "mini" policy that directly contravenes established law.

I fully agree with you on this, and call me a cynic, but when I get a memo telling me I can roll up my sleeves, I delete it as fast as I do the ones reminding me that we're putting new cover sheets on our TPS reports - it just doesn't matter to me in the big scheme - I'll roll them up/down, wear whatever color boots you want, etc. That said, the AF wouldn't need to worry what the airlines did if their focus was on QOL. It is the only way the AF will compete with the airlines and it = (Fun / work) x Compensation. The Air Force, arguably, has a lot of control over two of these factors (Fun and compensation), so when people see our focus turned outward on issues that are yet to affect us, it's equivalent to worrying about a non-factor. So ultimately, I don't consider arguments that state the AF can't compete with industry - the AF is part of the only entity on the planet that can print money, so yes, they can compete - they just don't want to set that precedent. What else it suggests to me is that longer UPT commitments are not in the works, the AF was told 'no', or is anticipating being told 'no'. I don't think that this board's current attention on the 1500 hour rule is about that so specifically - rather it is general irritation with the latest in a series of misfires when it comes to addressing the problems the USAF says it has. The 1500 hour rule has not, in any way, contributed to the current exodus in the USAF - thus when this board reacts to it with 'really?' - it is a valid response. There is always a push and a pull when deciding on whether or not to leave the AF for other opportunities. Right now, the 'pull' factor has increased, but this was easily foreseen years ago, and is resultant from the long-looming retirement hiatus - not from the recent implementation of the 1500 hour rule. Once the regional airlines are empty, then we can talk about what the impact of that decision has had on the regional airlines as well as on military pilot retention, but as it stands now, the airlines can hire as many regional pilots as they can cram through training. What people here are focused on are the issues that "push" individuals out of service. Many people on this board have looked at this problem with the long view in mind and I've seen many such considerations that do address these issues in serious ways, but yet, we don't see movement on them or even acknowledgement that they're factors. Things such as: Basing decisions (Holloman, Cannon, Creech, Shaw, etc) 365s/179s (which exist specifically to skirt the USAFs own rules...) Up or out "Mandatory" not-mandatory education Ill-timed moves/PCSs TAMI/drones Opaque/unclear/questionable promotion rules The list goes on Ask me 10 years ago if I was considering going to the airlines, and I would have laughed at you. Give me more control over the factors listed above, and I'll laugh at the airlines...for at least another few years, which is all the AF wants anyway. So, yes, I sort of see that perspective, and I would give it more credence if it was backed up by actions taken 10 years ago to Increase the bonus Eliminate up or out Be more transparent with career opportunities/progression Or actions taken 4-6 years ago to not Force-shape fighter pilots...yeah...or other 11Xs... BL: seems to me that it is just something convenient to point at - just like the previous reasoning given which was "pilots just want to fly more..." when sequestration was all the rage. That, to me, sounds like American, Delta, United, and Southwest's problem - not the USAFs.

Nor did they pre-9/11...

I consider myself to be a generally smart guy, but can anyone else, as a rule, make it through an Atlantic article and discern anything that comes close to a coherent theme? I try, but always find myself struggling to maintain any amount of real focus as they (generally) wander through what approaches 10,000 words of soup. Maybe someone has a technique for making it through one, but to this day, I have not.

War has always been about money.

Don't think for 2 seconds you've seen the last of the Clintons - there's still Chelsea. I predict you'll see her begin to move around the chess board here shortly.

Over the past couple of days, A3 has hosted a webinar called the "Fighter Enterprise Redesign." I've been unable to attend. Can anyone provide a summary of what information was passed out? Thanks, V-man

They fly F-16s in AFSOC?

MOAs around Willie are already used nearly to capacity. Adding basic pilot training there? Yeah, right.

One quick fix I'd like to see goes like this: Say you live in a state that has 55 electoral votes, but only 44% of the eligible electorate turns out, well you get 44% of 55 electoral votes counted. Live in a state that doesn't give an F about voting or what's going on, or one that is so lopsided lots of voters don't turn out? Cool. You just get a proportionally moderated voice in the national election.

Maybe, maybe not. That time we saved the world and conquered evil was barely 20 years old when we became involved in Vietnam. In some sense, the country was still riding high on the idea that Vietnam, like WWII, was a moral war as well. I wasn't alive, but our guard may not have been as sensitive as it should have been - in a manner of speaking. I really don't know. I agree with Karl's sentiment though, which is that a major side-effect of the draft is that you have a more engaged public than you would otherwise - which is surely beneficial, and at least leads to more discussion on the importance/relevance of a war than otherwise. Vietnam certainly existed in the minds of the American public as a "war," and while Karl called Afghanistan a war, our effort there also consists to a large degree of what could be considered nation building, which is a term that a surely colors the American public's idea of what has gone (goes) on in Afghanistan and distinguishes it from our perception of Vietnam. Point being, it is more difficult to draft people to nation build than it is to send them to war. A draft raises the cost to the country's citizens - and it should. The position I take is that if the DOD is going to implement stop-loss, it should only exist in the context of a much larger draft that has been authorized by the appropriate national authority. That action forces our society to have the necessary debate on whether or not we "should" do something. Whether or not we would enter irrelevant wars is up for debate, but in my opinion, the point is part of the larger moral question of what groups of people can be forced to go to "war" and which ones can't be. Right now, the country gets to have its cake and eat it too.

How is it even possible to "scam" BAH besides something obvious, like misrepresenting your dependent status or something like that. You either live on base and get BAH which goes to a contractor, or live off base, and get BAH which goes into your bank account, right? Doesn't seem to me to be a system that is ripe for abuse.

So is the idea basically +up everyone's basic pay by like 80% of the 'average' BAH out on the street and then give you a 'kicker' to make those individuals in high cost of living areas able to make ends meet? If that's the case, I'll take the extra "BAH" as part of my salary cause it'll be nice having the extra amount increase my retirement check. Always thought the idea of BAH/BAS was a way for the DOD to get around having to pay larger retirements, under the guise of "look, you get to pay less taxes!". I'm sure I'm misreading something though.

Nothing can solve that!

IMO the root problem is that we assume there needs to be a "track" or "path" in the first place and built our model career progression on that assumption. Leadership (IMO) is not a characteristic that is forged in the halls of PME schools, or one that is necessarily identifiable in people that are young Captains. Why, again, are we choosing people to be Generals when they are in their mid 20s? A (likely) better model for achieving the rank of General is a sustained level of performance over the course of a (continuing) career - not what we currently have, which is where those who show some potential during their first assignment are strapped to a rocket ship and ride that early performance for years. It has to be O-5 because HYT/MSD for Majors is 18 years, and you can't have people gambling on getting to 20 when all it takes is a whim of the AF to say "thanks for your service," on your way out the door at 18 years and 0 days of service.

Hill was the best time I've had in the AF, and was probably the one assignment that I would have jumped at to repeat. I lived in SLC when I was stationed there, and it is a great city IMO. If you want < 20 minutes though, well that's definitely out of reach. When I was moving there, I was after the same things you were, and unfortunately, there's just not much in the way of that between Hill and the city. As for Ogden, that's your best bet if you want "things to do," but it's still not as good as SLC, but I never hung out there so can't really comment too much. As far as outdoors activities, it really doesn't matter where you live, you'll have it available to you. If I was you, I'd suck it up and take the 40 minute commute and live in the city - it was worth it. I'd look around the Liberty Park area (and Sugarhouse) so I could get on the highway quick and still be able to access downtown with ease. You'd have a lot of work to do to find a place with a large yard around that area, but it can be done. Also, the houses look a lot smaller than they are, because many have large basements. Easy 40 minutes because it's all interstate, and you're going against the flow of traffic - the most frustrating part of my drive started at the front gate when it became a contest to see how many civilians could try and dive in front of my car.

IMHO, if we are executing CAS in a high-threat environment, we are misapplying airpower.

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."