Aviation Continuation Pay (ACP - The Bonus)

[Azimuth]

What specific knowledge does an 11F/11B have that a 12F/12B doesn't have, from a functional perspective?

The A-Code.

[pawnman]

You mean besides how to fly an airplane?

Is that a necessary skill at a MAJCOM headquarters? That's my point...WSOs can be mission leads, they act as flight commanders, shop chiefs, execs, directors of staff, even squadron and group commanders within the wings that ACC has control over. What special knowledge does the stick-and-rudder skills impart when it comes to staff jobs?

[HeloDude]

Is that a necessary skill at a MAJCOM headquarters? That's my point...WSOs can be mission leads, they act as flight commanders, shop chiefs, execs, directors of staff, even squadron and group commanders within the wings that ACC has control over. What special knowledge does the stick-and-rudder skills impart when it comes to staff jobs?

A quick google search shows that we haven't had a CSAF who was a nav since...well, never. Gen McNabb (acting CSAF after Mosely) started as a nav and then several years later became a pilot. I'm just saying that at certain levels it must matter to somebody, though I'm sure it really depends on the job. The previous AFSOC CC was a nav.

Keep in mind that I'm a rotorhead (red-headed stepchildren) and we'll never have one of our own running the big show, so don't feel bad. Some of the best guys I have worked with and for have been navs.

[Skitzo]

Current AFSOC/CC is a nav

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[HeloDude]

Current AFSOC/CC is a nav

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yep--good catch.

[pawnman]

A quick google search shows that we haven't had a CSAF who was a nav since...well, never. Gen McNabb (acting CSAF after Mosely) started as a nav and then several years later became a pilot. I'm just saying that at certain levels it must matter to somebody, though I'm sure it really depends on the job. The previous AFSOC CC was a nav.

Keep in mind that I'm a rotorhead (red-headed stepchildren) and we'll never have one of our own running the big show, so don't feel bad. Some of the best guys I have worked with and for have been navs.

Oh, I have no aspirations to be CSAF...hell, even SQ/CC is likely out of reach, unless I end up as the FSS/CC or something. No, my question is that, with all the 11Ms currently filling 11F billets about to be pulled back to their cockpits/staff jobs within their own MAJCOM, why would ACC not bridge that gap with 12F/12Bs who have been there, done that, and have a pretty good grasp on daily flying operations and weapon employment?

Although TnkrToad hit the high points...we already don't have enough 12Fs to fill cockpits, hence the bonus, and 12Bs aren't much better, with just enough to fill cockpits. Can't say I'm looking forward to doing extra work for zero credit. I keep hearing leadership tell us that we won't be able to keep doing everything with our lack of resources...but I have yet to hear a task that I'm allowed to drop due to my lack of resources.

[General Chang]

That dynamic can certainly hold true--perhaps, because the MAJCOM is too busy to meddle, they'll give the ops wings a bit more control. Having been in an overseas assignment where my unit was the only flying my MDS, I can say it was nice to have more input into MAJCOM Supps & such than would have happened in AMC, because those at the MAJCOM were too busy with other taskers. That said, it also meant that, because the MAJCOM and NAF were undermanned, the Wing got the "opportunity" to give folks in flying squadrons the unique experience of working in the CAOC, being the lead MDS rep for large theater exercises, and individual deployments to . . . well, everywhere. Will you get the chance to do some unique things, while still assigned at the Wing/below level? Sure. Will you be doing MAJCOM/NAF staffers' jobs for them, while your SURF only shows duties at the Squadron/Group level? Yep. Will it also further increase an already-painful ops tempo? Absolutely.

- I view it as unlikely that CAOC billets will get shortfalled, so I don't see how Wg/CCs will have any more control over combat mission execution than they did before. Perhaps Wings will be given more control over their training programs. I imagine they'll be given wide latitude in finding creative ways to use Sim's to accomplish training requirements

If you want specifics on 12B/12F manning, I suggest you talk to your Sq/CC or AFPC functional. I'm just trying to help folks follow the logical bouncing ball with regard to the second- and third-order effects of enticing/pushing 11 & 12Ms out the door. The last time I saw anything official on 12X manning was a few years ago. At the time--according to AFPC metrics--12Ms were overmanned, 12Bs & 12Rs were just about right, and 12Fs & 12Ss were significantly undermanned.

- From what I've read on this forum, it appears that the Air Force has "fixed the glitch" WRT 12Ms

- I would assume that CAF functionals would want to backfill 11F staff billets with 11 & 12Bs, 11 & 12Rs before taking 11 & 12Ms . . . which means that you go/have gone from being "right-sized" to being effectively undermanned

- The net effect of the Air Force apparently refusing to acknowledge the extent to which 11 & 12Ms have been backfilling other communities' billets is that the CAF community's net effective manning shortfall is/will be even worse

For the AFSOC community, again based on old data, both the 11 & 12S communities were hurting badly. Doesn't look like the CAF community is gonna be much help. The mobility side is or soon will be out of Schlitz.

I'd love to hear from General Chang, rtgators or anyone else with a clearer picture of current aviator manning. I'll willingly admit that I might be wrong in my outlook. Thus far, the silence from them/other senior leaders on this forum is deafening.

Tnkr,

Reserving judgment until final bonus take rates are posted. There are several ways to tackle the aviator staff issue, to include using a much greater percentage of non-rated officers in rated staff billets. This would be particularly effective at the higher staff levels (HAF, CCMD, JCS), where rated positions are "over coded" as such. As a result, flyers with HHQ/Joint staff positions will have it made come board time...it will become an even bigger distinguisher.

[General Chang]

Oh Chang you are back and as transparent as ever hoping a " greater percentage of non rated officers [will be] in rated staff billets".

I admit it's not the most elegant solution, but if the determination is made this FY to drastically cut back on 11Ms in staff positions (and all other flyers, to boot) in order to avoid cutting back on readiness for the required missions, then yes, it's a workable solution. Not all flyers will lose opportunities...the cream will still rise to the top.

[TnkrToad]

Tnkr,

Reserving judgment until final bonus take rates are posted. There are several ways to tackle the aviator staff issue, to include using a much greater percentage of non-rated officers in rated staff billets. This would be particularly effective at the higher staff levels (HAF, CCMD, JCS), where rated positions are "over coded" as such. As a result, flyers with HHQ/Joint staff positions will have it made come board time...it will become an even bigger distinguisher.

...but the final bonus take rate is posted: per the FY14 Final Report posted on the AFPC website. 53% doesn't seem like cause for celebration.

-- Do you know something we don't? Is the final report not in fact final?

The AF has been doing its darnedest since at least the mid-90s to recategorize staff billets from 11X/12X to 16G, etc. Having been an 11M filling a billet that should have been an 11S, I am all to familiar with the notion of "better to have a marginally-qualified dude who is willing to learn than leave the seat vacant" philosophy. I have difficulty, however, seeing how further recategorizations which allow non rated folks to fill rated billets will be a net positive.

[General Chang]

...but the final bonus take rate is posted: per the FY14 Final Report posted on the AFPC website. 53% doesn't seem like cause for celebration.

-- Do you know something we don't? Is the final report not in fact final?

The AF has been doing its darnedest since at least the mid-90s to recategorize staff billets from 11X/12X to 16G, etc. Having been an 11M filling a billet that should have been an 11S, I am all to familiar with the notion of "better to have a marginally-qualified dude who is willing to learn than leave the seat vacant" philosophy. I have difficulty, however, seeing how further recategorizations which allow non rated folks to fill rated billets will be a net positive.

Not sure 53% will end up the final number...TBD...

Certainly, we dilute the diversity pool when we transfer more and more -11X/-12X billets to -16G...however, at the O-4 and O-5 levels, the majority of those individuals are mere action officers (very few branch chiefs, no div chiefs), so from a strategic perspective, the damage to the staff resulting from a lack of action officer diversity is very, very minimal. This will push more rated guys back into the cockpits, which is what most of you want anyway, if this BODN sample is representative of the whole.

[pawnman]

I admit it's not the most elegant solution, but if the determination is made this FY to drastically cut back on 11Ms in staff positions (and all other flyers, to boot) in order to avoid cutting back on readiness for the required missions, then yes, it's a workable solution. Not all flyers will lose opportunities...the cream will still rise to the top.

1. "Opportunities" and "cream". Funny.

2. Can't wait for folks who have never seen the inside of a cockpit to start tinkering with my RAP tasking memo, 11-202 evaluation criteria, hours requirements for upgrade, or a host of other flying-related guidance that comes out of these staff positions.

[WheelzUp]

1. "Opportunities" and "cream". Funny.

2. Can't wait for folks who have never seen the inside of a cockpit to start tinkering with my RAP tasking memo, 11-202 evaluation criteria, hours requirements for upgrade, or a host of other flying-related guidance that comes out of these staff positions.

Don't feed the troll brother.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TnkrToad]

Not sure 53% will end up the final number...TBD...

Certainly, we dilute the diversity pool when we transfer more and more -11X/-12X billets to -16G...however, at the O-4 and O-5 levels, the majority of those individuals are mere action officers (very few branch chiefs, no div chiefs), so from a strategic perspective, the damage to the staff resulting from a lack of action officer diversity is very, very minimal. This will push more rated guys back into the cockpits, which is what most of you want anyway, if this BODN sample is representative of the whole.

Curious, then--from which non rated, yet operationally-minded career fields would these staff officers hail? Since you have much better insight, please do tell. Not trying be snarky--I just don't get how you see this working out in reality.

Force management programs skinnied down non rated career fields, too. If my Intel friends are to be believed, they have no excess capacity, either. The Space and Cyber communities don't exactly seem flushed with excess bodies. So, when AFRICOM has a Noncombatant Evacuation Operation to execute, can we expect that a Maintenance Officer is going to be the mobility/AFSOF subject matter expert? When EUCOM or PACOM plans its annual live/virtual/constructed theater exercises, is a loggie going to be the fighter SME in the white cell? If so, good luck with that. It seems more likely to me that, every time a EUCOM or AFRICOM contingency comes up, dudes at Mildenhall/Lakenheath/etc. will end up getting tasked with planning ops & exercises that should be done at the MAJCOM or NAF . . . and some poor schmuck from Kadena/Misawa/wherever will split his time between trying to fly the line/remain tactically competent, while doing double duty as the fighter SME for whatever PACOM calls its theater exercise(s). I guess the good news, in that case, is at least the guy in the PACOM example will rack up some good air miles and get to go to Hawaii a lot. Not a great formula, though, for tactical competence or a healthy family life.

As noted before, I don't see how, in the scenario you're describing, one avoids having the crap roll downhill in a big way to the Wings.

WRT to take rate, I'm still curious to hear how the FY 14 take rate can/will magically change. Even if it does, I assume it will have more to do with creative accounting than meaningfully different data. It seems more important to note that total pilot inventory decreased by 764. Any thoughts on how manning (and more importantly overall health of the force) is going to improve, given that airline hiring is up, take rates are decreasing, and (as far as I can tell) any excess pilot inventory exists in year groups that have yet to reach bonus eligibility?

[Jaded]

You're asking for answers from a guy that didn't even know the take rate this year. He's not I the know; stop feeding the troll.

[TnkrToad]

You're asking for answers from a guy that didn't even know the take rate this year. He's not I the know; stop feeding the troll.

I hear what you're saying. While I'm interested to hear GC's response, the purpose of my previous post is as much/more to show folks on this forum how this really works. If GC provides value-added information, we'll all be the better for it. If not, it's still a whole lot better to address him with facts and logic than name-calling.

For what it's worth, I don't think folks should be terribly concerned about non flyers screwing with 11-2 series pubs. I'm pretty confident MAJCOM & NAF Stan/Eval & Training billets will be filled by qualified folks. The RAP issue shouldn't be something that's impacted by this dynamic . . . but given that I'm tanker dude, take this bit of my advice for what it's worth; I can't even spell RAP. What does concern me is Joint/HAF/COCOM/Theater SOC staffs being filled by folks who don't know what they're doing. The idea that we might not have a critical mass of operationally-savvy folks influencing policy decisions at the Joint & HAF level scares the crap out me. Bad tactical & operational decisions can lead to ugly consequences, but they're usually recoverable. Bad strategy and messed-up acquisitions, however, are awfully hard to unscrew. At the theater level and below, the Air Force can (and does) make up for staff inexperience/low manning by pushing crap downhill to Wings/Groups/Squadrons. Maybe this will help younger folks on this forum understand how/why some of their taskings come about. If you're an active flyer, better get used to doing HHQ staffs' jobs for them--even more so than you already do.

[Champ Kind]

If you're an active flyer, better get used to doing HHQ staffs' jobs for them--even more so than you already do.

No thanks.

Task me all you want. Luckily, there's this thing called a "back burner."

Edited December 3, 2014 by Champ Kind

[TnkrToad]

No thanks.

Task me all you want. Luckily, there's this thing called a "back burner."

I hear ya', brother. Just to be clear--I'm not on staff, and I'm in no position to task any aviators on this forum. Just offering insight as one of those who the crap has rolled downhill onto at the unit level more times than I can count, and who has spent some time on HHQ staffs.

[Champ Kind]

No worries--appreciate your perspective.

[busdriver]

however, at the O-4 and O-5 levels, the majority of those individuals are mere action officers (very few branch chiefs, no div chiefs), so from a strategic perspective, the damage to the staff resulting from a lack of action officer diversity is very, very minimal.

Short sighted....

When a tasker comes down who do you think does the back ground research (including reaching out to bros) to present things to the decision makers? If an action officer doesn't remotely understand the problem, he won't even know where to begin asking questions. I'm a staff bitch major (finally understand what Rainman meant: brown rank is brown rank), but I know for a fact that if what I'm currently working on was tasked to a mobility dude someone at the WIC/A-10 FAM/A3J would end up doing a lion's share of the work. It's not a knock on AMC, those guys just don't have the perspective to understand the problem let alone know how to structure the possible solutions for the actual decision makers.

There are certainly plenty of action officer jobs that just need a motivated body, but many need someone with a back ground and/or connections to get up to date info and provide perspective. I understand that A1 has almost no options and hands are being tied at multiple levels, we're at rob Peter to pay Paul but don't down play the damage being done to Peter. Eventually robbing from Peter will fuck Paul.

[189Herk]

Any Guard AGRs receive their bonus yet? 3 months and counting...

[herkbum]

Any Guard AGRs receive their bonus yet? 3 months and counting...

Got mine on schedule

[di1630]

Question: I get my bonus payment each June. If I'm on a 365 to a tax free zone, will that payment be tax free as well? I seem to remember hearing the bonus was taxed a bit differently for the year. Thanks

[Jughead]

Sort of, but probably not the way you're hoping.

CZTE is month-to-month; the fact that you're on a 365 is irrelevant*, except for the month of payment. During that month, your pay is exempted up to the CZTE limit for officers (based on the highest enlisted pay + HFP).

So, to the extent your normal pay is below that limit, you'll get an additional exemption on the bonus payment up to the limit. The bulk of the bonus payment is taxable income.

If you're not already maxing out your TSP, you could use your bonus as a tax deferred contribution to avoid paying current-year taxes on it (whether or not you're in CZTE status).

*a 365 certainly is relevant from your overall tax liability; while the bulk of your bonus will be taxable income, your overall tax liability for the year will be very low, since most of your income is exempt (I'm assuming your military wages are your primary income; if not, the advantage remains but will be proportional)

[icohftb]

Not sure 53% will end up the final number...TBD...

Anyone happen to know what the final number was?

Also, if I remember correctly last year there was no bonus offer for those who had passed on the initial bonus whereas in the past it was offered (albeit at a lesser amount). I was curious what the logic was behind that and if that will remain the same in the future. Thoughts?

[Jaded]

That was the final number. The retention report has been out for weeks. Chang is not in the know and should not be asked about inside info.