FY16 "Bonus Shenanigans"

[ViperMan]

Hey everyone,

I recently became aware of an "issue" that has been making the rounds on Facebook and which is also the subject of a recent JQP post. My response to his article was "detected as spam." So I'm re-posting this here with a desire to see what the BO rank and file thinks of this latest spear from JQ. As follows:

 

JQP, much like the previous article on the Thunderbird mishap, you are way off base.

"But things have gotten sideways. The question now on the table is what happens to those who lock in early only to find that the bonus increases in value significantly following year. This year’s ARP package is offering pilots in some career families $35,000/year — 40% more than last year."

This is only a question to one of three people:

1. Those who didn't read the offer.
2. Those who read but didn't understand the offer.
3. Those who have an ax to grind and are now choosing to intentionally misread the statement to forward an agenda.

'The guys signing up early took this as a good faith “opt-in” clause indemnifying them against the risk of lost opportunity due to early action. They thought the USAF was saying “don’t worry … if we offer more next year, we’ll let you opt in at the higher amount.”'

I'm sorry, but if anyone thought that, then they didn't read (or understand) the offer. It is CRYSTAL clear in the message that the offer would extended to those contracted pilots 'to sign a NEW CONTRACT worth the higher bonus amount AND/OR longer contract length, in the event...' This statement can mean one of three things:

1. (AND) The AF will let you sign up for a higher bonus AND a longer contract term.
2. (OR) The AF will let you sign up for a higher bonus amount OR a longer contract term, but not both.
3. (AND/OR) The AF will let you sign up for whatever terms they come up with for the next years' bonus; higher amounts, different contract lengths, etc, because they don't know what they will be (i.e $25K for 7 years; $40K for 8 years; $50K for 13 years, etc.).
4. (NEITHER) Keep the bonus you already signed and STFU.

Of course, it's advantageous for the complainants to go with option 2a, just take more money and run, but unfortunately, not even a 3rd grade reading is admissible for those who are disinterested. Notice also, that the message specifically references LONGER contract lengths - not SHORTER ones. Hmm.

"They were, it now appears, wrong to place that much faith in the service. What those officers are being told when they try to opt in is that if they want the higher bonus payouts, they must commit to an additional year of service commitment. They’ll get five bonus payments but be expected to serve six additional years."

Just like everyone else in the Air Force would have to. Jeez, why not back-date the $35K bonus to those who signed up 4 years ago? 6? 9? As you go down that argument trail, hopefully you can begin to see the absurdity of the position which holds that the ones who signed up last year should get something for nothing. That said, philosophically, I agree that if the "bonus" goes up, everyone one who's on it should be given the increased amount - unfortunately, that's not what the agreement says or how it reads.

"Finally, and most interestingly, this instruction did not exist when the FY16 early takers made their decisions. It was published months later, in October. The rules governing their opt-in decisions should not spring from this DO DI, but whatever rule was in effect at the time they signed. If no rule existed addressing this situation, they’re entitled to the plain language in their agreements, which would allow them to opt-in without any additional service commitment."

Ummm, no, the plain-language interpretation decidedly DOES NOT allow them to pick and choose the terms of the new contract.

"They can’t claim a lack of bargaining power constrained them from a fair deal in FY16 ARP negotiations. Nor can they claim the USAF engaged in fraud. There is a clause containing sufficient vagary to portend the mess that has ensued, and they knew or should have known that opting in would come with additional requirements of some sort."

Finally, an accurate statement. Seriously, no, seriously - what is vague about the FY16 offer? It is perfectly clear to me and I'm no lawyer.

"And just to be clear, this cohort has pretty much no legal leverage. There’s nothing that will invalidate their old contracts and there’s nothing making them enter new ones. They are all bound by their original agreements unless they’re willing to be coerced into new ones."

Except for the same leverage I had, which was to not sign the bonus; they made choices. What is the problem?

"This is a moral issue. Playing shell games will forfeit the goodwill Gen. Golden and his team have worked to rebuild over the past year. That would be truly unfortunate."

No. Just, no. This barely rises to the level of ethics. And if it did, it's not unethical on part of the AF. The only unethical thing I see going on is intentional misinterpretation of the offer and an attempt to exploit an AF that's in a bad situation.

"It would be a shame if this turned into yet another social media campaign to interest legislators in an issue that commanders and senior staff should be able to handle tomorrow morning with a 5-minute meeting and some clear direction."

Nice veiled threat. Good thing is that most legislators are lawyers by trade and will instantly recognize that this is a baseless complaint. I like to point out problems the AF has as well, and I appreciate some of the work you do, but this is a non-issue, and detracts from actual issues that the AF is suffering from. I hope these folks do take this to the legislature and come away with egg on their faces.

ViperMan

 

Anyway, I'd like to know what you all think.

[icohftb]

I didnt have the patience to read your entire post. Nor was I an early eligible last year (long past that window). However the general understanding in my squadron last year was that if you were an early bonus taker the AF would ensure that you would be able to replace the contract with the updated one when it came out when you were "in the zone" without extracting more time.

In any case this only discourages people from signing up early if they believe that the numbers will increase. IMHO the freedom to walk is well worth passing up 25-35k.

[Lord Ratner]

You're just so pissed that people don't want to be in the Air Force as much as you do, aren't you?

Sent from my Vitamix 450x Professional using Tapatalk

[ThreeHoler]

ViperMan, I'd suspect you're trying to spin the story from the Porch.

Is it as big a mess as JQP makes it? No, probably not. But could it have been more transparent? Probably.

I think the Facebook group is whining...but I also think people are tired of being kept in the dark all the time.

[sqwatch]

Full disclosure- I'm a quitter, non bonus taker. I'm also a guy who thinks that if you make a deal, you adhere to that deal. Frankly, given the environment last year, I think anyone who thought the bonus would go DOWN this year was foolish.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[The-osu]

i see it as, if you signed earlier your bonus goes up to match but no retroactive increase to previous years or you can resign the bonus for the new length and get the new amount for more time.

it's like BAH, it can go up but not back down. Seems pretty simple

[ViperMan]

20 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

You're just so pissed that people don't want to be in the Air Force as much as you do, aren't you?

Sent from my Vitamix 450x Professional using Tapatalk
 

Not really, as I am on my way out. I like to bitch as much as the next guy, I just think there are plenty of valid complaints to grab a hold of.

14 minutes ago, ThreeHoler said:

ViperMan, I'd suspect you're trying to spin the story from the Porch.

Is it as big a mess as JQP makes it? No, probably not. But could it have been more transparent? Probably.

I think the Facebook group is whining...but I also think people are tired of being kept in the dark all the time.

I agree with everything you said except the attempt to "spin." I'm trying to be as fair as possible here, but every now and then I see something that comes across that blog and I don't know what to think. Does anyone really read that release and think that the statement "shall be allowed to sign a NEW contract worth the HIGHER bonus amount and/or LONGER contract length" means the AF was going to UP the bonus (without increased commitment length) for those who signed a DIFFERENT agreement? That seems to me what JQ and others on the Facebook group are suggesting.

I'm fully on board with shedding some much-needed light on AF personnel policies.

[Bender]

Hey everyone,

I recently became aware of an "issue" that has been making the rounds on Facebook and which is also the subject of a recent JQP post. My response to his article was "detected as spam." So I'm re-posting this here with a desire to see what the BO rank and file thinks of this latest spear from JQ. As follows:

 

JQP, much like the previous article on the Thunderbird mishap, you are way off base.

"But things have gotten sideways. The question now on the table is what happens to those who lock in early only to find that the bonus increases in value significantly following year. This year’s ARP package is offering pilots in some career families $35,000/year — 40% more than last year."

This is only a question to one of three people:

1. Those who didn't read the offer.

2. Those who read but didn't understand the offer.

3. Those who have an ax to grind and are now choosing to intentionally misread the statement to forward an agenda.

'The guys signing up early took this as a good faith “opt-in” clause indemnifying them against the risk of lost opportunity due to early action. They thought the USAF was saying “don’t worry … if we offer more next year, we’ll let you opt in at the higher amount.”'

I'm sorry, but if anyone thought that, then they didn't read (or understand) the offer. It is CRYSTAL clear in the message that the offer would extended to those contracted pilots 'to sign a NEW CONTRACT worth the higher bonus amount AND/OR longer contract length, in the event...' This statement can mean one of three things:

1. (AND) The AF will let you sign up for a higher bonus AND a longer contract term.

2. (OR) The AF will let you sign up for a higher bonus amount OR a longer contract term, but not both.

3. (AND/OR) The AF will let you sign up for whatever terms they come up with for the next years' bonus; higher amounts, different contract lengths, etc, because they don't know what they will be (i.e $25K for 7 years; $40K for 8 years; $50K for 13 years, etc.).

4. (NEITHER) Keep the bonus you already signed and STFU.

Of course, it's advantageous for the complainants to go with option 2a, just take more money and run, but unfortunately, not even a 3rd grade reading is admissible for those who are disinterested. Notice also, that the message specifically references LONGER contract lengths - not SHORTER ones. Hmm.

"They were, it now appears, wrong to place that much faith in the service. What those officers are being told when they try to opt in is that if they want the higher bonus payouts, they must commit to an additional year of service commitment. They’ll get five bonus payments but be expected to serve six additional years."

Just like everyone else in the Air Force would have to. Jeez, why not back-date the $35K bonus to those who signed up 4 years ago? 6? 9? As you go down that argument trail, hopefully you can begin to see the absurdity of the position which holds that the ones who signed up last year should get something for nothing. That said, philosophically, I agree that if the "bonus" goes up, everyone one who's on it should be given the increased amount - unfortunately, that's not what the agreement says or how it reads.

"Finally, and most interestingly, this instruction did not exist when the FY16 early takers made their decisions. It was published months later, in October. The rules governing their opt-in decisions should not spring from this DO DI, but whatever rule was in effect at the time they signed. If no rule existed addressing this situation, they’re entitled to the plain language in their agreements, which would allow them to opt-in without any additional service commitment."

Ummm, no, the plain-language interpretation decidedly DOES NOT allow them to pick and choose the terms of the new contract.

"They can’t claim a lack of bargaining power constrained them from a fair deal in FY16 ARP negotiations. Nor can they claim the USAF engaged in fraud. There is a clause containing sufficient vagary to portend the mess that has ensued, and they knew or should have known that opting in would come with additional requirements of some sort."

Finally, an accurate statement. Seriously, no, seriously - what is vague about the FY16 offer? It is perfectly clear to me and I'm no lawyer.

"And just to be clear, this cohort has pretty much no legal leverage. There’s nothing that will invalidate their old contracts and there’s nothing making them enter new ones. They are all bound by their original agreements unless they’re willing to be coerced into new ones."

Except for the same leverage I had, which was to not sign the bonus; they made choices. What is the problem?

"This is a moral issue. Playing shell games will forfeit the goodwill Gen. Golden and his team have worked to rebuild over the past year. That would be truly unfortunate."

No. Just, no. This barely rises to the level of ethics. And if it did, it's not unethical on part of the AF. The only unethical thing I see going on is intentional misinterpretation of the offer and an attempt to exploit an AF that's in a bad situation.

"It would be a shame if this turned into yet another social media campaign to interest legislators in an issue that commanders and senior staff should be able to handle tomorrow morning with a 5-minute meeting and some clear direction."

Nice veiled threat. Good thing is that most legislators are lawyers by trade and will instantly recognize that this is a baseless complaint. I like to point out problems the AF has as well, and I appreciate some of the work you do, but this is a non-issue, and detracts from actual issues that the AF is suffering from. I hope these folks do take this to the legislature and come away with egg on their faces.

ViperMan

 

Anyway, I'd like to know what you all think.

 

 

I did take the time to read it.

 

You write as though you have some skin in this game...part of drafting that were you?

 

Why are you so interested you feel the need to write all of that? To tell people it's not clear that "and/or" doesn't mean "and/or"?

 

Your push just doesn't make sense, Bro. I'm not trying to tell you that you're wrong or right here...you just don't make sense.

 

------

 

When it says "and/or", that implies option. A lot of people (particularly people who are going to sign it anyway...shocker) take that to mean and FVCKING or. Not "and" if you want, or "or" if you want, or "and" if I want, or "or" if I want, but rather "and/or", just like it "fvcking" written.

 

I sign again, for the higher bonus amount ONLY, with all the same other terms...and a longer term if "we" want to, in a strange case with the same amount (I guess if the bonus went down...which was specifically addressed) for a longer term.

 

Higher amount and/or longer contract term...you are out of your fvcking gourd to be arguing this emphatically...particularly stating you opted out of signing on for a bonus. That is, unless you had some part of offering it. If you didn't, you've simply gone bat shlt crazy in the time I've been a part of this board. Don't worry, I do blame the USAF for that...

 

 

I'll be honest, after thinking about it...I don't even care about trying to sign a contract for more money. It wasn't, and won't ever be the point when the money we're talking about is plain, unadulterated bullshlt. Ain't no one hanging around these parts for the money...

 

Keep jerking people around though...with the open ended contract wording (without explanation...the God knows there are enough fvcking AFPC roadshows to be clear about it) and pathetic "increases" (where it doesn't need to be...hint, hint: monthly compensation for every last pilot you need, which is ALL OF THEM), see where it gets "you".

 

I only say "you", in quotes, because I don't understand your malfunction...I don't know that it's actually you with the problem.

 

That's what I think.

 

Bendy

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

[BashiChuni]

I make no deals with the Air Force or government 

I assume they will fck me 

[sqwatch]

I make no deals with the Air Force or government 
I assume they will fck me 

Right... which is why I don't understand why the early bonus takers are pissed, other than they sold their stock before the peak of the market


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ViperMan]

26 minutes ago, Bender said:

I did take the time to read it.
You write as though you have some skin in this game...part of drafting that we're you?
Why are you so interested you feel the need to write all of that? To tell people it's no clear that "and/or" doesn't mean "and/or"?
You push just doesn't make sense, Bro. I'm not trying to tell you that you're wrong or right here...you just don't make sense.

I don't, because I passed on it. Nor do I have anything to do with its implementation/creation.

Fine if I don't make sense. It was a post slightly out of context because it was a point-by-point response to claims that JQ threw out there to serve what I think is a convenient narrative (and allows him to bitch).

26 minutes ago, Bender said:

When it says "and/or", that implies option. A lot of people (particularly people who are going to sign it anyway...shocker) take that to mean and FVCKING or. Not "and" if you want, or "or" if you want, or "and" if I want, or "or" if I want, but rather "and/or", just like it "fvcking" written.

I sign again, for the higher bonus amount ONLY, with all the same other terms...and a longer term if "we" want to, in a strange case with the same amount (I guess if the bonus went down...which was specifically addressed) for a longer term.

Higher amount and/or longer contract term...you are out of your fvcking gourd to be arguing this emphatically...particularly stating you opted out of signing on for a bonus. That is, unless you had some part of offering it. If you didn't, you've simply gone bat shlt crazy in the time I've been a part of this board. Don't worry, I do blame the USAF for that...

I'll be honest, after thinking about it...I don't even care about trying to sign a contract for more money. Is, wasn't, and won't ever be the point when the money we're talking about is plain, unadulterated bullshlt. Ain't no one hanging around these parts for the money...

Keep jerking people around though...with the open ended contract wording (without explanation...the God knows there are enough fvcking AFPC roadshows to be clear about it) and pathetic "increases" (where it doesn't need to be...hint, hint: monthly compensation for every last pilot you need, which is ALL OF THEM), see where it gets "you".

So WTF do you think "and/or" means? IMO it means that the AF, when they figure out what the fvcking bonus terms will be during the next FY, will let those takers "sign a new contract" (just like they wrote in black and white). I mean if the USAF was just going to up the money for previous-year bonus takers they could have just written down such a simple concept, right?

Something to the effect of "if you sign this early-take bonus agreement (FY16) and the monetary value increases on future-year ARP offers (FY17, 18, 19, ...) during the duration of your incurred ADSC, your payment will increase to the new, higher limit, with no additional incurred ADSC. We want to thank you for your service.", would have done the trick - the thing is, they didn't write it like that. But now there's a fvcking Facebook campaign to somehow posture as if it did.

26 minutes ago, Bender said:

I only say "you", in quotes, because I don't understand your malfunction...I don't know that it's actually you with the problem.

That's what I think.

Bendy

My malfunction is with the invalid narrative that I see routinely pumped from JQP. I DGAF about 80% of what he pushes out there, but every now and then there is a topic that I know something about, and also happens to be completely off base. He runs with BS and plenty of folks scarf it up because it feeds their anger. There are plenty of reasons to bitch about $hit the AF does - I just don't see this as one of them.

Edited June 22, 2017 by ViperMan

[Lord Ratner]

ViperMan, you're obviously involved, because you're taking it personally. In either case, here's why you're wrong.

This isn't people who signed one bonus, and expect another. They signed early, just to get the paperwork done. But other than the amount of money one gets by having their bonus start on time (as opposed to the usual lateness the Air Force demonstrates each year), early signers were doing the AF a favor.

It doesn't matter what the contract says. Logic says that the people who HELPED there Air Force by signing early should be taken care of if the bonus goes up.

But even more to the point, it's almost laughable that "leaders" who are now publicly begging for solutions to the problem they let fester can't see why this is such a perceived betrayal. It's like there is some sort of competition at the staff level to see how many tone deaf proclamations and policies they can put out.

You say you're on your way out. Good. If the Air Force has any chance at all of pulling out of this dive, it's going to need leaders who can actually empathize with the people they claim to want to retain.

I'm sure you felt your dissertation was nothing but solid logic and tough love from the top rope. To me it sounded like someone who is way too excited to tell us how stupid and greedy we are. Which, ironically, probably has way more effect on retention than the bonus you're defending.

Sent from my Vitamix 450x Professional using Tapatalk

[ViperMan]

18 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

ViperMan, you're obviously involved, because you're taking it personally. In either case, here's why you're wrong.

This isn't people who signed one bonus, and expect another. They signed early, just to get the paperwork done. But other than the amount of money one gets by having their bonus start on time (as opposed to the usual lateness the Air Force demonstrates each year), early signers were doing the AF a favor.

It doesn't matter what the contract says. Logic says that the people who HELPED there Air Force by signing early should be taken care of if the bonus goes up.

But even more to the point, it's almost laughable that "leaders" who are now publicly begging for solutions to the problem they let fester can't see why this is such a perceived betrayal. It's like there is some sort of competition at the staff level to see how many tone deaf proclamations and policies they can put out.

You say you're on your way out. Good. If the Air Force has any chance at all of pulling out of this dive, it's going to need leaders who can actually empathize with the people they claim to want to retain.

I'm sure you felt your dissertation was nothing but solid logic and tough love from the top rope. To me it sounded like someone who is way too excited to tell us how stupid and greedy we are. Which, ironically, probably has way more effect on retention than the bonus you're defending.

I'm involved to the extent that I'm in the AF. But anyway, you're right, either way it's irrelevant.

I guess I don't sympathize with someone who was going to sign away years of their life to "just get the paperwork done" or "do the AF a favor." I read the FY16 bonus when it came out and I couldn't discern one benefit it would bestow on me to sign it early - so I didn't. I suppose the only benefit you get is a few more payments of X-thousand a month that you otherwise wouldn't? I think that's the benefit early-takers get? I don't know because I didn't consider it that closely since I was leaning towards getting out anyway.

I almost stopped reading after you said it "didn't matter what the contract said," but I think your statement highlights the thesis of the Facebook group pretty nicely: "we don't care what the contract said - give us more money with no extra year."

I did feel that it was solid logic. Thanks. As far as that goes, however, I've yet to see an interpretation that allows for the position that the Facebook group is running with.

Edited June 22, 2017 by ViperMan

[Jaded]

So, here's a post:

"The issue still remains though that the extra year wasn't in the original contract and was added by a DODI that came out in Oct 16 after all of us signed."

So they literally changed the deal after these people already signed up, correct? How is that ok?

[Homestar]

My take for what it's worth:

1) JQP is the Maury Povitch of the Air Force, shaking the bushes for whatever he can spin to max perform the anger of his audience. I take everything he says with that context. 

B) I signed the bonus in FY14 (on time, that is, not as early signer) for $25/k for 5 years.  In that year MAF pilots were not offered the 20 YAS option.  That was only for fighter pilots.  The next year the Air Force offered the 20 YAS option to MAF pilots and extended that to FY14 signers.  So in effect I signed up for an additional 4 years of ADSC for an additional 4 payments of $25k.  The Air Force could have just said "screw you FY14 signed, you get 5 payments and you'll like it."  Instead they offered an increased bonus for a additional ADSC.  Which is what they're doing this year.

Yes, I think the Air Force should offer the increased bonus amount to the early signers.  I think the language of the legislation prevented them from doing that without having the additional ADSC.  This seems to me to be in line with how this played out in 2014-15.

I think the Air Force bureaucracy is faceless and doesn't care about individuals. But on the personal level, I don't think it's staffed solely with people who are just thinking of ways to screw someone. 

[Guest]

5 hours ago, ViperMan said:

I read the FY16 bonus when it came out and I couldn't discern one benefit it would bestow on me to sign it early - so I didn't. I suppose the only benefit you get is a few more payments of X-thousand a month that you otherwise wouldn't? I think that's the benefit early-takers get?

Yes.  If your UPT ADSC was set to expire between 1 Oct 16 and whenever the FY17 program was implemented, you would lose out on some bonus pay if you took the 20 YAS option. 

 

Here's an example:  your UPT ADSC expires in October, if you wait to sign in June when you would be initial eligible, you would only have 8.3 years until 20 YAS.  You would lose out on ~16.7K.

The early eligible signers have every reason to complain.  The language in the FY16 ARP program indicated they would be taken care of in the event the annual amount or contract duration became more favorable in FY17.

The FY17 program is offering them this option, but at the cost of an additional year of service, which was not at all part of the FY16 contract they entered.

[tac airlifter]

Viperman, no one who signed early had reason to assume they were signing up for an additional year without the bonus.  Now they have an extra year to their ADSC, without being paid for extra for it, and they are confused.  Instead of empathy, you have contempt.  

I appluad you on posting this in an attempt to understand.  People hate being treated like shit and told they are whiners for complaining, and yet this is what the AF does.   Ours is a fundamentally broken and stupid organization that does not value its people, and they prove this anew with every years bonus.

[Homestar]

4 minutes ago, tac airlifter said:

Viperman, no one who signed early had reason to assume they were signing up for an additional year without the bonus.  Now they have an extra year to their ADSC, without being paid for extra for it, and they are confused.

This is only true if they sign a new agreement for the higher amount. Otherwise they keep their original agreement of 9 payments of $25k/year or till 20 YAS. If 1 extra year isn't worth the $45k then they won't sign a new agreement. 

[tac airlifter]

1 minute ago, Homestar said:

This is only true if they sign a new agreement for the higher amount. Otherwise they keep their original agreement of 9 payments of $25k/year or till 20 YAS. If 1 extra year isn't worth the $45k then they won't sign a new agreement. 

Valid, I was speaking only of the dudes who signed the early eligible then chose to opt in to the newer bonus.  Should have said so.  Those guys are rightfully pissed that they have an extra year, which is an arbitrary (but significant) amount of time.

[ViperMan]

14 hours ago, tac airlifter said:

Viperman, no one who signed early had reason to assume they were signing up for an additional year without the bonus.  Now they have an extra year to their ADSC, without being paid for extra for it, and they are confused.  Instead of empathy, you have contempt.  

I appluad you on posting this in an attempt to understand.  People hate being treated like shit and told they are whiners for complaining, and yet this is what the AF does.   Ours is a fundamentally broken and stupid organization that does not value its people, and they prove this anew with every years bonus.

In fairness, I have not seen an actual ARP contract. Only the message that JQ posted on his blog. IF that really is the case, then I've got tons of empathy for them because it is FULLY BS.

That said, do they really though? I find it hard to believe that this group of guys signed up for a bonus and contract length that said $25K/yr for 5 years, and the AF just came back to all of them and ROLEXED their separation by 1 year without additional compensation...I find that very hard to believe. If that's the case - of course it's a crime and should be squawked about - I just don't believe that's what's going on.

Edited June 23, 2017 by ViperMan

[ViperMan]

14 hours ago, Homestar said:

This is only true if they sign a new agreement for the higher amount. Otherwise they keep their original agreement of 9 payments of $25k/year or till 20 YAS. If 1 extra year isn't worth the $45k then they won't sign a new agreement. 

 

14 hours ago, tac airlifter said:

Valid, I was speaking only of the dudes who signed the early eligible then chose to opt in to the newer bonus.  Should have said so.  Those guys are rightfully pissed that they have an extra year, which is an arbitrary (but significant) amount of time.

Well I guess I just disagree. No one is forcing their hand to sign a NEW agreement, and in my reading/interpretation of the previous (FY16) ARP, it seems pretty clear to me that the USAF would let this group sign up for a new agreement IF they wanted to. If they don't want to, well then they don't have to accept the extra year, and can walk with the lesser money and separate one year earlier.

In any case, no one who is signing up for and getting the latest (FY17) bonus amount is getting out any "earlier" than anyone else who signs up for the same flavor of this year's bonus agreement.

From a philosophical standpoint, I'm on board with everyone who says they should be paid at the higher amount. Dudes have committed to further service; I agree that everyone in that bucket should be given the same money for the same commitment. That said, I don't think tackling it from the standpoint that the FY16 ARP message actually means what everyone's favorite interpretation seems to be is a fair argument to make.

[Vetter]

I'm going to credit 145 hours in June working 16 days (away from home 9 nights).  $155/hr.  Actually flew like 70ish.  Add 16% DC on top of that.  You do the math...

These bonus threads make me giggle.

[BashiChuni]

With as "critical" as this pilot shortage is you'd think the AF would be bending over backwards to avoid ANY perception of fcking pilots in bonus deals

perception is reality and the AF is lacking in both departments. 

[Termy]

Speaking of bonus shenanigans, I'm going to keep asking why Afrc has a 16 years tafms restriction but the ANG doesn't until someone can provide me an answer. 

[icohftb]

26 minutes ago, Termy said:

Speaking of bonus shenanigans, I'm going to keep asking why Afrc has a 16 years tafms restriction but the ANG doesn't until someone can provide me an answer. 

Because they arent talking to eachother or the afrc thinks they already have enough old dudes? AD stopped offering the uncommited eligibles a bonus this year also.