Aviation Continuation Pay (ACP - The Bonus)

[Hueypilot]

I'm curious as to how money has "never factored into the decision" when you clearly state that you intend to hang it up after 20 years. Maybe you mis-spoke, I don't know. But I can speculate that most guys want to do their 20 and then retire in large part due to the financial security blanket that an AD retirement provides. Why not do 24, 28, or 69 years if it's not about the money? Most guys tell me that they're out at 20 because they have no aspiration to be a non-flying O-6 an up, but mostly because you essentially take a pay-cut the first day you go to work after 20 years. You could be sitting at home collecting half of your base pay and doing nothing, or you can go to work to earn the other 50% plus your other allowances. Why not go somewhere else and earn a good salary on top of the retirement pay?

You're not a sucker for taking the bonus, but you appear to have some mis-conceptions about life on the outside. Who's told you that you're going to spend your airline career playing video games at a crash pad? Was it an AD guy or an airline guy? It sounds like your decision is made, and I applaud you for that and wish you the best of luck. We apparently need more guys to do that (we'll have to wait and see what the final take-rate numbers look like in a month). But I want people to make decsions based on good information, not rumors, and worse yet, not based on emotions.

Money may not be the overriding factor for many, but it always factors in somewhere. People aren't entirely oblivious to financial considerations. If you're fine with being on active duty and aren't immediately sold on going straight to an airline job, why NOT stay till you get to 20? I think most people leave at 20 because, in your early 40s, you can still have a reasonable chance to fit another career in there before you're too old.

And I'll vouch for the crash pad life...if you're into video games, you'll generally have plenty of time to do that while waiting for the phone call. In fact, I'm sitting in one now responding to your post.

[TreeA10]

My .02 cents:

The next 10 years will not be like the last 10 years...hopefully. I was hired in early 99 and sat reserve for 12 years. Could have held a line earlier but did want to commute. Quality of life vs quantity of money.

I had plans to pull the handles at 20 but then 9/11 happened. Then the American Airlines near bankruptcy happened in 2003. Then the age 65 for retirement happened. Then the faux bankruptcy, via financial slight of hand, happened. I stayed in the Reserves as long as possible and left when they said I had to go. I've flown with a lot of former military guys that wish they had done something to qualify for retirement.

That being said, I'll also say that life in the airlines is dealing with a devil you know whose actions are only guaranteed through contract negotiations. Dealing with the AF was dealing with a devil hidden by smoke, mirrors, propaganda, a nebulous moving target regarding performance with vague promises and no guarantees...at all.

Edited September 2, 2014 by TreeA10

[AnimalMother]

I do think that the Bonus overall will need to go up next year, dramatically.

7 figures and I'd reconsider. Honestly, at this point, what the hell is the difference? Just call Mrs. Yellen and ask her to keep the presses running for a few extra days. No one would even know the difference.

[Butters]

My .02 cents:

The next 10 years will not be like the last 10 years...hopefully. I was hired in early 99 and sat reserve for 12 years. Could have held a line earlier but did want to commute. Quality of life vs quantity of money.

I had plans to pull the handles at 20 but then 9/11 happened. Then the American Airlines near bankruptcy happened in 2003. Then the age 65 for retirement happened. Then the faux bankruptcy, via financial slight of hand, happened. I stayed in the Reserves as long as possible and left when they said I had to go. I've flown with a lot of former military guys that wish they had done something to qualify for retirement.

That being said, I'll also say that life in the airlines is dealing with a devil you know whose actions are only guaranteed through contract negotiations. Dealing with the AF was dealing with a devil hidden by smoke, mirrors, propaganda, a nebulous moving target regarding performance with vague promises and no guarantees...at all.

I am surprised you think the 2007 bonuses paid to AMR executives when you were getting a pay cut was not smoke and mirrors, with a vague promise and no guarantees.

[Flare]

I am surprised you think the 2007 bonuses paid to AMR executives when you were getting a pay cut was not smoke and mirrors, with a vague promise and no guarantees.

The hater of all things airlines just became an airline expert?

[throwmeaway]

..Most guys tell me that they're out at 20 because they have no aspiration to be a non-flying O-6 an up, but mostly because you essentially take a pay-cut the first day you go to work after 20 years. You could be sitting at home collecting half of your base pay and doing nothing, or you can go to work to earn the other 50% plus your other allowances. Why not go somewhere else and earn a good salary on top of the retirement pay?

I hear this a lot, but has anyone done the math on this? When I look at my LES, it seems at 20 years, I would get a 2/3 pay reduction as a large portion of my pay is in the form of allowances and extra pay (flight among others). Also, every day past 20 earns you a larger retirement percentage at 2.5% a year to 75% right?

[TreeA10]

I am surprised you think the 2007 bonuses paid to AMR executives when you were getting a pay cut was not smoke and mirrors, with a vague promise and no guarantees.

I should have expanded my definition of faux bankruptcy. Sorry I didn't spell it out for you.

[Cap-10]

Retire at 20 and take the cash.

The only thing better than getting paid to fly.....is getting paid not to fly!

Cap-10

[TnkrToad]

This discussion seems to repeat itself. And the punchline is usually the same: we won't know the final figures until late October-ish. At that time, AFCrimes will write a puff piece quoting someone at A1 proclaiming that the arrangement of the deck chairs has never been better

To address TnkrToad's questions - I don't know why the number of eligibles seems so skewed. I'm also not upset that one community gets a better bonus that others. Maybe A1 decided that they're more desperately needed or maybe they have better representation in the world's largest office building. I do think that the Bonus overall will need to go up next year, dramatically. There are quite a few folks who also beleive it should disappear because they claim that most people who take the bonus would have stayed in anyway. What they're forgetting is that the decision to stay in isn't made on 30 September when your ACP application is due. It's typically made way back when your're a few years out of pilot training. If they take the bonus away in FY15, the effect wouldn't be immediate, but you'd see that pilots who are several years away from being bonus-eligible would better prepare themselves to separate. You're always going to have the ones who'd stay in regardless of pay, and you're always going to have the ones who are going to get out. The bonus is targeted at those who are undecided several years out. Take that carrot away and see what happens.

The point I'm trying to make, and which neither rtgators nor General Chang has ever answered is how/why the ACP program is in any way rational, and how they gauge success.

- I don't know (although I suspect) why the number of eligibles is so skewed . . . but the fact that I don't get it isn't very relevant. The fact that the rated force managers don't get it baffles me

- I'm not particularly upset that different communities get different bonus options. What worries me is that the ACP program as built seems to contradict its stated purpose (getting/keeping different pilot communities at approx 100% manning levels)

- I look forward to the final October report, but again, from all the other previous ones I've read, the rated management folks have no clue as to what their targets were/should have been, and hence have no idea how relatively successful they really were

Here's how I could see the report being written in October, in a way that would make the rated force managers look good, while at the same time showing that they were at least thinking about rated management. Caveat--I don't have access to the actual data. This is merely meant to show that the way take rates currently get assessed seems nonsensical. If the report this October were to be written like the below, it might come across as a bit cynical, but at least it would be honest, reflect rated managers' actual thinking, and would further reflect that they have a clue about their desired end states:

- 11M take rate was 10%--Success! The 11M community is overmanned anyway, and there were so few eligibles, that we needed a low take rate for this community to get the overall manning for the community and the manning for this particular year group down to what we need.

-- Of course, if this trend continues, the 11M community is screwed . . .

- 11S take rate was 100%--Success! The 11S community is way undermanned, and based off of the number of eligibles we needed to keep every one of them to even have a hope of eventually getting healthy. Best part is, we got 'em all cheap--we only offered a 5-year bonus, and they all took it anyway!

-- If any of them really suck, we can non-promote/RIF/offer TERA in the future

- 11F take rate was 65%--Success! Given that they're somewhere in the middle of the pack--better manned overall than 11S/11H, more likely to stay in past their minimum commitments than 11Ms, this "middle of the road" take rate is probably ok. We getting closer to our overall 100% 11F manning target (especially with the longer commitments that many signed), and the year group(s) that make up this group of eligibles is reasonably healthy overall

I'm sure we can all cherry pick the stats above (that I pulled out of my fundamental orifice). The point is that none of the previous FY reports seem to indicate this level of analysis.

The silence from rtgators/General Chang/others who claim to have insight into rated management is deafening. I'm begging to hear a valid rationale for how/why the ACP program makes sense for the Air Force. Any takers?

TT

[Butters]

I should have expanded my definition of faux bankruptcy. Sorry I didn't spell it out for you.

That being said, I'll also say that life in the airlines is dealing with a devil you know whose actions are only guaranteed through contract negotiations.

No, you were clear on this point!

The hater of all things airlines just became an airline expert?

Just stating facts...

[Hueypilot]

I am surprised you think the 2007 bonuses paid to AMR executives when you were getting a pay cut was not smoke and mirrors, with a vague promise and no guarantees.

Corporate America in a nutshell. Congrats on opening all our eyes to it.

[Smokin]

Anyone else find it telling that the FY14 force management thread that was started just over a year ago has 2.5 times more posts than this ACP thread that started in 2005?

[General Chang]

The silence from rtgators/General Chang/others who claim to have insight into rated management is deafening. I'm begging to hear a valid rationale for how/why the ACP program makes sense for the Air Force. Any takers?

TT

TT,

Without delving too deeply into "how we mix the batter," you'll find the take-rate numbers in October to be generally similar to last year's numbers. As for the "why," I ask you, "why not?" The ACP is a rounding error for the Air Force...a (nearly) free way to lock-down people's lives for 5-9 years. Nobody truly knows what would happen if we killed it (although I see a lot of "smart guys" on this thread that think they know exactly what would happen, when they really don't). Think of it this way: The AF is creating a "known" out of an "unknown" for a relatively cheap price. And wouldn't you know, for all of the banter on this site...we're still seeing plenty of takers. And we are grateful to those takers, because it helps our out-year programming in immeasurable ways (especially hard-to-fills).

[matmacwc]

That's what I thought the higher ups think.

Now let's talk about this rumored ARC DSG/TR bonus.

[Jaded]

I've always wondered what take rate was required to maintain an adequate inventory. 65% is normal-would 55% result in empty cockpits? 45%?

What rate would be concerning to the brass?

[Nineline]

TT,

Without delving too deeply into "how we mix the batter," you'll find the take-rate numbers in October to be generally similar to last year's numbers. As for the "why," I ask you, "why not?" The ACP is a rounding error for the Air Force...a (nearly) free way to lock-down people's lives for 5-9 years. Nobody truly knows what would happen if we killed it (although I see a lot of "smart guys" on this thread that think they know exactly what would happen, when they really don't). Think of it this way: The AF is creating a "known" out of an "unknown" for a relatively cheap price. And wouldn't you know, for all of the banter on this site...we're still seeing plenty of takers. And we are grateful to those takers, because it helps our out-year programming in immeasurable ways (especially hard-to-fills).

I call BS on this logic. I've heard numerous times from AFPC that the non-vol list generated each assignment cycle doesn't factor in ADSC. And while I'm skeptical, I believe it because If it did, then there would be no such thing as a 7-day opt since the list would only target those who couldn't opt out. Also, if it became public knowledge (through policy or anecdotal data) that everyone who took the bonus got a bad deal, then the take rate would severely plummet and your "out-year programming" would be even more worthless.

-9-

Edited September 8, 2014 by Nineline

[Lord Ratner]

I call BS on this logic. I've heard numerous times from AFPC that the non-vol list generated each assignment cycle doesn't factor in ADSC. And while I'm skeptical, I believe it because If it did, then there would be no such thing as a 7-day opt since the list would only target those who couldn't opt out. Also, if it became public knowledge (through policy or anecdotal data) that everyone who took the bonus got a bad deal, then the take rate would severely plummet and your "out-year programming" would be even more worthless.

-9-

I don't think he meant it that way. 365s aren't targeted based on ADSC, but even so, the assignment eventually hits someone who can't 7-day opt, whereas without the bonus it wouldn't, and more people could 7-day opt before finding a taker.

It's this reason specifically that when my time comes, I won't take the bonus, even though I plan to stay in.

[Herk Driver]

I don't think he meant it that way. 365s aren't targeted based on ADSC, but even so, the assignment eventually hits someone who can't 7-day opt, whereas without the bonus it wouldn't, and more people could 7-day opt before finding a taker.

Bingo, except you meant to say 3-day opt since talking about a 365.

Posted from the NEW Baseops.net App!

Edited September 8, 2014 by Herk Driver

[Lord Ratner]

Bingo, except you meant to say 3-day opt since talking about a 365.

Posted from the NEW Baseops.net App!

Yup. My mistake

[TnkrToad]

TT,

Without delving too deeply into "how we mix the batter," you'll find the take-rate numbers in October to be generally similar to last year's numbers. As for the "why," I ask you, "why not?" The ACP is a rounding error for the Air Force...a (nearly) free way to lock-down people's lives for 5-9 years. Nobody truly knows what would happen if we killed it (although I see a lot of "smart guys" on this thread that think they know exactly what would happen, when they really don't). Think of it this way: The AF is creating a "known" out of an "unknown" for a relatively cheap price. And wouldn't you know, for all of the banter on this site...we're still seeing plenty of takers. And we are grateful to those takers, because it helps our out-year programming in immeasurable ways (especially hard-to-fills).

GC,

Without “delving too deeply into ‘how [the Air Force mixes] the batter,” your arguments are at best unconvincing. If you more fully explained the underlying rationale for the way the ACP program is designed, you might have a chance of convincing folks on this forum that Big Blue knows what it’s doing. Thus far, your responses have had an opposite, negative effect. Conclusions which you have yet to refute:

- The ACP program can’t be about overall manning within various pilot communities

o Otherwise the 11S & 11H communities—which last I heard were worse-manned overall than 11Fs—would have been offered the same enhanced options the 11Fs were

o Without stating a rationale for the policy, you come across as either clueless (What? The 11S and 11H communities are undermanned?) or cynical (I know improved bonus options for these small communities would entail minimal cost and would at least partially help these communities get healthy, but screw ‘em—they’ll stay in anyway, because they’re gluttons for punishment)

- Big Blue is making no attempt to set target take rates, and thus has/will have no clue how relatively successful the ACP program is

o All the data is there—Red Line requirements, Blue Line inventory, and number of ACP eligibles by community—but per rtgator’s own admission, no one has bothered to figure out what your targets are/should be

o Without stated targets, your claims of success come across as propagandistic

- The 11M community is screwed

o Hearing nothing but crickets on this one, too—from what I can tell, effective overages in the 11M community exist almost exclusively in the year groups that have yet to reach bonus eligibility

o Indicated overages of any post-bonus 11M year groups are mitigated by the fact that 11Ms are disproportionately filling 16G (and other generic rated) billets, as well as 11F/11S/11H billets—in AETC, ACC, AFSOC, COCOM staffs, etc.

o Big Blue widened and deepened clear 11M shortages in the mid-to late-90s year groups through various force management initiatives

o Despite indications and warnings already from the 11M community (see JQP blog discussion), you still miss the linkage between a limited pool from which to choose future leaders and poor/even toxic leadership (how many of today’s toxic leaders were merely the best of what was left after the massive loss of talent in the late 90s?)

Can you rationally refute any of the above conclusions?

[ViperMan]

I call BS on this logic. I've heard numerous times from AFPC that the non-vol list generated each assignment cycle doesn't factor in ADSC. And while I'm skeptical, I believe it because If it did, then there would be no such thing as a 7-day opt since the list would only target those who couldn't opt out. Also, if it became public knowledge (through policy or anecdotal data) that everyone who took the bonus got a bad deal, then the take rate would severely plummet and your "out-year programming" would be even more worthless.

-9-

Another possibility is that statistics are kept regarding how many individuals 7-day or 3-day an assignment, which is then incorporated into the overall equation that is used to shape the force; which would be a fairly quick and easy way to trim different AFSCs: i.e. if it takes a 3:1 7-day opt ratio to get one to stick, and they're 3 guys heavy, they let it bounce around until the 11X equation is "balanced" and then this:

I don't think he meant it that way. 365s aren't targeted based on ADSC, but even so, the assignment eventually hits someone who can't 7-day opt, whereas without the bonus it wouldn't, and more people could 7-day opt before finding a taker.

It's this reason specifically that when my time comes, I won't take the bonus, even though I plan to stay in.

Just a thought.

[Jaded]

GC enjoys sitting on his high horse and acting condescending to a group of people he has a great deal of contempt for. Don't post expecting answers from him. He's not here to provide info.

[TnkrToad]

GC enjoys sitting on his high horse and acting condescending to a group of people he has a great deal of contempt for. Don't post expecting answers from him. He's not here to provide info.

I get what you're saying, but my target isn't really GC. It would be great to get a meaningful response from him, but I'm not holding my breath. The point is that apparently nobody on this forum has a good rationale for the current ACP program. Given how self-contradictory the program is, we can't even begin to guess how/why the ACP is built the way it is.

- The fact that no senior leader or staff weenie has been able to post a viable rationale for rated management policy (in particular as it relates to the ACP program), and none of we peons can see any inherent logic in the policy, should be a concern for all of us

[Bender]

You are looking for real-time logic in a place even the most motivated staff officer can't effect one.

Outlook, tour length, policy alteration timelines: these things create a situation difficult at best to work in. After getting bearings, I would imagine rtgator is doing well just keeping the machine moving while looking for ways to help. Which is what he was trying to do by coming here, among other places.

It will require intervention from someone well above rtgator's pay grade to make changes that alter longterm inventory levels. It will take true crisis to make this intervention occur.

While I think Chang's post has logic, my 3 year old came up with the same reasoning...so, thanks for taking the time to toss that nugget in there.

Bendy

Edited September 8, 2014 by Bender

[Guest]

"Those receiving this e-mail are either potentially eligible to enter into an ARP Agreement or may know of aviators who could be eligible but haven't entered into an Agreement as of this date."

Really? Sounds like a cry for help, I've got 4 years left on my ADSC so obviously they're hoping I spread the word. To anyone who is eligible for ARP but hasn't entered an agreement, I have one word for you: run.