ACSC paper bashes on the pilot bonus

[Spartacus]

Well, if you think about it, the average person knows "ok the pilots fly the plane" but don't really know how far it goes beyond that. Then again, a pilot would probably say "well the network guy keeps the internet running" but doesn't know how far it goes beyond that. Or that a missileer is in charge of launching missiles, but that's about where the understanding ends.

The truth is, the Air Force never has to worry about comm officer or missileer manning. The Air Force will continue to be gay, and thus will continue to be undermanned on rated staff. No need to worry.

Well said!

[afnav]

A Nav in the 20 to 24 TIS is more than likely a LT Col. to Col. rank, So wouldn't they be serving in paper pushing Jobs (Staff Positions) rather than flying centric positions? I guess that the Bonus is for that crowd to continue to fly in that rank rather than serve in staff positions.

I would "Guess" that in another two to three years we will see the the ACP being offered to Navs again after their initial commitment.

A another part of the problem is that this spring, AF is only filling 4% of the rated staff billets that are demanded by all HHQ. The only vacancies that I remember were filled at 100% were U-28s and AFRICOM.

Joe-crewdog might say, "so what do I care about the paper-pushers?"

At STRAT, they are hiring non-rated officers, officers from other services, GS-types with no rated background, and contractors that have no ######ing idea how airplanes work and operate to make highly critical decisions. When I was moved from capabilities and requirements to nuclear operations this summer, my GS replacement called me up and asked me this: "What kind of radios do bombers have, and what do they use them for? Do they really need all of them?"

Yeah, asses in cockpits are important, but these clowns are making stupid decisions about entire fleets of aircraft. Most don't even bother asking anyone that has a clue about their decisions before millions/billions are thrown away.

Be afraid. Be very afraid.

[nsplayr]

Has he ever deployed? Has he ever even been stationed outside of the US? Has he ever lived at a base other than a missile base or the academy?

Not to defend the guy, but the answer to that is in his bio, posted like 2 pages or so ago. "...including one semester at the National Military Academy of Afghanistan."

Other than that he's clearly a sheltered non-rated guy who decided to speak up and advocate an unnecessary pay cut for pilots who are out there doing the damn thing while he teaches at the zoo...not a smart move sparky...

[Guest Sparky]

not a smart move sparky...

What the hell are you talking about?? Not a smart move to invite this guy and give him the opportunity to defend his position or potentially learn another side to the story? Please elaborate as to what was "not a smart move"

On that note...I received an email from him today at work saying that he is looking forward to reading the comments. Not sure if he will comment himself, but at least he may gain another perspective.

[Guest Sparky]

lol

I don't think he was even talking about you! He is calling the "researcher" Sparky, just like you might call someone "buddy," "chief," or "asseyes." He wasn't referring to the baseops.net account member username Sparky.

Now that's some funny Sh!t right there...I read through the pages a few times trying to figure out why the heck something I said/did was not a smart move. lol, I never claimed to be a smart man...

[ViperStud]

I hate to be a dick (ok not really) but this issue is really not too complex. Pay differential between us and airline pilots is really only a small part of the equation. The bottom line is that we are in more demand that the shoes are when our commitment is up. I know a few of my bros who got out and are flying (mostly for Southwest) and some who are not flying at all. I doubt they would have had the same career opportunities if they were MPF/Manpower/Services officers. Financially they are all convinced that they're better off than if they had stayed in. Even with ACP they chose to leave, so how many more would blast without the bonus? I've been to more than one Raytheon class. Who do you think these defense companies hire, pilots or shoeclerks?

I had a conversation with an ex who happened to be a shoe (manpower) after she got back from some women in the military symposium. She asked me if I had a plan and what was my skill (ironic for a shoe to ask one of us this, no?). I told her that I basically guaranteed my future employment when I decided to do something substantial with my life. Any idiot can make it through a two month tech school at Sheppard, but when you choose a way of life where there are hurdles every step along the way, it says something. The operational experience we get is icing on the cake. There are a lot of vets out there in companies all across America. Who would they hire first? I told her that by doing something challenging and putting my life on the line I was earning my way into a select group that she was simply not a part of. When I asked her what her job prospects would be like compared to mine if we were to both get out guess what she said? Let's just say it't a good thing it was football season because I had no one to talk to the rest of the night.

[Mickey]

I hate to be a dick (ok not really) but this issue is really not too complex. Pay differential between us and airline pilots is really only a small part of the equation. The bottom line is that we are in more demand that the shoes are when our commitment is up. I know a few of my bros who got out and are flying (mostly for Southwest) and some who are not flying at all. I doubt they would have had the same career opportunities if they were MPF/Manpower/Services officers. Financially they are all convinced that they're better off than if they had stayed in. Even with ACP they chose to leave, so how many more would blast without the bonus? I've been to more than one Raytheon class. Who do you think these defense companies hire, pilots or shoeclerks?

I had a conversation with an ex who happened to be a shoe (manpower) after she got back from some women in the military symposium. She asked me if I had a plan and what was my skill (ironic for a shoe to ask one of us this, no?). I told her that I basically guaranteed my future employment when I decided to do something substantial with my life. Any idiot can make it through a two month tech school at Sheppard, but when you choose a way of life where there are hurdles every step along the way, it says something. The operational experience we get is icing on the cake. There are a lot of vets out there in companies all across America. Who would they hire first? I told her that by doing something challenging and putting my life on the line I was earning my way into a select group that she was simply not a part of. When I asked her what her job prospects would be like compared to mine if we were to both get out guess what she said? Let's just say it't a good thing it was football season because I had no one to talk to the rest of the night.

Military officers (former) are in demand all over the place. Most MX officers have led a squadron of 250 people by the time they are in for 6-9 years. Companies love that about military officers. The real issue, and the reason for the ACP in my opinon, is the impact of the loss of experience in the rated community. Losing a 4-ship flight lead, IP, mission commander has a greater impact on the ability of the Air Force to do the job than losing a SPAM officer with 6 years. My wife, who is SPAM (Services, personnel, and manpower) officer would drive a higher salary on the outside than I would. She's been chief of MEO of a wing, recieved highly specialized MEO training, and is the Wing/CC exec. She could be a personal assistant in a heartbeat. She's also has experience with managing a budget, higher/firing of civilians, and joint basing issues. The Air Force doesn't value these things as much as they value my 8 years of flying experience, it doesn't mean the outside doesn't. The Air Force needs rated officers. The ACP helps keep valuable experience in the Air Force. I think the arguement that ACP is used to close the "pay gap" is a bad arguement. Dudes aren't leaving b/c of the pay. ACP just helps them deal with the suck for a few more years. ACP helps the Air Force keep dudes on the hook until they have a vested interest (ie retirement) to keep them to 20 years. You cannot make up the experience gap by hiring more pilots. It takes 6-9 years to get those guys the experience needed to lead in combat. You can always crank up the production of MX officers if you realize there is a bathtub. The effects of losing experience in the rated community takes too long to overcome. Doesn't do a lot of good to have inexperienced wingman sitting around the squadron with no one qualified to lead/upgrade them.

[nsplayr]

Now that's some funny Sh!t right there...I read through the pages a few times trying to figure out why the heck something I said/did was not a smart move. lol, I never claimed to be a smart man...

haha, yea, i was never referring to you. didn't even realize someone named "sparky" had posted a few posts up from my comments. I'm glad you've possibly got him to come on here and read what people think of his research...his comments would be interesting i'm sure

[Guest Mr Alex]

https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/military/35018-acp.html

Some other comments at APC for consideration...

[BigFreddie]

This guy is missing the boat... There are so many other things that people use in the decision to stay in the AF or get out. I would say 98% of the people I know who took the VSP got out for family reasons - too much time away. At the end of their commitment time they would have been gone ACP or not. Some of those folks hated the AF BS that is becoming so widespread - they got out - hell, they would have likely left if they were offered no money... Other folks like the stability of an airline job - well at least the fact they have a set schedule, can get some extra work or decline it too, HAVE NO OTHER CRAP TO DEAL WITH EXCEPT TO FLY A DAMN AIRPLANE...

I'm still in the belief that the real effects of the 10 year UPT commitment have not yet been fully felt. I believe that the folks who are in this category will probably bail at higher rates than before. If you look at these folks, they are the ones who were the junior cannon fodder in 2001 - right as the AF got really busy. Too many deployments, too many reflective belts - I think they're going to leave at pretty high rates starting in about 2010 or 2011. The only thing that might slow them down is the crappy economy...

BF

[Guest beam]

THE OFFICER IN QUESTION RESPONDS

Ladies & Gentlemen,

Happy (early) New Year! I was recently invited by a member of your cohort to read some of your comments and obtain “a better understanding of where the guys/gals are coming from.” Having reviewed the 52 (?) entries by 31 (?) unique opinion generators (starting with the kenblankenship post of 27 Dec), I have attempted to sort out the arguments and will offer some clarifications and responses accordingly. Thank you for your insights. As this posting will no doubt be less than a sufficient answer to all 31 of you, please feel free to e-mail me directly at brian.maue@usafa.edu if you have individual follow-ups.

Let’s begin with the first category of arguments: Argumentum ad Hominem

Argumentum ad Hominem (abusive and circumstantial): the fallacy of attacking the character or circumstances of an individual who is advancing a statement or an argument instead of trying to disprove the truth of the statement or the soundness of the argument. Often the argument is characterized simply as a “personal attack.”

A sample of such arguments follows:

“SPWINGS” “Swallow my balls douchehat” (usaf36031a)

“I can’t see this guy having many friends.” (Mitch Weaver)

“bean counter” “d-bag” (soflguy)

“Waaa, waaaaa” (leadeagle05)

“Not a team player” (disgruntledemployee)

“I hate him” (Stiffler)

“Moronic” (Palangi)

“assclown” (dmeg130)

“he’s clearly a sheltered non-rated guy” “not a smart move sparky” (nsplayr)

“This dude just pisses me off” “If a pilot had written this” (IwannaGoFast)…For a fighter-pilot / PhD take on this (and the significance of the Airlines being our top retention predictor), please see “An Empirical Assessment of US Air Force Pilot Attrition,” Defense and Peace Economics Journal, 2003, by Colonel Richard Fullerton.

“I’m guessing the major…has no freakin’ clue what it means to do the mission” (123abc)

(…to all of these AaHs, I cannot respond in any value-adding way, except to IwannaGoFast’s desire for a pilot’s research on this issue (please see above)…)

On a slightly different tangent, PirateAF stated “Just another example of someone trying to move up the chain by stepping on others.” You make an interesting set of assumptions about my motivations, PirateAF. May I ask “Who did you think Major Maue was going to “impress” with this piece of research?” Asked differently, “How do you think Major Maue will “Move up the Chain” as a result of getting this piece published?”

Given that approximately one-third of the new Lts in each year group will be pilots, and that they have 10 – 12 years of initial commitments while other AFSCs drop out at the “5 & Dive” option, and that our most senior ranks are proportionally composed of pilots (rightly so), this suggested to me that perhaps 40% or more of all officers who would read my piece would have a pilot’s perspective…where is the niche of shoe clerks to champion my rise up the chain? They did not exist when I was researching the issue, and it seems unlikely today that such a group will be forming any time soon…

You may conjecture as to my motivation, but I believe that any rational individual would at least conclude that “popularity” was not one of them…including possibility that my Lt Col promo board would meet after its publication.

The guiding motivation and premise behind my article was this: “ACP was designed to provide pay equity with the airlines. The airlines have declined considerably in their ability to provide pay salaries and pensions. Yet ACP has not dropped.” It was not, contrary to IwannaGoFast’s hypothesis, because of jealousy. I believe a good portion of the earlier AaH’s were because I provided an analytic view of a civilian airline pilot’s worth.

Does this mean that pilots should not receive any bonuses? Certainly not. ACIP, FSA, IDP, Combat Zone Tax exclusions etc. are good starts (empirically speaking), but there is also reason to consider “exponential bonuses” instead of linear bonuses. For example, the first 30 days away from your family is sad, but manageable…the second 30 is tougher, the third 30 is tougher still…yet FSA, IDP etc. are the same monthly payout no matter how many months…are our emotions so linear in scope?

On to the intellectual issues…the Methodological Arguments:

(Abbreviations: AD for “active duty” , RC for “reserve component”)

Mitch Weaver notes that an active duty data set was not used. A good point, and one of the reasons that I stated a disclaimer when using RC data in my paper...AD data of that type did not exist. At the same time, does Mitch Weaver have any data / evidence suggesting that active duty members “thrived” once they left the AF for the airlines after 9/11? I do not believe that he will find such evidence. My AD pilot pals confirmed that the RC data was a reasonable proxy, and the ASPJ editors, which included a review by a former fighter squadron commander, thought that the RC data was relevant. Of course, if you have evidence that states that my “proxy” does not adequately capture the downturn of airline employment, I am open to seeing such data.

BuddhaSixFour suggested that we shouldn’t “make decisions looking backwards. It’s a terrible idea.” I am a little unclear on his rationale behind this—such an approach goes counter to 2,500 years of historians who have noted that “unless we learn from the past, we are doomed to repeat it.” Also, your ACIP pay, and the military’s big pay raises from the late 1990s were a direct result of research analysts “looking backwards” at the pay gaps between the civilians and military members. ACP as well. So I am not convinced that we should label “looking at past data” as “terrible.”

BuddhaSixFour has an interesting excel calculation (too vague for me to understand) that makes a conclusion about replacement costs to the AF. He then states that “hell yes” the AF would lose more than 10% of its pilots if ACP were cut. Yet he offers no data. No rationale. Without a fuller stream of reasoning, I must admit that I am unable to respond to his conjecture. He raises an interesting idea…predict forward without grounding it any evidence…I must leave that to the audience at large to determine if this form of argumentation is persuasive or not.

BuddhaSixFour also then seems to combine two issues—AF replacement costs and an individual pilot’s decision. From an AF replacement cost perspective, some part of the AF thinks that we are all replaceable, otherwise our promotion system would not be “up or out,” with the promotion percentages getting smaller at each rank, with a 10% loss at each rank acceptable.

At the individual pilot decision level, we have a fair bit of data that supports that the airlines are the main driver of just how much deployment and “service before self” officers are willing to accept. Long before my analysis, fighter pilot-PhD types were doing such research. Please read Colonel Richard Fullerton’s piece “An Empirical Assessment of US Air Force Attrition,” in a 2003 edition of the journal “Defense and Peace Economics” for one such example.

Sandlapper suggests cutting missileer “base pay,” and then notes how ridiculous that idea is…he is doubly correct. If missileers were getting bonus pay, then we could at least compare apples to apples, but since he was comparing one AFSC’s bonus pay with another AFSC’s base pay, the argument does not hold. On some level, we are all officers, even if our skill sets have different marketable values in the civilian world. Our base pay was designed with retention and civilian averages in mind, and it was not a focus of this research.

Palangi makes an interesting point of the international pilot market. Please see “Airlines shrinking by all measures,” 30 Dec 08, CNN Money.com, for a more detailed response. Bottom line: the international market is dropping as well. Palangi brings up a new research question: How much more would an airline in Japan or India have to pay an 11-year US military member, who is likely married to a patriotic American spouse, in order for the Americans to leave the US and fly (and possibly live) internationally?

Busdriver adds to the discussion by referencing the “pipeline” factors, but did not then produce any estimates of factors that will affect ACP, so I am at a bit of a loss to understand which of my “mistakes” are impacting the data that shows that retention has increased since 9/11, which has coincided with the airline opportunities dropping in value.

TarHeelPilot highlights my humble acknowledgement of research being limited in its ability to cover all angles. Curiously, he then questions my quote of “the preponderance of the evidence” without providing how the preponderance of evidence supports why ACP should be continued? I am not sure if there is an actual issue to which I should respond.(?)

Hacker offers an excel spreadsheet. I would like to examine this spreadsheet, and make sure that it has properly accounted for the drop in pay since ’07, as well as the pension changes. After he has cited his data and computed annual salary, I would like to see him to come up with a value for his civilian airline pension that would also need to start at age 42. For example, you could say (roughly) that a retiring AF Lt Col is a guaranteed $40,000 a year as a pension...this is a loose equivalent to a $1,000,000 check from the Air Force, deposited in a bank, where you are allowed to take out 4% per year...a reasonable bank CD rate. Wow, a guaranteed $1,000,000 retirement!

Contrast that with the airlines' "defined contribution" approach to a pension, where your money would likely end up in some mix of secure bank notes and higher-risk stock market financials...what did the broader stock market produce for its investors this year, something like a 33% LOSS?

So, in sum, I believe that any cost benefit analysis would include an annual salary as well as pension equivalency... as well as a probability distribution that computes the "lump sum" value of an airline pension...(that a pension that is "at risk"). Even if you could bring together data that builds up an airline pilot’s pension to $1,000,000 starting at age 42 (in 8 years or 10 years of airline service, really?), you will still need to multiply it by some number (maybe 70%...60%?) to account for the risk factor of losses in the stock market.

I agree with Hacker that ACP does have a year-by-year relevancy. Various AF Times articles have noted that ACP is not an entitlement, but an incentive instrument…

BQZip01 notes that if AF pilot life sucks, then “those pilots are going to jump ship just with the CHANCE to go to the airlines.” Neither Colonel Fullerton’s research, the NYT article contained within my journal entry, nor the CNN Money.com article suggest that this chance is desireable…I am open to any evidence BQZip01 might provide.

Hacker later notes how many reservists have taken up “mil leave” from their hurting airline in order to reach their military retirement. This supports my contention that ACP is not necessary as a recruiting or retention tool, as the guaranteed pension / secure military income is a very spectacular income stream…the military offers an excellent compensation package.

Flare proposes that if ops continue to suck, then “no one will stay past their initial commitment no matter how much money mother blue throws at him/her.” Agreed. Throwing extra ACP money is irrelevant.

Hacker later notes the desire for more recent data and the re-emergence of Delta and UAL might produce different result. Agreed, I would like more recent data. At the same time The New York Times article mentioned in my research and the above mentioned CNN Money.com article suggest that opportunities and pay have only become less.

HeloDude makes good mention of the “entitlement” psychology…perhaps the AF has not done a good enough job of stating that ACP is a bonus, not a guaranteed pay (as Navs and ABMs were reminded from time to time).

Buddebar opens up a new line of discussion on career paths. Systematically, the Air Force could create stovepipes of a "flyers track" (which likely levels off at the O-5 rank) for those who like to fly, and a command track, which would include a UAV tour, in the same way that General Jumper (or was it General Fogelman?) once remarked that every developed officer should have a "teaching tour" in order to advance to the higher ranks...a "manned aircraft, flyers track" then becomes "the bonus" for AF pilots who eventually want to become airline pilots at the 20 year point--the "flyers track" would allow pilots to keep up a solid record of flying hours.

In contrast, a "UAV / manned aircraft mix track" would be the "information signal" that an officer is more-well rounded and has created a greater "demonstration to command at the next level..."

And then I got to Hindsight2020…with his “hate the player, but not his game” approach…scratch that…I believe he called me a “dweeb”…still, he seems to concur with the evidence available for review. It would be interesting to see how Hacker’s excel sheet compared with Hindsight2020’s.

IwannaGoFast conjectures that “no one knows where the airlines will be next year, let alone 5-10 years down the road.” Agreed that no one knows EXACTLY (all research and projections have their limitations) how the industry will be in a year, but the evidence points to a general state of low opportunity. If you have evidence to the contrary, please send it to me.

123abc states that “$25K/yr is peanuts in the long run, but it does figure into my equation a little. Eliminate it and you have ZERO chance of keeping me.” 123abc indirectly proposes the experiment that some of his predecessors have suggested—let’s place ACP on moratorium for one year, or two, or three (long enough for real decisions to be made, not just “I’ll bluff and get out, and then see if they offer me more pay to re-join). That way, we could end all of the hypothesizing. Perhaps we would suddenly get a 30% retention rate, instead of the 60% retention rate…seems unlikely, but perhaps?

Congress enacted a similar study at one time…remember when the pensions were going to be 40% instead of 50% at 20 years? As you may recall, enough military members started walking to make that policy change go away. A one, two or three year ACP experiment, if enough people are like 123abc, might bring back ACP, and likely make it a permanent fixture of AF compensation. Alternatively, many people “bluster and bluff” until an actual decision must be made…if only a typically sized group of people exited the AF after ACP ended, then those people would be out of their chance at a $1,000,000 bank check pension (adjusted for inflation thereafter), in a mere 8-10 years…

ViperStud believes that he has “basically guaranteed his future employment.” I believe some people will always have an “in” advantage (due to their networking power, etc.), and perhaps he is one of them…not if he is resting his hopes on an airline job, but perhaps in the corporate world at large.

Mickey also notes that ACP’s use to close the “pay gap” is a bad argument…but that was the main, original justification…see Lt Col Bernhard’s paper referenced in my article.

Lastly:

It was my hope that this posting would help clarify some of my positions, even if people should choose to disagree with my interpretation of the evidence. Thank you all for your views. If you have further questions, please feel free to write me at brian.maue@usafa.edu. In general, I do have an “jury bias”—“here’s what I think” is less persuasive than “here’s what the evidence shows.” Regardless, if you have evidence, other conjectures, or other research ideas that you would like to explore, please feel free to write.

[BigFreddie]

I'll stand by what I said - unfortunately there will be very little data about the 10 year commitment guys until at least the end of FY10. However, there is another dynamic in there as well that will come into play - with an 8 year commitment, you're probably at the 9 or 10 year point in your career when the choice needs to be made. With the 10 year commitment you're at 11 or 12 or even more years - you've gone over the mythical half-way point. I think that is a mental hurdle for some as well.

At any rate, his paper was interesting. Unfortunately, the data he needs and we need is always influx and there will be different factors coming into play in the next couple years that can completely change very quickly... My opinion though - with a shortage of 1300 to 1500 pilots, ACIP will be around for a while.

BF

[PirateAF]

THE OFFICER IN QUESTION RESPONDS

On a slightly different tangent, PirateAF stated “Just another example of someone trying to move up the chain by stepping on others.” You make an interesting set of assumptions about my motivations, PirateAF. May I ask “Who did you think Major Maue was going to “impress” with this piece of research?” Asked differently, “How do you think Major Maue will “Move up the Chain” as a result of getting this piece published?”

Given that approximately one-third of the new Lts in each year group will be pilots, and that they have 10 – 12 years of initial commitments while other AFSCs drop out at the “5 & Dive” option, and that our most senior ranks are proportionally composed of pilots (rightly so), this suggested to me that perhaps 40% or more of all officers who would read my piece would have a pilot’s perspective…where is the niche of shoe clerks to champion my rise up the chain? They did not exist when I was researching the issue, and it seems unlikely today that such a group will be forming any time soon…

You may conjecture as to my motivation, but I believe that any rational individual would at least conclude that “popularity” was not one of them…including possibility that my Lt Col promo board would meet after its publication.

Maj Maue,

The folks at personnel certainly don't wear wings - and those in a position to make a decision on ACP or your promotion are well removed from the cockpit.

May I ask what was your motivation for publishing this research piece in the first place?

Could it be that the driving force behind your research is the same force behind those folks who:

-implimented DTS

-removed orderly rooms from flying squadrons

-are in the process of removing finance offices from individual bases (and moving them all to South Dakota)

-set the in-theater per diem rate at $3.50!?!

It is my opinion that you seek to "do more with less". Your cost cutting directly influences the morale and quality of life of the operators who are out doing the real work of the Air Force. In doing so, you seek to gain recognition and promotion at our expense.

I applaud your intelligent (if misguided) argument and the time it took to write your response.

Otherwise, aside from this forum, I hope your research goes quietly unnoticed.

PirateAF

[Guest 123abc]

THE OFFICER IN QUESTION RESPONDS

First, thank you much for sacking up and responding on this forum. After seeing all those responses, you know you're walking into an angry pilot mob, so that can't exactly be the funnest.

Alright, after reading your response, I still think your idea to eliminate the pilot bonus is ridiculous and entirely impractical.

Your paper is driven by two things:

1. Airlines are the top retention predictor.

2. ACP was designed to provide pay equity with airlines.

Your paper basically ties these two things together---since airlines aren't hiring as much and since their pay isn't as good as it was, then ACP has no reason to exist anymore. Fine...but you're living in a little vacuum if you truly think that sums up the Air Force pilot corps right now. Also, it seems, by looking at things so linearly like this, you fail to see the bigger picture.

I would argue, based on nothing but anecdotal evidence from others and my own personal opinions on the state of our economy and Air Force, that these two things are no longer even relevant. They simply are not the leading motivators of the day.

Consider this. As the airline industry changes (jobs get tougher to find and pay gets lessened), Air Force pilots' future plans change as well. No longer are airlines considered the end-all, be-all lifestyle. Not even close. So to call that the "top retention predictor" is dated. There are definitely a chunk of the pilot corps out there who can't imagine doing anything but flying, whether for the military or the airlines. THAT GROUP IS SHRINKING. People are looking at other options, because there are non-flying civilian jobs to be had for 10-year pilots/operators/officers. With most of those leaving in possession of advanced degrees and considerable experience in TS worldwide, high-stress operations, and a much broader skillset than what you and the rest of the Air Force probably imagine, they are eligible for other jobs besides flying. I don't think that same statement could be said of pilots leaving the Air Force in 1989 or even 1999. We are simply in a different era.

I'm sure a lot of folks on here would agree that flying often takes a backseat to substantial additional duties and self-supporting work that we do. The support network provided us by the USAF sucks, plain and simple. HQ USAF has dumbed it down so much that we are left processing our own orders and filing reimbursement on totally unuser-friendly software. If you're lucky, you might have one PERSON that you can actually call to help with problems. MOST of the support agencies on base take entire blocks of time every day to "train." Some take an entire day of the week to "train." I'm getting pissed just thinking about this. They exist to support us. The job is to deter/kill the enemy. The support is to make sure the people who kill the enemy can focus on training to kill the enemy. Support should be as flexible as possible to accommodate our jacked up working cycles.

We are doing additional duties that used to be handled as fulltime billets by enlisted. Even saying "additional duty" makes me cringe, because those words don't do it justice.

During the GWOT, many AFSCs have seen a little bit more work, but typically are on from 8 to 5. A few AFSCs have seen a LOT more work. We don't work 8 to 5.

I would also throw the generational aspect into the equation. We make fun of SNAPs (Sensitive New Age Pilots) on this forum, but when their commitments are up, I think we might really see a bunch of those dudes leave, no matter the bonus. Most of the young Lts and Capts in the squadron aren't push-it-up/work hard/play hard types. They are married with kids and try to minimize their time and work and maximize time with the family. When they get into positions in a couple years of increased additional duties (some are already there as new pilots), I think squadrons will have a rough go trying to get all the admin crap done while being proficient operators.

Ok, so what am I getting at?

Airlines are no longer what drive most pilots' decisions on separating or staying. Quality of life is in the driver seat now. You could argue that is always has been, but the competition used to be {settle for my comfortable air force pilot job with a $25K/yr bonus and get a retirement} or {go to a major airline and see how fast I can start making big bucks}. I would say the competition now comes down more to {keep working my ass off while my life suffers and in return get a $25k/yr bonus that is not worth what it used to be} or {take my chances on the outside with the airlines and taking a paycut, maybe working for a defense contractor and flying for the guard, maybe going back to school}. In other words, it's not the good life vs great life question faced in the past. It's now an exhausting life with decent pay vs. a stable life with okay pay.

The options in front of us are different than they were for the pilots of 1989 and 1999. Because of that, your paper's primary action---eliminating ACP---is good for a groaning chuckle, but that's about it. Despite the paper, I see no chance of the bonus being eliminated. The Air Force is primarily run by pilots and I have to believe that they know, all the way up the chain, that it would be a disaster to eliminate it. If anything, I think it needs to be increased substantially. Either that, or start providing the support we need to focus on our primary job, flying and kicking ass.

Here's a solution: change the purpose of ACP since that's one of the primary aspects of your thesis. Instead of being an airline pay equalizer, call it an operator quality of life rebate. There. Now is everyone happy?

Again, thanks for joining the forum! How's that for a shit sandwich?

[old crow]

Big Blue still keeping the Nav down. I'm not eligible for ACP until having over 20 TAFMS and under 22 TAS for this round of the $15K bonus. The AF is targeting retirement eligible O-4s and O-5s. Way to keep the mid-level experienced navs, EWOs and WSOs happy. If that wasn't bad enough, ABMs are eligible for their $15K six years after "winging."

I'm just sayin'

[Guest Sparky]

THE OFFICER IN QUESTION RESPONDS

Beam,

First off....juevos grande, senor! Coming onto this forum to defend your research in what some might call the "enemie's layer" took a lot and is much appreciated.

I completely disagree with your whole approach to this issue in regards to which the research was conducted. Some questions need to be answered and data supplied before we can begin to analyze the validity of your argument.

1. What is the AF end strength requirement for total pilots within the year groups who are eligible for ACP?

2. What are the recent retention rates of those pilots who are ACP eligible and accept it and does that number meet the retention requirements and by how much?

3. With any good research (scientific), you will have "assumptions", given that....what would you "assume" the percentage of those swayed by the ACP is?

4. If you don't like "assumptions", the only way to validate (because remember, you can't "prove" anything) would be to remove the ACP for one year and compare the data. If you were wrong (which I think you are), this would be devistating to the AF in the numbers lost and no one in the position to make this policy wants to be responsible for eating that shit sandwhich.

side note: remember, the cost associated with training a pilot all the way through experienced relative to what the overall cost of ACP. It is my opinion (no supporting data...just common sense and basic math) that if ACP gets just a couple of pilots extra a year to stay in the AF, then if pays for the entire 5 year bonus for all pilots in that year group.

Cheers,

Sparky

Happy New Year to you as well

[Guest Sandlapper]

Beam...you're clearly an academic. You've done an excellent job of analyzing the point/counter-point of the dialogue on this forum. Congratulations - you've found your true calling in the halls of academia at USAFA. I hear the skiing is nice this time of year. Meanwhile, we'll be out here hacking the MISSION - on the road, deployment after deployment, in the vault, in Bravo, in harm's way, etc, etc. Don't act so surprised when the dudes you're "calling out" get their feathers ruffled. I get the feeling you spent the first 8 years of your AF career a couple hundred feet underground in Montana bitching about the "spoiled pilots" out there, what with their bonuses and leather jackets and all. Now that the economy has tubed & airlines aren't hiring, you giddily trot out this little gem, your Pièce de Résistance that you've been writing in your head for years.

Don't interpret this as a personal attack...it's not. But you can't ignore the messenger when the message is clearly from a biased source.

[sputnik]

Beam...you're clearly an academic. You've done an excellent job of analyzing the point/counter-point of the dialogue on this forum. Congratulations - you've found your true calling in the halls of academia at USAFA. I hear the skiing is nice this time of year. Meanwhile, we'll be out here hacking the MISSION - on the road, deployment after deployment, in the vault, in Bravo, in harm's way, etc, etc. Don't act so surprised when the dudes you're "calling out" get their feathers ruffled. I get the feeling you spent the first 8 years of your AF career a couple hundred feet underground in Montana bitching about the "spoiled pilots" out there, what with their bonuses and leather jackets and all. Now that the economy has tubed & airlines aren't hiring, you giddily trot out this little gem, your Pièce de Résistance that you've been writing in your head for years.

Don't interpret this as a personal attack...it's not. But you can't ignore the messenger when the message is clearly from a biased source.

Wow, who would ever interpret that as a personal attack?

[Guest Sandlapper]

Wow, who would ever interpret that as a personal attack?

Here's the difference: Telling someone to "gobble my choad", etc. is a personal attack... and we've seen plenty of that type in this discussion from others. While it makes for a good chuckle (and honestly, that's one of the things I enjoy most about baseops), it takes away from an otherwise meaningful discussion of the topic at hand. Speculating on a guy's inherent bias isn't the same. "Beam" is clearly a big kid...he's here, right? (What up, Beam.) I don't think he needs anyone to defend him...he's managed a fine job of that already.

[Guest Sandlapper]

Dude, it's a personal attack. If you're going to "speculate" like you did, at least own up to it.

Call it what you will, broseph. Did I bust his chops a bit to make a point?...yeah, I did. More of a professional "attack" than a personal one, but I digress. Should we call the rainbow police & file a hurt feelings report, too?

[busdriver]

My contention was with the "Nonpecuniary Considerations Affecting Air Force Pilot Retention." Specifically the points that increasing the number of pilots to reduce ops tempo would adversely affect readiness, proficiency and capability. In the final portion of that section you make the point that a longer commitment helps create a more stable force, yet we've only just started into the gap between 8 year and 10 year opportunity to get out.

Based purely on the original purpose of ACP, you're right the Airlines aren't the great deal they once were and ACP isn't really needed. On the other hand, we don't really know what the effects of broader ops tempo increases AF wide will be until 2010. The brunt of extended deployment burden is being born by pilots not yet eligible to get out. But based on the hit the heavy community took from VSP, there is plenty of discontent to go around.

[HeloDude]

Like everyone else posting their after thoughts since Beam's reply, I'll add mine. I'll echo that it was good on you Beam to face your critics on our own turf. But here are a couple of more points I'd like you to further address:

-If the Air Force cancels ACP for 1-3 years just to 'study' the affects of what it will do to pilot retention....do you have any true operational experience to fully understand what that will do to flying squadrons all around the Air Force if you're wrong (and I personally believe you will be). You can't just say 'oops, I guess that didn't work, we made a mistake...we'll reinstate the bonus'--dude, those guys getting out at their 10 year point are your experienced IP's, ADO's, Evaluators, etc! If the Air Force looses a lot more than expected, you just can't 'get those guys back' or just say 'we'll just train more new pilots the next couple of years to make up for the mistake'. Losing more of your experienced squadron IP's means that your younger pilots, without that extra mentoring, will not develop to be as good of pilots. What will this equate to: Less professional flying force and more importantly...an increase in mishaps (unfortunately we've already seen this occurring).

-Something else that's been bugging me...you mention that since the airlines were the biggest factor in beginning ACP and thus should also be the biggest reason in discontinuing the program--did you look at helicopter pilots in the Air Force?? I know that we only comprise less than 10% of Air Force pilots, but, we still get the bonus, and (unless someone can correct me) I don't think the airlines over the last 15 years have been hiring Air Force helicopter pilots by the droves. So then how can you explain the fact that HH-60 CSAR pilots have a huge retention rate problem? Is it perhaps because they have something close to a 4 on 4 off deployment rate??

-Did you look at any of the other services' pilot bonus programs? The Marine Corps offers their largest bonuses for UH-1 pilots, again, I doubt the airlines ever are or ever were trying to hire Marine Huey pilots in droves.

In closing, I'll also add that I think the bonus should be increased, not decreased, or even worse, done away with all together. Overall, among the officer corps, we have the highest deployment rates, most expensive initial and upgrade training courses, and the most dangerous jobs in the Air Force. With all due respect Beam, I doubt many other officer AFSCs in the Air Force wear body armor with loaded weapons when doing their jobs overseas (few exceptions being CRO's, Combat Controllers, etc).--I do respect you Beam for your deployment to Aghanistan in helping produce better Afghan officers, but that is by no means anything close to an operational deployment (I can provide further detail on why I made that statement if necessary).

If you want the Air Force to get rid of our bonuses, then I suggest doing what the civilian government does for their employees who fly--put them on an entirely different and upgraded pay scale like they do for border patrol pilots.

[Guest 123abc]

Here’s what the ACP program costs the Air Force for FY08: about $72,000,000. That's 72 Million for those of you who can’t read numbers well.

How did I get that number? I took two-thirds of the eligible pilots and multiplied by $125K. Because two-thirds is what the Air Force hoped would sign up, two-thirds is the amount that took the bonus in FY07, and two-thirds were on track to sign up for FY08. FY08 had 872 eligible pilots. Two-thirds of 872 is 581. Approximately 581 pilots took the bonus for FY08. At $125,000 each, the total ends up being about $72Mil. https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2008/10/...t_bonus_092208/

What does the Air Force get for that money? They get to retain 581 pilots for five more years.

How much is a pilot worth? Let’s call it $10,000,000 for math’s sake.

So the price of the ACP program for the year is equivalent to 7 pilots, plus or minus a couple.

SEVEN PILOTS. The entire program pays for itself if just SEVEN pilots---who would have separated without the bonus---stay! SEVEN.

beam, do you truly believe that the pilot bonus retains only seven or fewer pilots each year, and that the rest would have stayed anyways? Do you truly believe that the benefit of saving the Air Force $72Mil is worth the risk of losing these experienced pilots? Do you truly believe after seeing these numbers, that the Air Force would be saving money if it eliminated this program? You’re taking a big risk there, basically a $10,000,000 risk for every pilot over 7 who leaves because the bonus is gone. Do it and see how fast your “savings plan” goes straight down the shitter and becomes the most costly decision---cost-wise and national security-wise---conceivable.

Others have pointed out that pilots are not easily replaceable. I believe most other officer AFSCs are far more replaceable at a much lower cost and time investment. A pilot of ten years cannot be replaced by a recent UPT graduate. That’s not how it works. That pilot of 10 years is an instructor who TRAINS THE NEW PILOTS, while staying mission capable himself. He is a flight lead and seasoned, probably in combat. He has done RED FLAGS and other major exercises. He brings experience as a UPT instructor, staff officer, UAV operator, AMLO, and ALO. This is not something to gamble on losing. At that point, we’re talking national strategic implications.

Also, note from the linked article that we are 1,000 pilots short. The wide-ranging decisions being made by uninformed civilians in those rated billets are already being felt. Still think it’s a good idea to cut ACP?

Read this quote from the article: Lt. Col. Dewey DuHadway, chief of rated force policy, suspects frequent deployments and high operational tempo are the main issues (emphasis mine).

Hmm, sounds a lot like what you’ve been hearing on this forum. I don’t see airlines mentioned anywhere in that article. You know why? Airlines are no longer the “top retention predictor.” Sorry beam, but without airlines in the equation, your whole paper is worthless. We all would have been better served if you had written about the cost savings from eliminating reflective belts, eliminating drug testing for the 90%+ of the Air Force that demographically doesn’t fail, having nike design our PT gear right once, and reforming the AAFES money machine.

[Guest Mr Alex]

Here's another point of view I was thinking about today.

When I was applying to OTS several years ago, I had heard good things about the AF from people that served in the 70s/80s/90s. I keep up with them and they still look back fondly on their time. So OF COURSE they recommend the AF! But now that ops tempo is up, we're "doing more with less", etc. etc. How are the guys that are flying these days gonna tell the next generation about the AF?

When I was at my FTU, I was listening to a sim instructor telling two LTs that he'd do his career again in a heartbeat (70s/80s timeframe). Then he said he absolutely would not want to do "our career" these days because of the way the AF has changed.

And so here's my anecdotal "cost savings" to the AF: I've had two guys recently ask me for advice on how to get in to OTS. I told them what I thought about today's AF and how it's NOT what I heard about when I was applying. 1 guy has probably decided to stay civilian and the other guy is gonna apply to the Navy OCS. I just saved the AF $20 Million or whatever.

Could a disgruntled pilot cadre have an effect on the future pilots of the AF? I don't know how you could measure it, but to me, it seems like one of those intangibles that might matter years from now.

[Champ Kind]

Then he said he absolutely would not want to do "our career" these days because of the way the AF has changed.

I've heard the same thing even from some old heads still on AD.