AlifBaa

I've seen this type of scenario play out several times, only one of which was directly from AFPh. The hand is a current O-6 who will probably make O-7. Some were good folks. The hand is a despicable human being, but that doesn't have to be the case. :-) Based on the last AFPC webinar for the Reconnaissance world, the only flyers going to staff are being placed by their OG/CC's. Roughly the top 25% will go at all, half of those will go before or after IDE. Obviously, the IDE crowd are on the short list for DO/CC. The rest of the staffers are the backups for fallout. If you weren't picked up for staff but want to command, this is theoretically a route to get the staff experience you need... the problem are all the other personnel system dynamics I talked about before. Thus, the "best route" for that person is to execute a dramatic turn around and find a senior leader to sponsor you. IMO, that theoretical person's best route is to transition to the guard/reserve and try a fresh start over there.

I'd love to hear a critique of this from the person Astan, I'd love to see a good discussion of this program that doesn't dismiss it out of hand. Here's my theory: In this business, one should never expect traditional success to flow from non-traditional career paths. 1. "Post Commitment Maj." (11-12 years of service) -- 16-17 years of service by the time you regain credibility, even if you went to IDE. Probably too late for DO. Definitely too late if you want to make O-6 early. Probably too late to make O-6 IPZ. O-7 for a guy at 16 years who isn't at least a sitting DO? Nearly impossible. 2. "Maj/Maj(s)" (9-10 years of service) -- You won't go to IDE without an exception to policy. Even then, you're coming back to flying at 14 years and need a full re-qual. You might be on time to make DO, but you'll definitely be an unknown quantity. Maybe it will work out for you, but you'd have been better off at an OG/CC-arranged staff job, remaining a known quantity in your community and continuing to build expertise related to your mission. If the goal is O-6 and you're not going to get sent to staff, AFPh at 9-10 years might be your best shot. I'd suggest you ask yourself why O-6 is this important and whether there's a reason you didn't do well enough to go the traditional route. If there's a specific adjustment you think you can make, your goal should be to find a 3-4 star willing to direct a WG/CC to put you in the gameplan. Be ready to lead for a boss who didn't choose you in a squadron that doesn't believe in you. Duly anointed you'll make O-6 and maybe even O-7. (Speaking as someone who has observed this happen a few times.) 3.a. "Capt" -- If you left at 8 years, your PRF went in while in Afghanistan. Most likely your records were ineligible for a DP except for at the MLR. Unless they were truly top 10%, your records met the board with a P and didn't get selected for IDE. 3.b. "Capt" -- If you left at 7, you're brand new to staff and the only rated captain as your PRF goes in. Good luck competing against non-rateds who manage significant parts of your general's portfolio. Best case, you're a dude with little tactical expertise and zero operational level knowledge... what is the general going to do with you? He doesn't know either, which is why you're doing nothing of consequence. You might not make O-5 unless you get back to flying and get a job working for the WG/CC. Even then, you need a full re-qual and don't know that much about the Wing's mission. See discussion of GO above. You'll spend your Maj years working your ass off to try and retire as an O-5. 3.c. "Capt" -- If you left at 6, you probably left your community before you were an IP. Your O-4 board assumed you were kicked out of flying and didn't give you an IDE slot. You may not even make major. Alternatively, you're now forced to do a full 4 year flying assignment to make gates beginning at the 10 year mark. You're ineligible to attend IDE as a result. Without in-res IDE, you're a "top 25%" guy at best and won't make the cut for DO. I'm sure there are great reasons to do AFPh. Promotion probably isn't one of them.

65% is the number I've seen used twice in the past ~5 years. The most recent example was last week when CSAF asked congress for a bigger bonus in light of a 55% retention rate last year. As for "sky is falling:" we're there and the bosses know it. That's why they're asking for a bigger bonus. Here's the picture I believe they're seeing: Less than 65% retention at mid career, combined with an increase in end strength means you have to promote to O-5 at elevated rates. As shown earlier, >80% of the force is making O-5 already (itself a big increase in promotion rates from only a few years ago... it used to be ~2/3 made the cut). Airline hiring is still only beginning to hit its stride, which means retention is more likely to decrease than increase. If retention rates drop to 42% as predicted above, O-5 will approach a 90% promotion rate (O-5 is the new O-4?). It's not unreasonable to expect O-6 at 75% by the time today's O-4's are ready. At that point, we may also see the O-6 board move prior to the 20 year retirement decision. Airline pay and stability have increased significantly since the original bonus, yet $35K merely corrects for inflation. My guess is CSAF wanted more but was told by legislative affairs it wouldn't happen... hence the internal messaging a few months ago that "we can't compete on pay." He likely thinks he can get the inflation bump this year, but won't be able to ask for more until the problem gets more visible. Watch for the messaging to say they lack competition within the promotion system. That's what the Army did during OIF when they had to stop worrying about who they promoted in the face of service growth and declining retention. They had a host of new retention bonuses within a few months. We'll be there in a few years.

TL/DR, but here's my point: It could work well, but the AF still needs to tackle its retention issues and guard against the temptation to reduce standards. Lower standards = lower performance. Long-Form Thoughts: As an ISR (RC-135 and MC-12, pilot type) guy, I've flown with a lot of truly magnificent enlisted aviators. Many of them would be quite successful as pilots. The AF can recruit them a lot more easily than officers (lower entry requirements), so this will provide a more easily achieved, lower AF-impact route to manning relief. Having said that, many enlisted members join for different reasons than officers. Many (most?) join without any interest in a long career. The pay differential and inability to truly advance into a leadership role is also a factor. Most of all, enlisted aviators realize their talents far surpass the average enlistee, yet the AF treats them like ignorant peons. When I first came into the RJ world, 85% of our first-term CO's would turn down $50K bonuses, fast-track promotion, language pay and flight pay. The AF answer was to reduce training requirements and performance standards to get more cockpit time out of an enlistment. That leads me to another experience I've had, flying the MC-12 with Army pilots (O and WO). The Army dudes were all great, dedicated people, just like everyone in the AF. Unfortunately, their quality was all over the map and completely inconsistent. Many were fine pilots and a few were great, just like the AF bubbas. What was different was that they had far more terrible pilots than you see out of the AF pipeline. In general, the Army folks had less education, less training time and lower training standards. The difference was stunning and immediately obvious to all involved (Army and AF; E, WO and O). Bottom line: You can definitely find E's who can play in the pilot world, but you'll need to be selective and willing to fail people out. The ones who make it through should be welcomed with open arms, then held to exactly the same standards as the O's. If we do that, this is part of the solution.

^ Agreed. When we're giving physicians up to $100,000 annual bonuses, it's hard for the CSAF to argue he can't compete on pay. What's even wackier is the AF is paying the contractors a profit on the pay we supposedly can't gather for uniformed members! The deal with the all volunteer military is that you have to pay what the market will bear. The AF has figured that out in other contexts. Leadership isn't even trying to solve the problem.

The law says: (3) FIXING BONUS AMOUNT.—Upon acceptance by the Secretary concerned of the written agreement required by subsection (d), the total amount of the bonus to be paid under the agreement shall be fixed. I'm no lawyer, but I believe that means you'd have to enter a new agreement. However, I think the second agreement could run concurrently with the original. For example, it could require you to serve some amount of time in an RPA. If this bill gets passed, the key is to read the PDSM and ask AFPC if you're confused. I asked them a question this last year when I extended my bonus and got a pretty complete answer from the guy who handles the bonuses for AFPC.

Reading through the current law, it's clear our service isn't maximizing its current authorities. 1. The law allows for a $25K bonus to be paid to any pilot who has completed their initial UPT commitment. That isn't being done as there are still restrictions on eligibility (essentially no late rateds and no one over 20 YAS are eligible). The $35K bonus for RPA only brings the bonus in line with inflation since the bonus' inception ~2000. 2. The secretary has the authority to increase flight pay to $850/month for all pilots. A great many of the pilots who left in the last year were not eligible for the $850 payment. 2a. As far back as I can remember (1996 I think), flight pay has topped out at $850/month and followed the same seniority structure. In current dollars, flight pay should top out at $1,300 if you held it constant from that time. I'm fairly certain it topped at $850 long before then. In other words, the secretary (many secretaries, actually) have allowed flight pay to be eroded by roughly 2/3 without acting within their authority to mitigate even a portion of the decline. In that light, the service's request of $1,000 for RPA pilots only is a slap in everyone's face -- they're trying to get off cheap. Bottom line, until we see the Secretary maximizing the use of her current authorities -- even just for RPA pilots -- the service isn't serious about pilot retention. The argument with congress today ought to be for a dramatic increase in flight pay and a $35K bonus for all. Selected groups (determined by significantly lower retention rates combined with lower manning percentages) should be getting even more. Doing so will encourage members of lower-stressed communities to move to more challenged assignments. Source: GPO, Inflation

SECAF came to our deployed location yesterday and I was able to attend a brief talk she gave. There were three interesting tidbits that at least I hadn't heard before: 1. In regards to force shaping: "We did a poor job of communicating with you." That's pretty close to a direct quote and she said it two or three times. I think that constitutes an apology for poor performance and obviously means A1 and AFPC are under the gun. 2. There will be 2 RIF boards now, but if you're eligible for the first you won't be eligible for the second. There was a lot of double speaking surrounding why they went to two boards and no details about who will be eligible for the first and who will be eligible for the second. She did say that if there were discipline issues between board 1 and 2 you could end up eligible for both. Sorry if that one is redundant news, but it certainly hadn't filtered its way out here. 3. Pay raises below the employment cost index are merely slowing the growth of pay. They're not a cut in pay... definitely not a cut in pay... trust me... that's an order.