Flight Pay increases

[08Dawg]

5 hours ago, JBueno said:

Let's talk about a pure flying track. What's it look like?

If a pure flying track was capped at O-3, would guys go for it? For 20 years?

No.  At least guarantee O-4, if not O-5.  No way O-3 pay, even into the 15-20 year mark, is enough to keep guys around. Even if you're just flying airplanes, the airlines will pay you more to do the same thing and work fewer days. 

[the g-man]

28 minutes ago, 08Dawg said:

No.  At least guarantee O-4, if not O-5.  No way O-3 pay, even into the 15-20 year mark, is enough to keep guys around. Even if you're just flying airplanes, the airlines will pay you more to do the same thing and work fewer days. 

Yeah not a chance, 0-3 Pay tops at $6583.50 at the 14 year mark.  Even in a high-ish BAH area of $2400 thats still only getting you $107k per year.  Granted $28k of your income is non-taxable, but still.  The bonus would have to be >$60k and limit deployments to 90 days every other year for me to even consider something like that.

[Bergman]

10 hours ago, Scooter14 said:

Bergman,

Are you suggesting that reserve component crew members that have to maintain the exact same Vol 1 currencies and requirements as their active duty counterparts get paid the SAME AMOUNT of flight pay per month?

 Now that's crazy talk right there mister.

 

Crazy talk, indeed.  Just doing my part to help solve this retention crisis...

[dream big]

8 hours ago, JBueno said:

Let's talk about a pure flying track. What's it look like?

If a pure flying track was capped at O-3, would guys go for it? For 20 years?

Ideally, everyone would be on the same (be good at your primary job aka flying) path until majors board at which point people would split off into a leadership v flying track.  The flying track would include only squadron level and some group level necessary flying jobs (OGV.).  These would be your WOs, ADOs and they would top out at 0-5 max and as DOs.

Leadership track would play the Air Force game and go to school, work staff and command.  I think there should be opportunities for flying track folks to jump over to the leadership track and those on the leadership track to jump over to the flying track when circumstances dictate.

Not sure I would go for it for 20 years but I would seriously think twice about staying in longer.  

[DirtyFlightSuit]

Until you address the countless useless deployment billets, and near certainty of filling a 365 no amount of money or QoL will matter much.  While most people I know are not completely dreading 6 month deployments, its the future of 2-3 of those on top of a year long that has them voting with their feet.  You can't be in a constant state of war for so long and expect people to be gun ho supporting of the fight any longer.  Especially with no end in sight.   The future is grim for service members, when I joined it already was a quagmire and now 12 years later zero has changed beyond it getting worse.  You can't sell retention off of that landscape beyond a few fence sitters. 

[Majestik Møøse]

So there's got to be a better way to sell this bonus pay problem.  Let's go with nice round numbers: to pay an extra $100k/year to 6900 pilots would cost a cool $690M. That's kind of a lot of money, but it's only about 0.69% of the Air Force's annual budget. Literally a drop in the bucket. Imperceptible. Budget dust. BUT! The non-flying officers and Chiefs would have a shit fit at the pay inequality ("No Comm No Bomb!", etc), and while they should be told, "When it costs $69M to produce a competent Finance Officer, I'll pay you more also," that doesn't work in the real world for troop morale. Those guys would be even more depressed and hate us even more.

This has to be approached as a financial benefit. I paid extra to outfit my house with LED bulbs (experienced pilots) because in the long run I save money on the time and effort spent on buying way more incandescents (new pilots) and - most significantly - save a shit-ton of money on electricity (upgrade training).

Pay $100k extra to keep your experienced pilots and save $Millions per pilot on backfill training for his/her replacement. For very simple math that only takes into account the cost of replacing your experienced guy with a new SNAP fresh from UPT, that 8 years worth of $100k bonus money would only pay for 69% of a new UPT grad. Add in the immeasurable costs of continuous upgrade training for that new guy, and the benefit is astronomical. Next consider the time lost by the experienced instructors to train new guys that could be used to refine TTPs - you get the picture.

This shit is easy, but I feel like there's a glass ceiling WRT mil pay. Congress - and our own mil leaders - just can't stomach the idea of having rich military guys. I think it's a jealousy thing rather than a level-headed financial one.

Edited August 27, 2017 by Majestik Møøse

[MDDieselPilot]

1 hour ago, DirtyFlightSuit said:

Until you address the countless useless deployment billets, and near certainty of filling a 365 no amount of money or QoL will matter much.  While most people I know are not completely dreading 6 month deployments, its the future of 2-3 of those on top of a year long that has them voting with their feet.  You can't be in a constant state of war for so long and expect people to be gun ho supporting of the fight any longer.  Especially with no end in sight.   The future is grim for service members, when I joined it already was a quagmire and now 12 years later zero has changed beyond it getting worse.  You can't sell retention off of that landscape beyond a few fence sitters. 

Yea, and with the news that we're making another push in afghanistan, there's no flipping way that deployed billets or ops tempo will go away.. I imagine all those suggestions we made for reducing deployments just got flushed.

On a different and likely highly unpopular note, I know this forum is largely full of disgruntled types and we all come here to b1tch about what's wrong.. but some of you guys may need to step back and think about something positive in your life. :D  We all just got an unscheduled pay bump and anyone but the most deluded dunce would know it wasn't going to be significant..  There's really no reason to piss and moan about it, IMO.  The NDAA was signed.. even if CSAF wanted to give us a million each, he's still tied by the budget.  Given the facts, I would say the only change I think I'd have made is to give earlier guys a larger bump (i.e., 6 yr guys would be much closer to 1k/mo) since those are the ones coming close to a decision point of get out/continue at 10 years.  Otherwise, each of us with a decent flying record is still basically set for life, barring any long term economic meltdown, and we're doing what we love.   I say all this as a guy who recently left one of the best flying locations in the AF for a "staff" job (in hopes of better promotion potential) that is quite pointless and borders on fraud, waste, and abuse and my 3yr old son lost one of his feet a few months ago..  Be thankful for the small things, they don't come often enough.

 

Ok.. back to complaining about coffee that isn't strong enough, a/c isn't cold enough, and hotel housekeeping didn't leave a mint in the right spot on our pillows.  :D

[carminsandiego]

not trying to make this about O vs E thing but why does E aircrew need a bump in flight pay?  I'd rather have that extra bit of cash going towards my crew chiefs who are getting screwed on a daily basis

[Breckey]

Because we're hurting for sweaties more than pilots (at least in helos). 

[DirtyFlightSuit]

It's also not about who works the hardest, because god knows that is not me.  It's about value and market conditions.  Right now the market conditions make Pilots very expensive if your going to retain them, and the AF has been enjoying a longer than normal period of time without that market condition in large part due to 9/11 postponing what was already happening back then.  It is also why I think that the only way the system changes is if people vote with their feet versus try to stay in and affect change from within.  

[Smokin]

10 hours ago, dream big said:

Ideally, everyone would be on the same (be good at your primary job aka flying) path until majors board at which point people would split off into a leadership v flying track.  The flying track would include only squadron level and some group level necessary flying jobs (OGV.).  These would be your WOs, ADOs and they would top out at 0-5 max and as DOs.

Leadership track would play the Air Force game and go to school, work staff and command.  I think there should be opportunities for flying track folks to jump over to the leadership track and those on the leadership track to jump over to the flying track when circumstances dictate.

Not sure I would go for it for 20 years but I would seriously think twice about staying in longer.  

A little off topic, but I'm not sure what you propose is any different than it is now.  Guys get selected for school out of their major's board are auto leadership track unless they decline (which you can do now without being a 7-day opt).  Others get picked up for school on later looks and join the leadership track.  Want to be on the flying track?  Don't go to school.  Done.

[ThreeHoler]

10 hours ago, dream big said:

Ideally, everyone would be on the same (be good at your primary job aka flying) path until majors board at which point people would split off into a leadership v flying track.  The flying track would include only squadron level and some group level necessary flying jobs (OGV.).  These would be your WOs, ADOs and they would top out at 0-5 max and as DOs.

Leadership track would play the Air Force game and go to school, work staff and command.  I think there should be opportunities for flying track folks to jump over to the leadership track and those on the leadership track to jump over to the flying track when circumstances dictate.

Not sure I would go for it for 20 years but I would seriously think twice about staying in longer.  

I was recently at a briefing by a HAF/A3 1-star where he stated the AF will never cave to the dual track because the pilot shortages are on the staff and they would exacerbate the shortage on staff if they made a fly only track.

[magnetfreezer]

1 hour ago, Smokin said:

Want to be on the flying track?  Don't go to school.  Done.

Until you get passed over for O-5 and non-continued (or even RIFed).

[Azimuth]

8 hours ago, carminsandiego said:

not trying to make this about O vs E thing but why does E aircrew need a bump in flight pay?  I'd rather have that extra bit of cash going towards my crew chiefs who are getting screwed on a daily basis

E's need to have their flight pay taper off as they progress through years of aviation service like O's do. Plenty of E-8's and E-9 flyers that fill staff and other non-flying billets and don't need to get that much leveled off flight pay.

[Azimuth]

2 hours ago, ThreeHoler said:

I was recently at a briefing by a HAF/A3 1-star where he stated the AF will never cave to the dual track because the pilot shortages are on the staff and they would exacerbate the shortage on staff if they made a fly only track.

Once they start cancelling missions due to lack of people, he's right.

[Duck]

11 hours ago, MDDieselPilot said:

...my 3yr old son lost one of his feet a few months ago..  Be thankful for the small things, they don't come often enough.

 

Puts things in perspective. Prayers for you all and the little man. 

[dream big]

20 hours ago, carminsandiego said:

not trying to make this about O vs E thing but why does E aircrew need a bump in flight pay?  I'd rather have that extra bit of cash going towards my crew chiefs who are getting screwed on a daily basis

It's supply and demand man.  Don't get me wrong, I 100% agree that our kick ass crew chiefs deserve a pay bump more than I..but at the end of the day it's not like Delta maintenance is on an unprecedented hiring boom threatening to steal all our experienced maintainers.

[dream big]

14 hours ago, Smokin said:

A little off topic, but I'm not sure what you propose is any different than it is now.  Guys get selected for school out of their major's board are auto leadership track unless they decline (which you can do now without being a 7-day opt).  Others get picked up for school on later looks and join the leadership track.  Want to be on the flying track?  Don't go to school.  Done.

There was (until this past majors board) a specified leadership track.  There has never been an official technical track.  It's 50/50 whether the major who turns down school and just wants to be a line flier gets to be that quintessential grey beard ADO with 4000 hours or the poor SOB that gets tagged with a non flying 365, passed over for 0-5 and shoved in a closet somewhere...

[carminsandiego]

9 hours ago, dream big said:

It's supply and demand man.  Don't get me wrong, I 100% agree that our kick ass crew chiefs deserve a pay bump more than I..but at the end of the day it's not like Delta maintenance is on an unprecedented hiring boom threatening to steal all our experienced maintainers.

but a crew chief (with a&p cert) is far more valuable in the civilian side than a boom operator or loadmaster...  isn't that the point of these incentive pay/bonuses? 

[pawnman]

On 8/27/2017 at 9:13 AM, dream big said:

Ideally, everyone would be on the same (be good at your primary job aka flying) path until majors board at which point people would split off into a leadership v flying track.  The flying track would include only squadron level and some group level necessary flying jobs (OGV.).  These would be your WOs, ADOs and they would top out at 0-5 max and as DOs.

Leadership track would play the Air Force game and go to school, work staff and command.  I think there should be opportunities for flying track folks to jump over to the leadership track and those on the leadership track to jump over to the flying track when circumstances dictate.

Not sure I would go for it for 20 years but I would seriously think twice about staying in longer.  

If people are jumping between tracks, what's the point of having the tracks?  

"While most people I know are not completely dreading 6 month deployments, its the future of 2-3 of those on top of a year long that has them voting with their feet.  You can't be in a constant state of war for so long and expect people to be gun ho supporting of the fight any longer."

Bingo.  I don't mind a six-month deployment, with a squadron, to actively fly and fight the war.  I really have zero motivation to spend a year in Afghanistan trying to teach goat-herders about the strategic uses of airpower.

Edited August 29, 2017 by pawnman

[pawnman]

On 8/27/2017 at 8:01 PM, ThreeHoler said:

I was recently at a briefing by a HAF/A3 1-star where he stated the AF will never cave to the dual track because the pilot shortages are on the staff and they would exacerbate the shortage on staff if they made a fly only track.

And yet, I was told I couldn't go to a staff that was begging for B-1 guys because of the RSAP and that our manning was too bad at the base to let anyone but the school selects PCS to a staff job.

[VMFA187]

On 8/27/2017 at 3:35 AM, 08Dawg said:

No.  At least guarantee O-4, if not O-5.  No way O-3 pay, even into the 15-20 year mark, is enough to keep guys around. Even if you're just flying airplanes, the airlines will pay you more to do the same thing and work fewer days. 

Depending on the platform that can be a completely different type of flying. It could be the last decade of my membership in the most effective propaganda machine since Nazi Germany, but many of my peers agree - We'd happily stay if we were flying 15 times a month doing CAS, DCAs, AIs, even remaining at O-3. Once or twice a week simply maintaining currency, that's why our guys are leaving.

[3PAARO]

3 hours ago, pawnman said:

And yet, I was told I couldn't go to a staff that was begging for B-1 guys because of the RSAP and that our manning was too bad at the base to let anyone but the school selects PCS to a staff job.

in 2013, the CAF DT asked the ACC/A3 point blank about instituting a flying-only career track...he proceeded to defecate all over the idea.."not in my Air Force!". It's in the transition from O-6 to O-7 that people lose their minds. 

[matmacwc]

On 8/27/2017 at 4:09 AM, the g-man said:

Yeah not a chance, 0-3 Pay tops at $6583.50 at the 14 year mark.  Even in a high-ish BAH area of $2400 thats still only getting you $107k per year.  Granted $28k of your income is non-taxable, but still.  The bonus would have to be >$60k and limit deployments to 90 days every other year for me to even consider something like that.

In retirement, 50% of your base pay wouldn't add up to much.

[the g-man]

9 hours ago, matmacwc said:

In retirement, 50% of your base pay wouldn't add up to much.

Forgot about that part.  Guess pilot retention is not solved.