Goldfein advocating FAA 1500 hour rule change???

[Guest]

Grosso (same one who had a hand in Force management a few years back) has been talking about all these efforts underway to retain us, to give the guys on the fence to take a second look. I was wondering if that message is being reflected in the assignment cycles for guys who no longer have an adsc

Anyone knows how the assignment folks at AFPC are treating guys at their 10 year ADSC point?

Are the assignment folks saying "hey my bosses realize you are valuable, you did not take the bonus, but we are going to give you dibs on that flying gig/location listed on your ADP, instead of ing with you"?

[nsplayr]

14 minutes ago, 1111 said:

Are the assignment folks saying "hey my bosses realize you are valuable, you did not take the bonus, but we are going to give you dibs on that flying gig/location listed on your ADP, instead of ing with you"?

Hahahahahahahaha! Good thought man.

In my experience, no.

[Disco_Nav963]

Not my thing, can't claim it, someone else here said it, but bears repeating: AFPC is scheduling if schedulers weren't bros that have to look you in the eye when they fuck you.

[Guest]

29 minutes ago, nsplayr said:

Hahahahahahahaha! Good thought man.

In my experience, no.

My bad...what was I thinking!

[BFM this]

4 hours ago, 1111 said:

Anyone knows how the assignment folks at AFPC are treating guys at their 10 year ADSC point?

Are the assignment folks saying "hey my bosses realize you are valuable, you did not take the bonus, but we are going to give you dibs on that flying gig/location listed on your ADP, instead of ing with you"?

Got a call from the guy on the porch a few months ago.  First time that's happened in 14 years.  We all know: he's not the decision maker, just the flesh peddler, but it was something.

I've seen about a half dozen dudes in his seat, some good, some less so.  One of his recent predecessors actively tried to fuck me and my family royally as though it was his J.O.B.  Nothing personal; needs of the AF, right?

One data point does not a trend make, but it's a step in the right direction.

[HossHarris]

I got the fighter porch to admit, during a vml webinar, that they do and will "negotiate with terrorists"

if you're on the fence, or a free agent, make it known on your adp. 

If you're really feeling froggy, put "I will accept assignment to x, y, or z or I will separate/retire". 

(If that is, in fact, your reality .... might as well use it to your advantage). 

(Full disclosure, I used that approach and 7-day opted an assignment that wasn't on my list)

Edited April 2, 2017 by HossHarris

[RTB]

2 hours ago, HossHarris said:

I got the fighter porch to admit, during a vml webinar, that they do and will "negotiate with terrorists"

if you're on the fence, or a free agent, make it known on your adp. 

If you're really feeling froggy, put "I will accept assignment to x, y, or z or I will separate/retire". 

(If that is, in fact, your reality .... might as well use it to your advantage). 

(Full disclosure, I used that approach and 7-day opted an assignment that wasn't on my list)

But it's important to note that they offered you what many would consider a great assignment flying F-16 Aggressors in AK. So while it wasn't on your list, it was still a pretty good offer! 

Edited April 2, 2017 by RTB

[HossHarris]

Which is part of the Afpc problem. 

I very specifically said in writing on my adp that I'd only accept x,y, or z.

Afpc decided they knew better*, offered what they thought was a fantastic assignment, that everyone clamours for, that's in high demand ..,, that wasn't x,y, or z. 

And they lost another fighter pilot. Maybe not a very good one ... but a fighter pilot nonetheless.  

*-or had an unfilled requirement. 

Edited April 2, 2017 by HossHarris

[RTB]

24 minutes ago, HossHarris said:

Which is part of the Afpc problem. 

I very specifically said in writing on my adp that I'd only accept x,y, or z.

Afpc decided they knew better*, offered what they thought was a fantastic assignment, that everyone clamours for, that's in high demand ..,, that wasn't x,y, or z. 

And they lost another fighter pilot. Maybe not a very good one ... but a fighter pilot nonetheless.  

*-or had an unfilled requirement. 

And at the same time, probably lost another fighter pilot who would have stayed in had they been given that assignment.  Brilliant AFPC!!

[MooseAg03]

I got the fighter porch to admit, during a vml webinar, that they do and will "negotiate with terrorists"
if you're on the fence, or a free agent, make it known on your adp. 
If you're really feeling froggy, put "I will accept assignment to x, y, or z or I will separate/retire". 
(If that is, in fact, your reality .... might as well use it to your advantage). 
(Full disclosure, I used that approach and 7-day opted an assignment that wasn't on my list)

Has anyone else had success with this method? It's looking like I'm being paroled from RPA purgatory. I've always heard you have to sell your preferred assignment to AFPC and that they will typically call a bluff to 7 day opt.

While I could 7 day opt at this point, I need the requal and recency before I separate. I'm just hoping C-17s are as low on experience as I keep hearing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[mcbush]

1 hour ago, MooseAg03 said:

While I could 7 day opt at this point, I need the requal and recency before I separate. I'm just hoping C-17s are as low on experience as I keep hearing.

Don't worry, they are. Until very recently, the high-time guy in my squadron in terms of C-17 hours was a first assignment Captain (ahead of both the CC and DO).

We just don't have any gray beards anymore, and it's stunning how fast that's changed. I've only been doing this for four years, but when I got to my first squadron, we had a Lt Col chief pilot in the squadron whose career had consisted of five consecutive C-17 tours. He knew everything, or it at least seemed that way to a new Lt, and he spent virtually all his time flying locals with the new kids to get them smart. That doesn't really exist anymore. If we exclude attached dudes and guys up at the Group/Wing, I think the squadron currently has one assigned Major and zero assigned Lt Cols who aren't the CC or DO. There's just no one left. 

[HossHarris]

13 hours ago, RTB said:

And at the same time, probably lost another fighter pilot who would have stayed in had they been given that assignment.  Brilliant AFPC!!

Brilliant!!

 

Btw, the fighter porch is on Facebook now....so you can get/give info straight to the horses mouth. 

They recently announced they got approval to leave folks in white jets and rtu IP slots for 2 consecutive assignments (6 years). So if that's something you're interested in, adp it. 

Also working on a bonus (with associated adsc) for 16-20 year dudes. Less free agency makes flesh peddling easier. 

Edited April 3, 2017 by HossHarris

[pawnman]

15 hours ago, mcbush said:

Don't worry, they are. Until very recently, the high-time guy in my squadron in terms of C-17 hours was a first assignment Captain (ahead of both the CC and DO).

We just don't have any gray beards anymore, and it's stunning how fast that's changed. I've only been doing this for four years, but when I got to my first squadron, we had a Lt Col chief pilot in the squadron whose career had consisted of five consecutive C-17 tours. He knew everything, or it at least seemed that way to a new Lt, and he spent virtually all his time flying locals with the new kids to get them smart. That doesn't really exist anymore. If we exclude attached dudes and guys up at the Group/Wing, I think the squadron currently has one assigned Major and zero assigned Lt Cols who aren't the CC or DO. There's just no one left. 

We're seeing something similar base-wide here.  We've got a few Lt Cols rapidly approaching 20 (mostly WSOs) aside from SQ/CC and SQ/DO positions.  Which, aside from the obvious lack of experience in the squadrons, also creates a problem when it's time to pick the next round of DO/CC/DS/OGV chief positions.  There just aren't enough Lt Cols in the LAR left to fill the leadership positions.

[Champ Kind]

TO CLARIFY, they said the second assignment deal is if you have 18 years TOS, and the bonus contract would carry a 6-9 year ADSC.

And neither is approved. They got approval to look into each option by the Aircrew Crisis Task Force.

They are trying, desperately, to come up with ways to keep old dudes in past 20.

You mean attempting to convince guys to ignore the jackpot of luck and timing to forego an airline seniority number while simultaneously drawing military retirement pension and stay AD AF instead? Good luck with that.

[Champ Kind]

We're seeing something similar base-wide here.  We've got a few Lt Cols rapidly approaching 20 (mostly WSOs) aside from SQ/CC and SQ/DO positions.  Which, aside from the obvious lack of experience in the squadrons, also creates a problem when it's time to pick the next round of DO/CC/DS/OGV chief positions.  There just aren't enough Lt Cols in the LAR left to fill the leadership positions.

Then they'll give those positions to O-4s. The MAF is already doing it (DOs, at least).

[RTB]

3 hours ago, pawnman said:

...creates a problem when it's time to pick the next round of DO/CC/DS/OGV chief positions...

Sad situation when filling a DS position is even on the radar.  At the Wings I served in, that didn't exist until just a few years ago.  But now there's so much queep that Wing CCs feel the need to shack an otherwise mission-flying O-4/5 as the queep master for the Wing.  UFB.

[SocialD]

For us Guard guys, what is DS?  

How I feel when any staff weenie speaks (A3X this and A8F that)...like we know what the hell they're talking about!  

 

[nsplayr]

Director of staff

[RTB]

17 minutes ago, SocialD said:

For us Guard guys, what is DS?  

How I feel when any staff weenie speaks (A3X this and A8F that)...like we know what the hell they're talking about!  

 

 Basically it is a bullshit position created solely for the purpose of managing the extraordinary mountains of queep that are now required to be generated on a daily basis. 

[Stitch]

18 minutes ago, RTB said:

 Basically it is a bullshit position created solely for the purpose of managing the extraordinary mountains of queep that are now required to be generated on a daily basis. 

Oh, so it's like the "Quality" guy each squadron had back in the 90's?  OMG, what a goat rope!

 

[matmacwc]

On 4/1/2017 at 8:18 PM, HossHarris said:

(Full disclosure, I used that approach and 7-day opted an assignment that wasn't on my list)

What did they give you?  Oh, and our ANG wing has a DS.

Edited April 3, 2017 by matmacwc

[SocialD]

On 4/2/2017 at 1:22 AM, RTB said:

But it's important to note that they offered you what many would consider a great assignment flying F-16 Aggressors in AK. So while it wasn't on your list, it was still a pretty good offer! 

Didn't they have a metric fuckton of dudes 7-day opt the AK aggressors when they were trying to stand that squadron up?  Might be off on this, just 2nd hand info from a few AD guys we hired around the time they were standing up that squadron.   

 

48 minutes ago, matmacwc said:

Oh, and our ANG wing has a DS.

Not surprised.  You have WAY too many squadrons and too much AD blood.

[matmacwc]

1 hour ago, SocialD said:

Not surprised.  You have WAY too many squadrons and too much AD blood.

No and yes, we are up to 80+ jets I think.

[pawnman]

6 hours ago, Stitch said:

Oh, so it's like the "Quality" guy each squadron had back in the 90's?  OMG, what a goat rope!

 

Something like that.  At our wing, the DS is the guy in charge of all those "wing" agencies that don't have a squadron commander, like the JAG.

[Guardian]

Approved

For?


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums