Military pay/benefit cuts proposed

[pawnman]

Exactly. I've argued for a long time that today's active duty retirement will not exist in it's present form in 10 years and get a lot of incredulous responses.

We will see paycuts (after 2012). What you do get will be devalued with inflation that is to come. Any slow-growing investment will be offset by an increasingly higher cost of living/taxes. You won't receive your retirement paycheck as early as 40. Tricare will be absorbed into National Health Care.

We're beginning to see painful cuts in teacher, police, fire, and other gov't service jobs. As unemployment goes up and the economy weakens, the public's sympathy for the military's plight of preserving the present military retirement will evaporate more quickly than you think.

Copy...pull the handles as soon as you can, and find yourself a private sector job.

[BFM this]

I've seen guys do excel spreadsheets calculating, to the dollar, exactly what their retirement is worth and comparing it to what they could earn in the private sector and making big decisions based primarily on that. Sad.

You don't really think the gov't side of the table has some higher altruistic motive at heart? It's the same motivator that keeps teachers in the classroom with sub-poverty level pay (although requiring some graduate education to qualify at even the entry level).

A sense of Service will be the motivator for those who lead us through the next 10 years. The politicians are banking on it.

[Dupe]

The other half of the story is that Congress must approve any of these theoretical pay cuts. I see this option as really unpalatable to Congress. It hits to the heart of the current military budget problem: Secretary Gates is strongly suggesting that cutting specific programs and funding lines will be better than simply hacking off X percent from the operations budget. At the same time, cutting the O&M budget by X% is much much easier to get through congress than targeting programs and people. My prediction is that it will be some combination of both strategies and that military pay will be preserved. There isn't a Congressman in the South who will vote to cut military pay or retirement. Can you imagine the smear ads in the next campaign cycle? I think Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen are just doing a bit of posturing. They're essentially saying "Look, Congress, our position is so bad that we are actually seriously considering cutting military pay and benefits. Approve the cuts we want so we don't have to go down that road."

[alwyn2d]

If Congress does reduce the overall benefit package for military service personnel, this is the perfect time. With the draw down of forces in the Middle East and the state of the American economy, Congress knows the economy will not have a strong recovery for at least 5-6 years. Retention is at an all time high. I doubt if there will be a mass exodus of personnel. And even if there is, you can always create bonus incentives which will not effect retirement cost.

More than likely there will be a grandfather clause for those serving. Anyway, the New hires have no choice. This is done in industry all the time. The major airlines created the regional system that we have today in keeping ticket prices down in being more competitive. The regionals fly approx 52% of the flying public. And guess what, REGIONAL PILOTS fly for PEANUTS. The regionals never have a problem of hiring pilots just in retainability. But as long as the regional planes do not continually fall out of the sky, their PILOTS will continue on being financially UNDER compensated in THEIR EYES. Not in the company's EYES of course. In fact, you can look at the AF Res & ANG as a way of keeping defense cost down.

For all the pilots that think they're irreplacable, review Air Force OTS.com and see how many wantabe pilots are standing in line to replace you in a heartbeat. In fact, they will help you pack your bags and assist you in filling out your paper work. Experience levels will suffer but that is why you wear safety belts. President Ike warned of the industrial defense complex and it's breaking the piggy bank. In fact, there's no money in the piggy bank, it's all borrowed. It doesn't help when an EXPERIENCED pilot crashes a C-17 in Alaska costing over $200M.

My wife's step-father retired in 1960 and is still collecting retirement for the last 51 years. As a WWII vet, I say he deserves it, but the gov't is saying when is this old man going to die. If you think the new PT standards are the pits, wait until they dig into your pocket book and it is coming. You just never knew how good you had it. Just ask Congress.

Edited June 5, 2011 by alwyn2d

[Spoo]

Dude, is your 'caps lock' button broken?

[Whitty]

I'd be interested to see some sort of pension benefit implemented for 10 years. That way at least those of us that decide to punch after our initial ADSC have something to show for it. I also realize it's probably never going to happen.

[Vetter]

For all the pilots that think they're irreplacable, review Air Force OTS.com and see how many wantabe pilots are standing in line to replace you in a heartbeat. In fact, they will help you pack your bags and assist you in filling out your paper work.

Hahaha. You sir are a fucking retard. 600 of us filled out the paperwork and packed our bags...how did that turn out for us.

[Pancake]

For all the pilots that think they're irreplacable, review Air Force OTS.com and see how many wantabe pilots are standing in line to replace you in a heartbeat. In fact, they will help you pack your bags and assist you in filling out your paper work. Experience levels will suffer but that is why you wear safety belts. President Ike warned of the industrial defense complex and it's breaking the piggy bank. In fact, there's no money in the piggy bank, it's all borrowed. It doesn't help when an EXPERIENCE pilot crashes a C-17 in Alaska costing over $200M.

With "no money in the piggy bank," how do you propose paying for the "wantabe pilots'" UPT? UPT is a sunk cost for currently rated pilots. However, training newbies is an expenditure. In this financial climate, the AF should strive to retain, rather than replace, its rated force. New pilots offer no additional efficiencies. In fact, new pilots are probably less efficient than seasoned pilots because new pilots have less experience to guide "smart" operations.

I don't think you'll find many rated aircrew that complain about the pay-it's sufficient to keep them from separating. Queep and reflective belts, among other things, motive guys to bail. If your solution is to force pilots out at 10 years in order to replace them with new Lts and the associated training costs, you won't see any change to retention as long as the non-flying "requirements" of being a rated officer continue, no matter how much prospective pilots love flying. Unlike regional airline jobs, people join the AF for a career, not to simply build flying hours. I think you'll find a lot of people disputing your assertion that the AF is going to "assist us in packing our bags and filling out our paper work."

The C-17 crash had nothing to do with experience. I'll leave it at that.

Edited June 5, 2011 by Pancake

[Standby]

It doesn't help when an EXPERIENCE pilot crashes a C-17 in Alaska costing over $200M

Piss off.

[di1630]

How about Gates stfu and he plus everyone else involved in the jsf going through 25 million a day go to jail for starters to cut cost. I have no appetite to hear leadership talk about pay cuts while they continue to buy the wrong sht for the wrong reasons. Also glad that gates is all for pay cuts while continuing to blow billions so the afghans can have paved roads.

[osulax05]

It doesn't help when an EXPERIENCE pilot crashes a C-17 in Alaska costing over $200M.

"Foul 2, wrong target"

Where is your SA? Seriously, WTFO?

[Majestik Møøse]

For all the pilots that think they're irreplacable, review Air Force OTS.com and see how many wantabe pilots are standing in line to replace you in a heartbeat. In fact, they will help you pack your bags and assist you in filling out your paper work. Experience levels will suffer but that is why you wear safety belts.

True, there will always be plenty of people that want to be military pilots, but we would rather not have the ones that would otherwise be working at BK. Better pay helps bring in better people, period.

It doesn't help when an EXPERIENCE pilot crashes a C-17 in Alaska costing over $200M.

That's a pretty low-SA, douchebag thing to say, dude. I don't care who you may or may not be.

My wife's step-father retired in 1960 and is still collecting retirement for the last 51 years. As a WWII vet, I say he deserves it, but the gov't is saying when is this old man going to die.

Yes, he deserves it and so do the rest of us. We joined the military knowing the retirement pay was an option and some of us figure it as possibly part of our retirement planning.

[pawnman]

With "no money in the piggy bank," how do you propose paying for the "wantabe pilots'" UPT? UPT is a sunk cost for currently rated pilots. However, training newbies is an expenditure. In this financial climate, the AF should strive to retain, rather than replace, its rated force. New pilots offer no additional efficiencies. In fact, new pilots are probably less efficient than seasoned pilots because new pilots have less experience to guide "smart" operations.

I don't think you'll find many rated aircrew that complain about the pay-it's sufficient to keep them from separating. Queep and reflective belts, among other things, motive guys to bail. If your solution is to force pilots out at 10 years in order to replace them with new Lts and the associated training costs, you won't see any change to retention as long as the non-flying "requirements" of being a rated officer continue, no matter how much prospective pilots love flying. Unlike regional airline jobs, people join the AF for a career, not to simply build flying hours. I think you'll find a lot of people disputing your assertion that the AF is going to "assist us in packing our bags and filling out our paper work."

The C-17 crash had nothing to do with experience. I'll leave it at that.

New pilots are years from collecting retirement, and in all likelihood, years from producing high medical bills. Throw out your Majs and Lt Cols at 12-15, you don't have to pay them retirement, and meanwhile you've got a crop of brand new 2Lts making half the paycheck and who are thrilled to be there.

I think the point is, while 600 people attempted to VSP, and while those of us who are in like to think that this option can't possibly be real because it will hurt the manning too badly, the truth is there are plenty of young bucks out there who would jump at the chance to fly a C-17, B-1, F-16, F-35...you name it, for half of what we're making now.

[Pancake]

New pilots are years from collecting retirement, and in all likelihood, years from producing high medical bills. Throw out your Majs and Lt Cols at 12-15, you don't have to pay them retirement, and meanwhile you've got a crop of brand new 2Lts making half the paycheck and who are thrilled to be there.

If curtailing retirement is the crux of the savings plan, then not only would DoD cut away at retirement liabilities directly, but the plan would affect everyone, not just pilots-good luck recruiting. A plan that tosses people after 15 years with no pension or benefits is sustainable for, maybe, a week.

I think the point is, while 600 people attempted to VSP, and while those of us who are in like to think that this option can't possibly be real because it will hurt the manning too badly, the truth is there are plenty of young bucks out there who would jump at the chance to fly a C-17, B-1, F-16, F-35...you name it, for half of what we're making now.

Got it. So when UPT, IFF and FTU standards are relaxed to accommodate the diminished talent attracted with lower pay and benefits, how many jets will we need to put in the dirt before the cost savings is moot. This isn't Colgan or Great Lakes. This is the USAF, where mission success has national security implications. Tell me, does your plan also include replacing Spec Ops with highly motivated CAP cadets?

While Congress can be shortsighted, they won't hurt their reelection chances. Congressmen need support from defense lobbyists, including defense contractors and retiree groups, and therefore, any cuts or drastic changes to military compensation will be generally inconsequential to vested stakeholders.

When Gates, et al, talk about changes in compensation, my opinion is that a realistic timeline goes well beyond anyone already vested in the system.

Edited June 6, 2011 by Pancake

[Chuck17]

It doesn't help when an EXPERIENCED pilot crashes a C-17 in Alaska costing over $200M.

Ironically this post nothing to do with experience either.

Chuck

[Guest]

The economy is driving this talk. When the economy changes the talk about cutting military pay and benefits will adjust accordingly. I also believe the current administration will use an abundance of caution around this topic. It would not take much for their opposition to use this against them in a devastating way.

I would not be too concerned about drastic cuts in pay or benefits.

I do believe we should try to make responsible fiscal decisions while providing the best possible benefits to all veterans. That may well mean making some changes that initially seem dramatic which means it will be a challenge. Humans fear change.

I am hopeful the medical benefits remain. I am finding healthcare to be the primary driver for many people's decision making process on key areas of their lives like changing jobs and making retirement decisions. I have become very thankful to have TRICARE even though I am lucky to not have any medical issues with any of my family members. TRICARE does not produce $60 billion in fraud like Medicare and thus should at least take a second position behind Medicare when it comes to reform/cuts.

I would also like the option to defer my military retirement pay for tax reasons alone. It would be nice if a service member could decide to retire at 20 yrs and elect to receive benefits immediately or increase their benefit by a CPI+ multiplier for every year they delay.

[Hacker]

I'd be interested to see some sort of pension benefit implemented for 10 years. That way at least those of us that decide to punch after our initial ADSC have something to show for it. I also realize it's probably never going to happen.

You do -- it's your rating and experience as a pilot.

Got it. So when UPT, IFF and FTU standards are relaxed to accommodate the diminished talent attracted with lower pay and benefits,

Dunno about you, but I didn't really study the pay chart that closely when I was hungry to join the AF and become a pilot. In fact, quite the opposite, at the time I knew very well that there were much more lucrative jobs as a civilian pilot...but that wasn't the motivator to join.

I highly doubt that if you froze/reduced pay, there would be a significant decrease in the talent walking through the door. There will still be a long line of very motivated and capable people hungry to serve their country and have the opportunity to get the finest flying training and the opportunity to fly high performance iron.

Ultimately, it's still 'the service', and none of us joined to get rich.

[Guest]

You do -- it's your rating and experience as a pilot.

Dunno about you, but I didn't really study the pay chart that closely when I was hungry to join the AF and become a pilot. In fact, quite the opposite, at the time I knew very well that there were much more lucrative jobs as a civilian pilot...but that wasn't the motivator to join.

I highly doubt that if you froze/reduced pay, there would be a significant decrease in the talent walking through the door. There will still be a long line of very motivated and capable people hungry to serve their country and have the opportunity to get the finest flying training and the opportunity to fly high performance iron.

Ultimately, it's still 'the service', and none of us joined to get rich.

Careful Hacker, this kind of talk is SNAP repellant.

They'll talk about you being drunk on the blue Kool Aid ®. Of course, they'll be doing that at someplace other than the squadron bar because that's where you are enjoying the non-monetary benefit of serving your country and hanging out with some of the best people America has to offer while saying ate up bullshit like "I love this job, can you guys believe they pay us for this shit?!"

[OverTQ]

That's funny. I was half way through basic before I discovered the AF was going to feed me and pay me.

[pawnman]

Careful Hacker, this kind of talk is SNAP repellant.

They'll talk about you being drunk on the blue Kool Aid ®. Of course, they'll be doing that at someplace other than the squadron bar because that's where you are enjoying the non-monetary benefit of serving your country and hanging out with some of the best people America has to offer while saying ate up bullshit like "I love this job, can you guys believe they pay us for this shit?!"

And we have so many people saying "I love this job" that over 600 tried to take the VSP and Gen Welsh is concerned about our lack of fighter pilots.

I'm not saying I'm in it just for the money, or even that most people are. But I do think that slashing pay and benefits might be that final tipping point for lots of folks already fed up with multiple deployments (for which you no longer get short-tour credit), bullshit MBAs so you can look attractive on your major's board, PME in correspondence so you can compete to go in residence, and everyone's favorite, reflective belts.

[Guest]

And we have so many people saying "I love this job" that over 600 tried to take the VSP and Gen Welsh is concerned about our lack of fighter pilots.

I'm not saying I'm in it just for the money, or even that most people are. But I do think that slashing pay and benefits might be that final tipping point for lots of folks already fed up with multiple deployments (for which you no longer get short-tour credit), bullshit MBAs so you can look attractive on your major's board, PME in correspondence so you can compete to go in residence, and everyone's favorite, reflective belts.

No argument. Far more than 600 would bail out if Big Blue just opened the doors and let them go. I have no doubt about that, I've seen it before.

My comment to Hacker was intended to be a statement to everyone else that guys like him and Huggy and CH etc are uncommon. They actually do love the shit out of their jobs. While they may find things like the pay or deployments or PME or master's degrees or reflective belts an annoyance, any discomfort they feel is far outweighed by the satisfaction they get from being part of the USAF. Not better or worse, just different. That's all.

So, while the grass may be greener for some, it's not greener for everyone. The guys that want to stay (or are satisfied) are often shit on as careerists or ass kissers. Believe it or not, they don't want to go to the Guard. They don't want to be airline pilots. They like being in the AD USAF and so do their families. They are rare and we should all hope there are more good leaders in that group of guys than shitty leaders because they are who America will be depending on after all the pissed off guys bail out. I need them on that wall. We all need them on that wall.

It's not better, it's just different. Value diversity!

[Spartacus]

I've heard some rumors that Congress is considering taking away TA to save money. Anyone else heard about this? All I have to say is if they take TA away then they should completely mask masters degrees. Maybe that would be a good thing?

[BFM this]

Makes perfect sense.

Wait, you don't think it will actually happen that way, do you?

[Karl Hungus]

It's not better, it's just different. Value diversity!

Well said. I won't fault anyone for staying in, for whatever reason they stay in. I'm not going to be one of them, and I don't always understand why they make that decision, but I'm glad there are folks out there who do stay. I just wish those who do- the careerists, the ass-kissers, the good dudes, all of them- would value our diversity as well, and not label us as "not a team player" if we dare to pursue a different path than the one they know and love.

[nsplayr]

Karl and Rainman both made excellent points; different strokes for different folks and honestly we need people in both categories.

Unfortunately our retirement system only has something for group B, group A can suck an egg. Yea yea we get the pride of serving, our ratings if we decide to fly on the outside (well I'm a nav so not so much there...) and etc., but everyone who serves gets those things and I'd say most genuinely get value from them. It's not all about the money like Rainman said, but for some people (group A) it is a little about the money and when our time is up and our commitment is served it can make sense to move on to a different lifestyle and/or career.

A system that incentivised all service members to contribute to their retirements (TSP matches for group A folks, a guaranteed 50% pension for group B people) seems fair to me.