Aviation Continuation Pay (ACP - The Bonus)

[rtgators]

TnkrToad,

Why are you so angry? Majority of the 900+ folks are eligible based off of the expiration of their UFT commitment. Some others based off of their YAS. I'm not sure i have anything to do with what flavor of rated has expiring UFT ADSCs.

Edited August 29, 2014 by rtgators

[Karl Hungus]

TnkrToad,

Why are you so angry? Majority of the 900+ folks are eligible based off of the expiration of their UFT commitment. Some others based off of their YAS. I'm not sure i have anything to do with what flavor of rated has expiring UFT ADSCs.

Very nice non-answer. Why so few McConnell eligibles? I'd hope that AFPC would have a reason. If not, that speaks volumes.

In addition, will you be back here to share AFPC's thoughts on the take rate at the end of the fiscal year?

No anger at all, just curious.

[rtgators]

The pilots at McConnell would have to tell you why only 3 show up. AFPC inputs the yearly program policy eligible and ineligible variables into a database and the system kicks out names of who is eligible. Typically that list includes approx 850 pilots. Maybe some are still on a UPT ADSC or exceed TAFMS limits or didn't commit last year, etc.

I'll be here in Oct as long as the conversation is constructive. I'm close to the process and just want to let folks discuss and debate with the correct info...basically dispel rumors.

[Jaded]

When will the FY14 retention report come out? Early Oct? Late Oct? I think it's always an interesting read.

[tac airlifter]

My ARP request just shows submitted status but it's been over 30 days. Any idea what this means?

[TnkrToad]

The pilots at McConnell would have to tell you why only 3 show up. AFPC inputs the yearly program policy eligible and ineligible variables into a database and the system kicks out names of who is eligible. Typically that list includes approx 850 pilots. Maybe some are still on a UPT ADSC or exceed TAFMS limits or didn't commit last year, etc.

I'll be here in Oct as long as the conversation is constructive. I'm close to the process and just want to let folks discuss and debate with the correct info...basically dispel rumors.

Dude,

I'm not angry. If you're General Chang operating under a different pseudonym, I'd be unimpressed . . . but that's a different matter. I'm trying to point out what seems to be a logical inconsistency, and since you claim to be close to the process, I'm asking you to help me understand--and I think it would help others on the forum, too:

- The point of the ACP program, as I understand it, is to properly balance the force--by MWS. That makes good sense to me

- The data points, as I understand them, indicate that the heavy community--or at the very least the tanker community--is looking pretty numerically unhealthy. That makes me concerned

- In consideration of a hiring boom, in which it would seem to me that heavy drivers will more easily be able to secure Guard/Reserve jobs and/or airline gigs if they separate, it seems heavy guys should be even more incentivized to stay in

- Given the above, I would expect to see the ACP program offering added incentives for heavy drivers to stay in . . . but the actual program seems to indicate the opposite: from the data points I already noted, the seemingly healthier Viper community (with 117 eligibles this go-around) is being offered added incentives to stay in, while the seemingly anemic tanker community (with 77 eligibles) gets no such consideration. This I just don't get

Any constructive insight you have to offer will be very much appreciated. I'm obviously more concerned about the tanker community, and curious about the relative health of the year group that's eligible this year, but any factual insight you can offer will be very much appreciated.

Cheers,

TT

[ViperStud]

- The data points, as I understand them, indicate that the heavy community--or at the very least the tanker community--is looking pretty numerically unhealthy. That makes me concerned

- In consideration of a hiring boom, in which it would seem to me that heavy drivers will more easily be able to secure Guard/Reserve jobs and/or airline gigs if they separate, it seems heavy guys should be even more incentivized to stay in

TT

I think you went 0/2 on assumptions. Staff dude please chime in if you have numbers, but to assess health of a force based on # of eligibles is a huge extrapolation. I would submit that the tanker community is healthier than the fighter (particularly one I know, f-16) community based on several points:

- We've closed about 1/4 of FTU capacity (Luke, Tyndall, etc) via BRAC the past ~5 years, which created part of our recent manning shortfall. We've gone to measures such as:

-- Filling fighter staff billets with AMC bubbas, or left vacant

-- sending no-shit zero fighter guys to the T-6.

-- I've personally seen 5 Viper guys have orders changed from T-38s to a Viper assignment while either at PIT or about to PCS.

-- as recently as last year told we're 700-1000 11F bodies short to fill billets

- No fighter guys I know with the requisite hours are having too much trouble getting hired by airlines. In the past 6 mons I've seen guys dropping Southwest, Delta, American and United.

- Why were 11Fs completely in ineligible for force shaping & VSP? My heavy bros are getting paid a nice chunk of chance to do what fighter guys are doing for free - separating.

- I personally was moved up 4 VMLs to return from current white jet tour and get an assignment back to the Viper, the message went out AETC-wide asking who wanted back early because of manning issues in the CAF.

I admittedly don't know as much about the tanker force, but saying it's hurting compared to fighter communities based on # of eligibles and not the above info is not looking at the big picture.

[rtgators]

I wrote the following up yesterday to someome that PM'd me and I think it may help. Bottom line is the program overall looks at total inventory vs required inventory (requirements) to meet the budgeted mission that is submitted to Congress.. The gap between the two is greatest when it comes to fighters.

The program is dialed up (longer contract years, up-front money, uncommitted category, no TAFMS restriction, etc) when retention is low and or we have a large inventory/requirement gap. In the case of fighters it is not so much a retention problem but and absorption problem. The past few years airline hiring hasn't quite happened, retention has been ok, and the operational requirement (FY authorizations and budget) has lowered, and a majority of Rated personnel were allowed to participate in Voluntary Force Management programs. Since the program is changed yearly based on current conditions, some of those items I mentioned above like TAFMS, uncommitted category, etc would be utilized to try and retain folks. It pretty much comes down to: does the inventory match the budgeted requirement. Hope this helps some.

[TnkrToad]

I admittedly don't know as much about the tanker force, but saying it's hurting compared to fighter communities based on # of eligibles and not the above info is not looking at the big picture.

You might be surprised to read that we're in violent agreement in many respects--but I think there's a fundamental misunderstanding. I don't have a whiteboard with lots of colored markers, so I'll try to explain with words--and I think I can tie it into the toxic leadership thread while doing so. I will use the tanker bubbas to illustrate the point, but you can apply the overall argument to examine other communities:

- The fighter community is hurting overall and the heavy community not so much--overall. We agree here.

-- Raw numbers-wise, I'd assume the tanker community is healthy (but I'm not at a flying base right now and likewise don't have access to the Red Line/Blue Line charts at HAF A1M that show overall inventory)

- The ACP program seeks to manage overall manning by only affecting one year group at a time (those reaching the end of their SUPT commitments in a given FY)

- The question is, how is this going to play out for the current group of eligibles--and those who will later have to work for them?

- Here we go, then:

-- Small year group of tanker eligibles this year, of which surprisingly few are to be found at tanker bases

--- Small overall number is presumably due to mismanagement of force shaping programs, since Big Blue was pumping out plenty of tanker dudes 10 years ago or so

--- Small number at tanker bases is likely due to what you described--they've been farmed out all over the Air Force (and a small number are in IDE/other places for bright and shiny types) to compensate for overall shortages in other pilot communities

Extrapolate this small number of tanker bubbas (77 eligibles this year) out over the next 8-10 years or so:

- A third--but likely more--separate and go to the airlines, leaving 50ish

- 15% or so don't make Lt Col--bringing the number (optimistically) that stay in 'til 20 yrs active service down to perhaps 45

- Half of those guys elect to retire at or shortly after the 20 yr point (airlines are still hiring)--maybe 22 left from that whole original year group even meet the O-6 board

- Half of those guys get passed over for O-6, leaving maybe 12 to fill O-6 and above leadership positions--not to mention staff billets, PhD instructors at USAFA/AWC/SAASS, etc.

-- Limited choices rarely lead to great results

You can quibble over the numbers a little bit, but this is why I am concerned about tanker manning

Given that many of these guys will have spent much of their careers outside of the tanker community--after all, the fighter, AFSOC, etc. communities are too thin overall--the tanker community ends up with leaders who either:

- Are great guys who manage to stay in despite being overworked, and somehow make the cuts for promotion and command

-- There are a number of guys in this category, but they won't comprise the majority of the 12 "survivors"--and even if they did there still wouldn't be enough to go around

- Nominally hail from our community, but haven't seen a tanker in XX years, because they've spent their lives in school and staff

-- There is a disproportionately high number of folks in this category

- Come from another tribe (other heavy community, or worse bombers or fighters) and wreak havoc due to their ignorance/arrogance--because folks at HAF A1M and AFPC were too busy looking at the forest to see that the trees were dying

-- I'm obviously not a Herc dude, but is it possible that this is how Rat became the leader he is--because Force Management policy gave us no one else?

Seems to me that the ACP program could be used to try to mitigate these concerns, by focusing on actual manning/undermanning on a true per-year-group basis. That didn't happen this year or for next fiscal year, which is unfortunate to say the least.

Make sense? Big picture enough?

Rant off.

[ViperStud]

Very much so. I misunderstood your initial intent. Kind of like my NPV discussion earlier - lots of assumptions on there but I get it. Over time though I believe the problem works itself out because when dudes see thin year groups around them they will likely benefit from higher promotion rates and chances to lead, big fish in a small pond theory. This is why I think the AF will always be OK as far as bodies are concerned: the more that get out, the better the opportunities for those that stay in, which will entice some to stay.

I'm skeptical about AFPC's ability to adapt to moving targets on a year-to-year basis with the bonus. Look at the misinformation and confusion surrounding the last two rounds of force mismanagement. Not exactly awe inspiring. Even if they could pull it off it would create situations where dudes in the same squadron are on potentially very different compensation packages. That's less than ideal - creates a haves & have-nots club.

Still in the end though I just don't think the bonus does what it aims to do. Most people taking it wanted to stay in anyway and I've yet to see one person here post that the bonus is what convinced them to stay in. Therefore, I doubt how effective a more targeted bonus that you propose would really be, even if AFPC could magically target the right group each year.

Edited August 30, 2014 by ViperStud

[sqwatch]

You might be surprised to read that we're in violent agreement in many respects--but I think there's a fundamental misunderstanding. I don't have a whiteboard with lots of colored markers, so I'll try to explain with words--and I think I can tie it into the toxic leadership thread while doing so. I will use the tanker bubbas to illustrate the point, but you can apply the overall argument to examine other communities:

- The fighter community is hurting overall and the heavy community not so much--overall. We agree here.

-- Raw numbers-wise, I'd assume the tanker community is healthy (but I'm not at a flying base right now and likewise don't have access to the Red Line/Blue Line charts at HAF A1M that show overall inventory)

- The ACP program seeks to manage overall manning by only affecting one year group at a time (those reaching the end of their SUPT commitments in a given FY)

- The question is, how is this going to play out for the current group of eligibles--and those who will later have to work for them?

- Here we go, then:

-- Small year group of tanker eligibles this year, of which surprisingly few are to be found at tanker bases

--- Small overall number is presumably due to mismanagement of force shaping programs, since Big Blue was pumping out plenty of tanker dudes 10 years ago or so

--- Small number at tanker bases is likely due to what you described--they've been farmed out all over the Air Force (and a small number are in IDE/other places for bright and shiny types) to compensate for overall shortages in other pilot communities

Extrapolate this small number of tanker bubbas (77 eligibles this year) out over the next 8-10 years or so:

- A third--but likely more--separate and go to the airlines, leaving 50ish

- 15% or so don't make Lt Col--bringing the number (optimistically) that stay in 'til 20 yrs active service down to perhaps 45

- Half of those guys elect to retire at or shortly after the 20 yr point (airlines are still hiring)--maybe 22 left from that whole original year group even meet the O-6 board

- Half of those guys get passed over for O-6, leaving maybe 12 to fill O-6 and above leadership positions--not to mention staff billets, PhD instructors at USAFA/AWC/SAASS, etc.

-- Limited choices rarely lead to great results

You can quibble over the numbers a little bit, but this is why I am concerned about tanker manning

Given that many of these guys will have spent much of their careers outside of the tanker community--after all, the fighter, AFSOC, etc. communities are too thin overall--the tanker community ends up with leaders who either:

- Are great guys who manage to stay in despite being overworked, and somehow make the cuts for promotion and command

-- There are a number of guys in this category, but they won't comprise the majority of the 12 "survivors"--and even if they did there still wouldn't be enough to go around

- Nominally hail from our community, but haven't seen a tanker in XX years, because they've spent their lives in school and staff

-- There is a disproportionately high number of folks in this category

- Come from another tribe (other heavy community, or worse bombers or fighters) and wreak havoc due to their ignorance/arrogance--because folks at HAF A1M and AFPC were too busy looking at the forest to see that the trees were dying

-- I'm obviously not a Herc dude, but is it possible that this is how Rat became the leader he is--because Force Management policy gave us no one else?

Seems to me that the ACP program could be used to try to mitigate these concerns, by focusing on actual manning/undermanning on a true per-year-group basis. That didn't happen this year or for next fiscal year, which is unfortunate to say the least.

Make sense? Big picture enough?

Rant off.

[General Condition]

The past few years airline hiring hasn't quite happened . . .

Do you really believe this? If so, you need to pull your head out of your ass. You also need to tell the O-6s and GOs that you work for to stop drinking their Blue Kool-Aid. I can rattle off a long list of dudes that have been hired in the last 6-9 months. I'm sure that many rated types on this forum can do the same.

Your attitude/belief scares me. You sound like you have a high potential for future AF leadesrship though with your ultra-reliance on numbers and .ppt presentations. Do yourself a favor, read the forums on airlinepilotcentral.com. Talk to some airline pilots. Even better, call up some HR folks at the majors and ask them for yourself. I doubt you'll do that though. You'll continue to believe what the O-6 tells you. Just remember, that's the same O-6 who's never worked outside of the AD AF.

To those of you on this forum who think that separating after ~10 years of AD service and going to an airline is a break-even point for career earnings, you're wrong. I strongly suggest you talk to some folks who fly for an airline. Using the approximated wages on APC is a horrible way of figuring your annual salary. You're also forgetting B-Plan/401K contributions.

For those that want to stay in and fly for the USAF until they're forced out/retired, I highly respect that. But, don't tell me it's not about money while under the same breath talking about retirement/GI-Bill benefits. I believe in the end that it all comes down to financial security for you and your family. At some point, the AF will send you on your way. Then what? Do you want to be 42-45 years old starting over, or do you want to be a Captain at 42-45 years old making 2-3 times as much as the newly retired military guy sitting in the right seat for his first time?

[TnkrToad]

Still in the end though I just don't think the bonus does what it aims to do. Most people taking it wanted to stay in anyway and I've yet to see one person here post that the bonus is what convinced them to stay in. Therefore, I doubt how effective a more targeted bonus that you propose would really be, even if AFPC could magically target the right group each year.

I think you're right--in my opinion, a more-targeted bonus by itself wouldn't help. Multiple better-targeted milestones might do the trick. Seems to me if board instructions were written to effectively shape the Air Force toward what it really needs, a more optimal mix could (would?) result over time. Consider the opportunities to shape the AFSC mix in the force:

- O-4 promotion

- IDE selection

- ACP program

- O-5 promotion

- Command selection

- SDE selection

Seems like the ACP program (and perhaps command selection boards, but by that point it's probably too late) is the only one that intentionally shapes the AFSC mix in the pilot community--and as discussed, it probably doesn't do it specifically enough. I'm not a personnelist, but it's pretty clear to me what we're doing right now ain't working.

ImageUploadedByTapatalk1409407217.345747.jpg

Well played

[rtgators]

Do you really believe this? If so, you need to pull your head out of your ass.

I said the past few years...not this year. I agree that we are seeing an uptick in hiring and will continue to for the foreseeable future. The ARP is an annual program and will be adjusted as needed. It's not the end all to be all but it's better than not having any program at all. This link is pretty good and shows that major airline hiring has been pretty non-existent from 09 thru 13. https://fapa.aero/hiringhistory.asp

[General Condition]

I said the past few years...not this year. I agree that we are seeing an uptick in hiring and will continue to for the foreseeable future. The ARP is an annual program and will be adjusted as needed. It's not the end all to be all but it's better than not having any program at all. This link is pretty good and shows that major airline hiring has been pretty non-existent from 09 thru 13. https://fapa.aero/hiringhistory.asp

Here you go spouting off the same crap that your bosses keep telling you. The fact that you're using that chart to demonstrate how "hiring has been pretty non-existent from 09 -13" clearly shows how little you know. Let me throw some numbers at you: 60-65 and 07-12. Do those numbers mean anything to you?

Your program isn't the only thing that's going to need to change if you want the USAF to be able to prosecute a war in the future. Your attitude and ignorance, as well as that of your other cohorts in the Ivory Tower needs to change. Money can only solve so much. I'm sure I'm not the first to admit that the pay sans bonus is still pretty damn good to go fly airplanes. It's all the other crap that makes people want to leave. If the senior leadership wants to say that that crap is what being an officer is all about, then I suggest they take a strong look at the current crop of bright and shiny "officers" that will be "leading" the force in the near future. They're a bunch of shoe clerks who did just about everything they could to dodge deployments and crappy assignments - all while their peers got min time at home between deployments only to be sent on a remote, then passed over because they didn't do their PME/AAD/Volunteer work soon enough.

Why is it that Gen Welsh was the ONLY GO that people thought was fit for CSAF? I like the guy and I think he's doing a good job, especially considering the multiple layers of BS bureaucracy between him and the folks on the line. But, there should have been dozens of GOs that were fit for that job. Why is it that we can rattle off name after name of GOs (who's names shall actully not be spoken) that were utterly worthless leaders and men of disgusting character? That's because the promotion system is broken and it's going to continually get worse as this crop further poisons the well.

[Danny Noonin]

Dude, stop being such a douchebag. Before this year, the airlines had not hired much since about '08. That's pure fact, jack. That's also exactly what the dude said and yet you label him as some sort of koolaid drinker for saying it. Get a grip.

[WheelzUp]

Here you go spouting off the same crap that your bosses keep telling you. The fact that you're using that chart to demonstrate how "hiring has been pretty non-existent from 09 -13" clearly shows how little you know. Let me throw some numbers at you: 60-65 and 07-12. Do those numbers mean anything to you?

Your program isn't the only thing that's going to need to change if you want the USAF to be able to prosecute a war in the future. Your attitude and ignorance, as well as that of your other cohorts in the Ivory Tower needs to change. Money can only solve so much. I'm sure I'm not the first to admit that the pay sans bonus is still pretty damn good to go fly airplanes. It's all the other crap that makes people want to leave. If the senior leadership wants to say that that crap is what being an officer is all about, then I suggest they take a strong look at the current crop of bright and shiny "officers" that will be "leading" the force in the near future. They're a bunch of shoe clerks who did just about everything they could to dodge deployments and crappy assignments - all while their peers got min time at home between deployments only to be sent on a remote, then passed over because they didn't do their PME/AAD/Volunteer work soon enough.

Why is it that Gen Welsh was the ONLY GO that people thought was fit for CSAF? I like the guy and I think he's doing a good job, especially considering the multiple layers of BS bureaucracy between him and the folks on the line. But, there should have been dozens of GOs that were fit for that job. Why is it that we can rattle off name after name of GOs (who's names shall actully not be spoken) that were utterly worthless leaders and men of disgusting character? That's because the promotion system is broken and it's going to continually get worse as this crop further poisons the well.

You're right. But as long as dudes are unwilling to ascend the ranks and attempt to make meaningful change, we will always suffer. Sometimes it takes doing what's difficult and selfless. Kool-aid drinkin jokes aside, you know there is truth there. It's in our nature to be divas and take the easy path. These days, fewer and fewer are willing to try and repair the AF, and it sucks, a lot.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TnkrToad]

I said the past few years...not this year. I agree that we are seeing an uptick in hiring and will continue to for the foreseeable future. The ARP is an annual program and will be adjusted as needed. It's not the end all to be all but it's better than not having any program at all. This link is pretty good and shows that major airline hiring has been pretty non-existent from 09 thru 13. https://fapa.aero/hiringhistory.asp

What I'm hearing from this is that Big Blue (and in particular HAF A1M) is choosing to be reactive rather than proactive. I don't think we have enough time to let this play out. From the example I tried to lay out earlier (when I say "you" below, I mean A1M, which presumably you belong to):

Before you even built the current & next FY's ACP programs:

- You knew the manning picture for 11Ms--and were tracking inventory by MWS and year group (better known as Red Line/Blue Line Chart)

- You knew the raw data on the RL/BL chart for 11Ms is misleading, because all manner of 11Ms are filling non-11M billets, because other pilot communities (I presume 11F, 11S and 11H--the last time I saw a RL/BL chart was a long time ago) were hurting

- You knew (and have acknowledged above) that airline hiring was increasing--and would remain high for the foreseeable future--and you further knew what the ACP take rates looked like in the late 90s, during the last big airline hiring boom

- You knew (or darn well should know) how many 11Ms are eligible for the ACP in a given FY, and hence should have had a target 11M take rate in mind

-- Based off of how few eligibles there are in some communities (I used tanker bubbas for my example, but I suspect they're not the only year/MDS group that needs a pretty high take rate to make the Red & Blue lines match)

Given all that you knew/should have known, you forewent the opportunity to better incentivize heavy guys from the year groups currently eligible for the bonus to stay in. As discussed in my previous post, the consequences for failing to retain talent will stay with us for a very long time. Not only that, if the anticipated hemorrhaging does happen, you won't even start to correct it until 2 FYs from now. This doesn't make me feel all that optimistic.

This might begin to explain frustration you're hearing from dudes like General Condition, me, perhaps others.

Please help me understand if I am somehow wrong on any of the above.

[General Condition]

Dude, stop being such a douchebag. Before this year, the airlines had not hired much since about '08. That's pure fact, jack. That's also exactly what the dude said and yet you label him as some sort of koolaid drinker for saying it. Get a grip.

I respect you for being a stand-up guy and sticking up for him, but let me offer some advice:

1. Resorting to petty name calling immediately discredits your defense.

2. Let him be a man and defend himself first. His data is bullshit and I called him on it.

3. Your're correct, it is a fact that not much hiring took place from '08 to '13. However, it's also a fact that the Soviets were second place winners of the Cold War and the USA finished next to last. My point to him, since you didn't give him a chance to answer, is that using the '07-'12 data is close to useless. There was an artificial bubble created by the mandatory retirment age moving from 60-65. He also hasn't acknowledged the fact that Boeing and Airbus are struggling to keep up with the demand for airframes.

Lastly, you're right, I did label him a Kool-Aid drinker for saying it. I did so, because all of the Kool-Aid drinkers are saying the same thing as him. Hopefully, he's really not a Kool-Aid drinker, and he can show his bosses some more useful data.

To address your point, WheelzUp, you're correct in that we are all like water - we seek the path of least resistance. At some point, folks come to the fork in the road: do I take care of my family? or do I try to affect change (for the good) in the AF? JQP realized that he couldn't affect things from the inside, so now he's attempting to do so from the outside. Do I like/agree with everything he's done? No, but I'm appreciative of the fact that he's apparently gotten the attention of SECAF (when she's not on her Selfie-Tour '14) and CSAF. There are some top-notch dudes working their way to the top. I pray for them. The future of the AF rests on their shoulders. But we need to get over this image problem (looking good vs. being good) that the AF has, and our Emperor Has No Clothes culture of protecting our boss at all costs. Your boss deserves the best information you can give him/her. They also deserve to be told when their ideas suck. If you can't accept the fact that your data is bullshit, and your perception of reality is way off base, then maybe you should take a look in the mirror and ask yourself if you'll stand up to the pressure of being shot. As a side note, if you've made it a habit of firing those that work for you - you are the common denominator and are probably the one who should be fired. This isn't your own personal fiefdom - firing someone isn't leadership, it's a cop-out. If that's how you want to run an organization, then I suggest you migrate to a nation that builds walls to keep people in. Meanwhile, I'll continue to fight for a country that has to build walls because the rest of the world wants in.

[rtgators]

This might begin to explain frustration you're hearing from dudes like General Condition, me, perhaps others.

Ok...you can have your discussion post back. Let's not forgot that between the 90's and now that military compensation has increased every year and major airline hiring pay took a HUGE pay cut between '05 and '12. The civilian/military pay gap in the 90's was in the range of 15% and was all but eliminated by '09. Congress has been good to the military...BAH changes, new GI bill, etc. and this has changed some of the variables. Anyway, it seems like you have a hold on the situation and can continue to update everyone.

I'll just reiterate the original reason I showed up. The bonus will not go up next year (it can't) and if your UFT ADSC expires next Oct thru Feb the early eligible option is a good deal as the next FY bonus can't be released until the NDAA is signed and we don't know what FY15 Force Management picture will look like yet...

Peace out!

[sqwatch]

Peace out!

Another messenger shot.

[General Condition]

Ok...you can have your discussion post back. Let's not forgot that between the 90's and now that military compensation has increased every year and major airline hiring pay took a HUGE pay cut between '05 and '12. The civilian/military pay gap in the 90's was in the range of 15% and was all but eliminated by '09. Congress has been good to the military...BAH changes, new GI bill, etc. and this has changed some of the variables. Anyway, it seems like you have a hold on the situation and can continue to update everyone.

I'll just reiterate the original reason I showed up. The bonus will not go up next year (it can't) and if your UFT ADSC expires next Oct thru Feb the early eligible option is a good deal as the next FY bonus can't be released until the NDAA is signed and we don't know what FY15 Force Management picture will look like yet...

Peace out!

rtgators,

All hostile debate aside, I (and hopefully most others on this forum) appreciate you stepping into the firestorm. It is useful information for dudes to know that the bonus will not go up next FY as many are sitting on the fence right now trying to decide what to do with their lives.

Also, you are correct that Congress has made vast improvements to pay & benefits the last few decades. Just please don't bite off on the mantra that military personal and healthcare costs are spiralling out of control. MOAA has some outstanding charts to demonstrate that mis-information to be entirely false (even though I personally heard SECAF say it was out of control - immediately after preaching to us about integrity)

I will caution you also that this latest Congress (really all of gov't) has shown that it has no qualms using the military as a pawn in its budget games. There are many DoD civilians out there who took a pay cut as a result of sequestration. I don't know if the AD will be so lucky next time.

As for airline pay, you are correct also in that most majors took pay cuts in order to keep their company afloat. Most are now just getting back on track.

I'll be very interested to see your numbers in 30 days. It's definitely on par to be lower than last year, and with airline hiring projected to grow even more the next decade and on, it's probably going to get lower and lower. The guys that are Bonus-eligible are usually at the top of their MWS pyramid. You simply can't replace their skills and experience with a fresh set of wings out of UPT. These are your experienced patch-wearers, FTU IPs, and the first guys you tag with leading the first wave into combat. This is what has us worried - that the AF either doesn't understand that, or worse yet, doesn't care.

[General Chang]

General Condition,

Just. Stop. Typing.

[BitteEinBit]

Let's not forgot that between the 90's and now that military compensation has increased every year and major airline hiring pay took a HUGE pay cut between '05 and '12. The civilian/military pay gap in the 90's was in the range of 15% and was all but eliminated by '09. Congress has been good to the military...BAH changes, new GI bill, etc. and this has changed some of the variables. Anyway, it seems like you have a hold on the situation and can continue to update everyone.

Great stats, but realize that military compensation has always increased year after year even since 1947. Even with budget cuts, military compensation is still increasing even today, but I get your point. Now, talking about compensation increases since the 90s, don't be fooled into thinking military compensation increased as much as it did because congress was "taking care of the military" and they did it because they think you're doing a great job. Military compensation increased because we found ourselves in two large scale wars and congress NEEDED the military and we were having retention/recruiting problems. Using your statistics above, I can say "Congress really loved the military because they hired so many people since the 90s. Our Army is over 100,000 troops bigger since 2000." As you can see today, compensation increases have slowed to a rate well below what we were getting in the early 2000s. Congress is certainly increasing that civil/mil pay gap you mentioned above. Does that mean congress is no longer "good to the military?" No, it means that is the reality of the fiscal world we live in TODAY, and congress doesn't need as many of us anymore.

I'm not in the same camp as some who think we are in an urgent pilot manning crisis. The Air Force has ways to fix the manning problems. It is the experience problems we should really be worrying about and that is what scares me.

For those who are leaving to fly with the airlines, good luck. There are lots of great opportunities out there where you don't have to deal with some of the AD AF bullshit, but you will still have to deal with airline bullshit. Just a different flavor.

For those who decide to stay in for whatever reason (pride, "stability," compensation) Good luck to you too. We really do need you in the AF too even if the AF is acting like you're expendable.

Whatever you decide to do, just be happy with your decision and be the best you can be. I'll still have a beer or 10 with you at the local VFW and share war stories (as long as the AF doesn't ban alcohol for AD members).

[Muscle2002]

To those of you on this forum who think that separating after ~10 years of AD service and going to an airline is a break-even point for career earnings, you're wrong.

...

I believe in the end that it all comes down to financial security for you and your family. At some point, the AF will send you on your way. Then what? Do you want to be 42-45 years old starting over, or do you want to be a Captain at 42-45 years old making 2-3 times as much as the newly retired military guy sitting in the right seat for his first time?

I think you're right about the 10 year point not being break-even. However, as has been pointed out before, many who accept the ARP do so not necessarily because they were staying to 20 anyway, but because non-UPT commitments took them to 14-16 TAFSCD. Unless you land a highly lucrative job (FO with a major does not count), then you're better off taking the bonus and hacking through the last 5 years of the AF grind to garner a pension.