ViperMan

Sure, as long as they're retired military pilots.

No, you're not out of line - you're just thinking outside the box (sts). Why is it proper to pay people who do drastically different jobs and accept wildly different levels of risk the same salary? It's acceptable because of the meme that was installed in your brain in whatever commissioning source you came from that "we're all equal."

The latter was. And yes, I think this is also happening, but there is also the reality that although technical progress may be rapid and uninhibited, there are also legislative hurdles that tend to put the brakes on things like this (progress) and don't care about Moore's law - generally they put on "safety" clothes to buy legitimacy, and implement some measure of control over whatever the industry happens to be. Mark my words, you will never be allowed to own a vehicle that is capable of full autonomy. The relevance of the fast-food argument is simply to point out that before we have self-flying passenger airliners, we are going to need to figure out what we do (as a country) with 10s of thousands of fast-food workers who will be dis-employed first - not to mention many other industries that have equally unskilled labor, or less-skilled labor than airline pilots - who arguably serve a much more important function that any one of the ~ 10^7 (or more) people who work in big-box stores and the like. Exactly - if you're not technically proficient, you'll likely not have much to contribute to anything.

Agree. One question: do you think we will see autonomous passenger aircraft or fully automated fast-food restaurants first?

Because then they could never take it away.

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!