Aviation Continuation Pay (ACP - The Bonus)

[General Chang]

Champ Kind,

Your leadership is in charge of ensuring attached guys fly an equitable amount of hours. As an O-3 IP in the squadron, your job is to fill in the occasional slack and trust your bosses to worry about any attached issues. If you are frustrated by this, why not approach your DO with your grievances?

[Champ Kind]

You are focusing on the wrong thing. I have no issue with line IPs flying their butts off. But you didn't answer my question as to whether the unit and the AF is getting their money's worth out of that IP filling a sq's instructor billet off the UMD "with duties" as a group exec and flying no more than twice a month. This relates directly to your assertion that manning in the MAF is more than adequate.

[sixpack]

Wings are assigned people based on UMD AFSCs. If a Wing pulls up a guy without a slot, they must be attached to the Wing, but they are still flying with the squadron. As a result, the squadron is still getting full use of the pilot in the aircraft. Hence, there is no overage (and most Wings have way more -11Ms than UMD billets). Again, manning is not an issue- your C-17 squadrons have more than enough pilots to do the mission you should be doing.

Full use??? Completely incorrect. When a pilot is lost to a job outside of their squadron their flying hours as a wag is about 20% of those in the squadron. The problem is many of these positions are required to have someone there at all times. Add that to all the pilots actually in the squadron that are training, OGV, execs, schedulers, DO, 10% on leave, SOS, PCO, IP school, etc. and you realistically have half of your stated strength numbers to hack the mission at any given time.

There were months on end in 2010, 2011 that the squadron was literally a ghost town... no more than the commander and his secretary, an exec, a scheduler to be found on a routine basis... Now take that thought and ask yourself how OPRs were done, how we prepared for multiple inspections, preparing for the next deployment, and making sure everyones currency and training is up to snuff with a sky high ops tempo. Squadrons were just hanging on to keep up with everything that needed to be done, and if there were any less people than what we had it would have been damn near impossible to do.

Now if that is considered overmanned I'd hate to see what manning is suppose to be given your thought process.

Edited June 30, 2013 by sixpack

[General Chang]

What isn't represented by this scenario is people "with duties at". I've spent the last two years in this nebulous scenario. My flying squadron commander is my commander but who I work for and am rated on by is not dependent on the flying squadron.

There is a definite distinction between attached and duties at...

Most squadrons have a few civilians for continuity and to overcome the few instances when attached personnel can't pull their weight on a particular week.

Not sure what the major complaint is here- we need certain officers to obtain specific mentoring (especially executive officers) in order to become tomorrow's senior leaders. Are you proposing that a line flyer without any staff training at the Gp/Wg/above level should be considered for DO and CC opportunities? I propose those individuals would be extremely one-dimensional in their approach to problem solving. There is a reason certain people who obtain certain experiences are granted future opportunities to lead, while others remain at the tactical level. We need both types to be successful.

[moosepileit]

GC = N/A on the S/A.

Thanks for the laughs.

Signed, 12 yr VSP guy, circa 1/07

[Rusty Pipes]

Wings are assigned people based on UMD AFSCs. If a Wing pulls up a guy without a slot, they must be attached to the Wing, but they are still flying with the squadron. As a result, the squadron is still getting full use of the pilot in the aircraft. Hence, there is no overage (and most Wings have way more -11Ms than UMD billets). Again, manning is not an issue- your C-17 squadrons have more than enough pilots to do the mission you should be doing.

Champ beat me to it, but Chang... you have absolutely no sense of reality whatsoever! If you think for a second that any Squadron is getting even half use out of any pilot working at the Group or Wing then may I suggest you take a trip to any C-17 Base and have a 10 minute conversation with the young LT scheduler and ask them how often the Gp or Wing Exec flies... or anyone not in the Sq that is on loan or attached for that matter. You do have a nice choice of words though... C-17s have enough pilots to do the mission they SHOULD be doing. Take a step out of your cubical and see what C-17s have been tasked at for the past 11 years. Way over what their manning is set at...

[sqwatch]

There is a reason certain people who obtain certain experiences are granted future opportunities to lead, while others remain at the tactical level.

Truth.

Standing by for the "everyone's a warrior/my buddy got screwed" crowd pile-ons.

[addict]

AMC has too many pilots..... moving around changing jobs. Flt/CC, Exec, IDE next, my 1 of 30. Flew 2 combat sorties this year - Huah - Lands on the right rwy 99% of the time! Ready for 2-dimensional leadership!

Edited June 30, 2013 by addict

[jazzdude]

Are you proposing that a line flyer without any staff training at the Gp/Wg/above level should be considered for DO and CC opportunities? I propose those individuals would be extremely one-dimensional in their approach to problem solving.

They most certainly should be considered. They would know the unit's mission, which is exactly what you need a Sq/CC to know. Let's not forget that a squadron is still, by its very definition, a TACTICAL level unit. Who better to lead a tactical unit than some one who is an expert at the tactical level? Heck, you can make the argument that even a Wing operates mostly at the tactical level. Being an exec, or working a staff position does not prepare you for being a leader. The Sq/CCs should be groomed from the leaders in the squadrons-for example, the flight commanders. That is where CGOs should be gaining the experience for commands-leading their flights, mentoring their subordinates, and accomplishing the flight's mission, not from being an exec pushing paperwork around.

Our leaders need to lead-they have a staff to execute their vision. You are right in saying we need both kinds of officers. Staff officers are good at just that-being staff, and handling the details of the plan set forth by the commander. Staff officers are important in the process, but we need officers who can lead-who sets the vision for the unit, focuses on the big picture, motivates and mentors their subordinates, and ultimately, leads the unit in accomplishing their mission.

Those line pilots without staff experience would not necessarily have a one dimensional approach to problem solving. After all, they would have an AAD.

This brings us back to the AAD discussion-as it is right now, the system encourages box checking, which leads to officers pursuing the easier degree they can, and not the degrees that would benefit their ability to think critically and use that outside view to improve how we as an Air Force operate. Its this reason that I believe AADs are held in such high regard (critical thinking ability), but most guys I talk to take the easiest program without a thesis requirement they can find, which ultimately defeats the purpose of encouraging post graduate studies for officers.

[theat6bisasham]

Stop talking to this guy...you are feeding his ego. You are making this nav on the staff feel inflated.

[General Chang]

Champ beat me to it, but Chang... you have absolutely no sense of reality whatsoever! If you think for a second that any Squadron is getting even half use out of any pilot working at the Group or Wing then may I suggest you take a trip to any C-17 Base and have a 10 minute conversation with the young LT scheduler and ask them how often the Gp or Wing Exec flies... or anyone not in the Sq that is on loan or attached for that matter. You do have a nice choice of words though... C-17s have enough pilots to do the mission they SHOULD be doing. Take a step out of your cubical and see what C-17s have been tasked at for the past 11 years. Way over what their manning is set at...

Rusty, you complain so much about the C-17 tempo, but then I offer the Grand Forks suggestion to moderate your family life, and you complain about that. You can't seem to believe anyone would enjoy UAVs, when many people appreciate the change of pace. You're not happy about the $0 bonus, but if you were included, I suspect you would complain about your bonus not being as much as a fighter pilot. If you were to get the fighter bonus, you would complain that you shouldn't have to sign a 9 year contract in which the Air Force has the upper hand.

I'll concede some of the points on this forum about "service" only going so far, but Rusty, you seem to be so jaded that you are 100% in it for yourself, and that is very, very toxic.

Edited June 30, 2013 by General Chang

[Champ Kind]

Keep BFMing around the question, and then go back to your circle and tote the party line.

I doubt you really are one, but you really have the M.O. of our upper management.

[Azimuth]

Wings are assigned people based on UMD AFSCs. If a Wing pulls up a guy without a slot, they must be attached to the Wing, but they are still flying with the squadron. As a result, the squadron is still getting full use of the pilot in the aircraft. Hence, there is no overage (and most Wings have way more -11Ms than UMD billets). Again, manning is not an issue- your C-17 squadrons have more than enough pilots to do the mission you should be doing.

So "full use" is a guy who can't fly but more than 1-2 times a month due to his OG/OSS/Wg job? Please.

[Prozac]

Wings are assigned people based on UMD AFSCs. If a Wing pulls up a guy without a slot, they must be attached to the Wing, but they are still flying with the squadron. As a result, the squadron is still getting full use of the pilot in the aircraft. Hence, there is no overage (and most Wings have way more -11Ms than UMD billets). Again, manning is not an issue- your C-17 squadrons have more than enough pilots to do the mission you should be doing.

You make my point. The numbers are skewed. If A1 really wants to have a clue, you all need to take a good hard look at how you derive your data. Get out and talk to the people at the Sq level. You're proving to all of us that you can't really get a bead on this from an office in the Pentagon. The Capts and Majs can see the issue because they're in the thick of it. I get that they don't have the "big picture" but if you'd tap in to their viewpoint a little more, you might be surprised at the way things start to look.

[Notch]

Let the troll die...

[Vprdrvr69]

Funnier thing about the bonus was that 'back in the day' (before the early-2000's that you speak of) the max amount you could get was 12K...back then there was also a feet on the ramp policy. There was also a TAFMSD restriction that did not allow it to be offered to 'late-rated' guys...funny how the pendulum swings back and forth.

Ironically, our stats, take-rates, and policies are starting to mirror the trend the took hold in the mis to late 90's. How was retention then? The pendulum swings...

[backseatdriver]

Most squadrons have a few civilians for continuity....

They do?

[NKAWTG]

At the risk of defending GC, your Wing king is allocated only X amount of personnel for the base. How he allocates the resources between getting the mission done, managing the queep, and developing his folks is his responsibility. I've seen it done OK, and I've seen it done very very poorly. If your wing king thinks he needs a DS, 3 execs and a secretary to manage the queep, so be it, but it comes at a cost of shorting the squadrons. Anything above the UMD comes from somewhere, because it's always a zero sum game.

If he lets some dude slide from staff job to staff job and doesn't make it equitable with the guys humping the mission, then it's a leadership problem. That's what GC is referring to. But it's a leadership problem he'll never be judged on.

From the Wing king's perspective, he wants to pass the ORIs, not have any accidents, not have to deal with DUIs or sexual assault cases, and pretty much all the other risk adverse things you can think of. So he'll factor that in when he allocates people to the XP shop for 2 straight years. Balancing mission and people is great talking point, but only can get you fired if you screw it up.

[Jaded]

Yes, a few will still get out, but $100K+ per year pay until retirement, free medical for the entire family, guaranteed retirement at O-5 of $52K+ per year and climbing, AND $225K signing bonus with $112.5K up front?

Guaranteed for 80+% (75% in the zone, 5+% BPZ)

So 80% is synonymous with "guarantee"? I'm actually starting to believe that you're from AFPC.

[Maul]

GC,

Truce. No need to be "coddled" as you stated in the other forum. Most of what you have to say sounds like legitimate cold truth which is good to hear every now and then. Cynacism helps us cope.

As previously stated "one of the bros" is not = "great leader" = is not = "box checker" is not = "great pilot".

Lot's of confussion separating "good pilot" = "great leader" for many.

w/o getting too much into my previous post, those who are passionate about aviation understandably are not unbelievably stoked about moving to staff, embedded email drafts, .xls, TMT, and the vast array of staff queep which awaits them. Hopefully you can appreciate this whatever your background may be.

Point I tried to make earlier in my other thread was I completely understand the USAF wants the guy who is a great pilot w/ tactical expertise and experience AND a great leader w/ the right skills/experience to be a valuable asset and sometimes the officer truly gets something useful out of their AAD because they put a lot into it and sometimes they min run what they have to IOT get by w/ their ops tempo. I meant what I said where I was extremely fortunate for leadership who recognized my tactical record over my breadth record (AAD) and went to bat for me. I know in another command, I wouldn't have had that opportunity and I don't think that is the correct environment to foster leaders who want to be tactical experts first before moving on to operational and strategic environments where the breadth (AAD) is needed more. We may disagree on this and is likely due to our different experiences (i.e. I got lucky (sts) and you may likely have acquired your AAD early in your career and felt it was beneficial at a tactical level and signalled to Big Blue you were in it to win it).

The scary reality is although we hope for things to wind down and be better for the "bros in the trenches" when this whole OEF things wind down, my initial thoughts point to something more scary where sequestration barely scratches the surface.

A larger portion of the american public is largely disconnected with the military and struggles to see the value w/ no "tangible" opponent. Mix this with a time of accountabiilty for spending, a congress which purchases Global Hawks, C-130Js, F-35s, possibly F-22s the USAF hasn't asked for and has told congress such spending hurts the service, and you have a high probability of increased manning cuts/reductions in compensation. Instead of complaining about the bonus and promotion, the reality will be a genuine concern for job security. Couple this with a tactical bubba who has been "outta sight-outta mind" due to the amount of deployments and we have another situation where we screw over the guy who has probably sacrificed more for God and Country. Yup, couple a deployments are great for paper, but sadly after that, "gee, thanks for your service, sorry your records don't have breadth" is a huge disservice when hopefully most of our guys deploying are doing so in hopes of making a contribution (although this also may not be the case when QOL gone is better than QOL at home).

On another note: Totally agree WRT the epic hiring boom like no other happening soon. I have plenty of friends w/ apps in and their phones are not ringing off the hook. Not too big on the conspiracy theory, but I can buy airlines/media spinning the facts slightly w/ the hopes the FAA would back off on the 1500Hr rule and before anyone else goes there, I have been looking at the airline retirement estimates....religously. Do I think more hiring will happen in coming years?, absolutely. Many will be filled by the throngs of RJ drivers hoping to get a better paycheck w/ more hours than their military counterpart who has stopped flying due to budget issues. Plenty of military will be hired as well, but not enough to hurt the AF's feelings. Why? Because the USAF is an institution and doesn't have feelings. We occasionally have leaders who care deeply about the people their decisions affect, but they also have bosses, who have bosses, who have elected officials (american taxpayer) / extremely powerful lobbies making the final decisions when it comes to how much money is left to give to the guy in the trenches.

Edit: Grammer

Edited June 30, 2013 by Maul

[Lord Ratner]

GC,

Take this advice from a captain for what it's worth (nothing):

1. Read joe1234's post a few times. It doesn't matter what the truth is (which you are sharing, and trust me, many people here are glad to finally see the other side's view, even if we still disagree), you still support those below you where you can. Since you can't save their careers (people have to go, not everyone gets a bonus, etc etc), you can still empathize and support. A doctor may know the patient is dying due to terrible life choices, but he doesn't tell him that on his death bed. If I'm being unclear, stop telling dudes here they should just be happy, or to hold out their hat and take what they can get, or to stop putting their own "selfish" interests ahead of the AF. Leave that to their peers and mentors. I'm sure you already know this and have applied it with your subordinates, but since you came here as an unofficial representative of the AF leadership, maybe it would be appropriate to apply it here as well.

2. Living by the numbers, as you have made clear is your job, is only valid if the numbers aren't garbage. Corporations spend millions on numbers-people who are tasked to break every minute aspect of operations and personnel into a formula. But they don't get paid to ignore the numbers that "shouldn't" be there. Saying the C-17 world has enough people to do the job it "should" be doing is great, but a real numbers guy would follow that up with "but they are doing more, so here are the statistics based on the current reality."

The AF (government) has always been hell-bent on running the numbers, but they always fail because they only look at the numbers they'd like to see. Has anyone ever seem a manning percentage that made sense, high or low? Guess what, if you have been running a squadron for 15 years at 69% manning, and you never have or will make an attempt to fix it, that's now 100%. If C-17 GP and WG execs "should" be flying their fair share like the line pilots, but are only flying a fifth, or tenth of the sorties the line flyers fill, well that's the new real number. And before you tell me the AF hasn't failed, throwing billions at the problem after the fact to make it go away (F22, F35, retention, OEF, OIF, etc) is failing. No normal corporation would survive that. Should the AF be a corporation? No, but call a spade a spade: the AF and government at large fails with numbers, and often because of many of the things you are saying here.

I truly appreciate you coming out here and sharing with everyone the thoughts and opinions of the Pentagon. I hope the people here will restrain themselves from scaring people like you away from posting, despite their often-justified rage, so that BO can remain more than a place to bitch.

[Guest ThatGuy]

They most certainly should be considered. They would know the unit's mission, which is exactly what you need a Sq/CC to know. Let's not forget that a squadron is still, by its very definition, a TACTICAL level unit. Who better to lead a tactical unit than some one who is an expert at the tactical level? Heck, you can make the argument that even a Wing operates mostly at the tactical level. Being an exec, or working a staff position does not prepare you for being a leader. The Sq/CCs should be groomed from the leaders in the squadrons-for example, the flight commanders. That is where CGOs should be gaining the experience for commands-leading their flights, mentoring their subordinates, and accomplishing the flight's mission, not from being an exec pushing paperwork around.

Our leaders need to lead-they have a staff to execute their vision. You are right in saying we need both kinds of officers. Staff officers are good at just that-being staff, and handling the details of the plan set forth by the commander. Staff officers are important in the process, but we need officers who can lead-who sets the vision for the unit, focuses on the big picture, motivates and mentors their subordinates, and ultimately, leads the unit in accomplishing their mission.

Those line pilots without staff experience would not necessarily have a one dimensional approach to problem solving. After all, they would have an AAD.

This brings us back to the AAD discussion-as it is right now, the system encourages box checking, which leads to officers pursuing the easier degree they can, and not the degrees that would benefit their ability to think critically and use that outside view to improve how we as an Air Force operate. Its this reason that I believe AADs are held in such high regard (critical thinking ability), but most guys I talk to take the easiest program without a thesis requirement they can find, which ultimately defeats the purpose of encouraging post graduate studies for officers.

Being a flight commander is nothing like being a SQ/CC. If your analogy was correct then you can take any SNCO or NCO who has led a flight and argue they can step into the billet as a CC. I can tell you most people have no clue what it takes to stand up two squadrons downrange and then stand up an FTU stateside. No clue at the level of involvement a CC must have on a daily basis. What my CC must do does not even come close to what I did as a Flt/CC downrange. It's easy for people to make assertions when they are not filling the shoes of a CC.

I differ with your view regarding having to do a thesis. That's like saying your not going to be a good pilot because you didn't go to ENJJPT. I never took the SAT or ACT and I still attended college and graduated without any problems. There is no one way to achieve success in the Air Force. Your comments are those of someone who sounds pissed off. I don't know about you but I like having choices and not having to live in a box. Two totally different perspectives on the same subjects. My mentorship was different than your mentorship that's why our perspectives do not match.

Edited June 30, 2013 by slick999

[AnimalMother]

Absolutely agree. Coming out, saying "Guys, we screwed up, I'm sorry" would have been at least a ground-rule double. Getting the process right in the first place would have been the homerun.

True. So why is it so hard for leadership to be honest with us? I have significantly more respect for dudes who shoot straight rather than try to church shit up all the time. "Hey guys, Cannon is a fantastic place!" "Nope, we didn't pull any shady shit with the VSP, you guys misunderstood our intent". "We chose Cannon for the great weather and fantastic range space, shady ass politics and money grubbing had nothing to do with it." Ugh, the list goes on. As someone mentioned before, what happened to the integrity that I was brought up on? cuz it sure as shit doesn't exist in the political side of the Air Force.

[TheInner]

Maul, great post. jazzdude, I agree with some of your points but would argue that at least an understanding of staff queep is important of a squadron commander to have. A solid tactical baseline can never be discounted. It is obviously critical as an operator and the perspective that is gained is important as officers climb the chain, especially when filling billets outside of a flying squadron. I recently had a discussion with a full up tactical fighter pilot who is an OG/CC of a very large group and still on his way up the ladder. All around good dude, much more of a tactical background than an exec/intern/school background. He told me that the commanders that gave him the greatest mentoring challenge were the ones who hadn't really spent any time outside of the squadron because they lacked even just a sneak peek of the bigger picture. These commanders basically just acted like the oldest/most experienced guys in the squadron which created more work for everyone. The next step up is a commander who is a good manager. This dude says all the right things, filters some of the queep from the bros but still results in a bunch of work because ultimately the commander micro manages or reaccomplishes the work being done for him. The best answer is obviously a good leader. This person can empower the guys in his squadron by allowing them to run with things while providing course corrections and making sure everything is properly routed (nothing an O-6 hates more than finding out about something from his boss, and not just for CYA reasons) while providing top cover when required. A DO and weapons officer can handle the upgrades/training/hours to keep the squadron tactical and as long as the boss can hold his own or at least not bring up a tactic from the 3-1 when he went through MQT that would be good.

[TnkrToad]

GC (can’t bring myself to call you general, given that from your posts I figure you’re at best an O-5) . . . To bring us back from the thread derail (aren’t we supposed to be taking ACP/ARP?), here are numbers questions (you purport to be a numbers guy—take the emotion out of it, blah, blah, blah) that you have thus far failed to answer:

- Given the numbers of pilots the Majors are projected to hire over the next several years, the small number of mil pilots available to meet that demand, and the shrinking number of civilian pilots that’ll be willing to shell out the cash needed just to get the required ATP for a regional job . . . how are your predictions of record retention numerically supportable?

- How in any way does your discussion of there being a “glut” of 16-18 yrs of service officers (’95-’97 commissioning groups) square with the fact that these same year groups all part of the “pilot bathtub”—read under-production—of pilots in the late 90s? Do you have any numbers to support your claim of a glut?

- Specifically, why are there more 11Fs than 11Ms with 18 years commissioned service right now, if there’s such a glut of 11Ms?

- How were the 11H and 11S communities—which were manned at 76% or less (10%+ worse off than the 11F community) about 1.5 years ago—able to magically fix themselves so quickly?

- If the above two communities have gotten healthy all of a sudden, why is Big Blue not using them as models for rebuilding the 11F force?

- Given the glut of rated bodies on AD, what are the projected numbers of pilots that would seek to Palace Chase . . . and as asked before why are they not being encouraged to do so?

- Will 40% and below ARP take rates (such as were seen in the late 90s—last big hiring spree) be sustainable when we see them again in the next few years?

If you can provide rational, numerically supportable arguments for any of the above, you might have some credibility. Otherwise, I’d recommend that those on this forum dismiss you as a propagandist that is unfortunately feeding at best incomplete info to senior leaders who are thus making misguided personnel decisions that are degrading our force.