Aviation Continuation Pay (ACP - The Bonus)

[TnkrToad]

Explain this for caveman Bender please.

Bendy

For those who choose to take the bonus to 20 years of aviation service, it behooves them to sign up earlier than later. The date one reaches 20 YAS doesn't change and the $25k/year is prorated . . . so every day an initial eligible waits to sign up for the bonus equals $68.49 ($25k/365 days) in bonus money said individual can't get. I guess it's the Air Force's way of encouraging folks to decide early as to whether/not they're going to take the bonus.

TT

[Bender]

With an ADSC through August 2015, what is being lost waiting until that month to sign a contract? Someone with an ADSC in January 2015 (uncommitted already), you're saying is being prorated for every day that goes by with out a contract...assuming the 20 YAS option (potentially the 5 year also)?

I missed the proration terms in the PSDM...did I, or are those only included in the contract itself?

Bendy

[Smokin]

If you're past your commitment and are eligible for the 20 year option, every day you wait costs you money. You get the money per year until 20 years; the end date remains the same regardless of if you sign up now or wait until Sep. The problem is that if you wait until Sep and are eligible to get paid this year, you're not getting the bonus between now and Sept, so you lose out on the prorated part of this year's $25K.

Similarly, the early-eligible part is a good deal for some guys who are 100% in and have an ADSC expiration early in the fiscal year. If you graduated UPT in Oct and the PSDM gets released in April, the early signup will get you an extra $12K. If your 10 years is up in Aug, the early-eligible, or even signing the bonus now, doesn't really help you.

[ViperStud]

TT, I really thing anyone is pulling straws if they think there were any devious intentions behind offering fighter guys a bigger bonus last year. The general understanding among us 11Fs was that it took the AF managers years to realize the end result of closing all the FTU squadrons at Tyndall and Luke. It's just hard to make fighter pilots. Not because the training is harder or longer necessarily; it was just a capacity problem. POM 10 seemed like a great idea at the time but the end result is a smaller overall pipeline and fewer fighter dudes.

I don't think the airlines will hit 11Ms proportionally much harder than 11Fs. I've seen a ton of fighter bros getting hired by southwest, United, delta, corporate, etc. 11Ms don't have the market cornered on flying big planes on the outside. That's why the AF is throwing money at everyone now. We've been saying this all along, but the next few years will continue to be interesting. They're gonna have to do something (probably more bonus money vice the dreaded stop-loss) to keep pilots in. It's weird, I really enjoyed my time on AD and I'm glad to still be flying fast jets in the guard. All along I thought I would stay AD. The further I get from separating though, the happier I am to have done it. Maybe I'm being dramatic, but I think the next 6-9 years could be painful for AD. Leadership has shown plenty of willingness to put cost-cutting pain on the shoulders of the troops. Cutting BAH, reducing perdiem, scaling back pensions/COLA - it all paints a kinda shitty picture. How are they going to blend potentially higher retention bonuses into that mess?

[TnkrToad]

TT, I really thing anyone is pulling straws if they think there were any devious intentions behind offering fighter guys a bigger bonus last year.

Again, my failure to communicate I guess. My overall argument is that our rated managers either 1) don't know what they're doing, or 2) are so hamstrung by whatever restrictions they operate under that they can't implement sound policy. Either way, this provides little cause for optimism. Rated managers, at least from my neck of the woods, looked clueless last year. I think we agree that last year's focus on 11Fs was nonsensical; it would have been smarter to do last year what they did this year (bonus to 20 YAS for everybody). At the very least, they could've offered it to all the overworked communities--meaning they should've at least included 11S & 11H in the list of folks offered the 20 yr option last year. My point with the 11Ms is that losing a large proportion of the largest pilot community will hurt not only the mobility community, but everyone else. See the U-2 thread; if we heavy drivers are the only ones fat on manpower, what happens when the airlines help us slim down? We now face structural problems that have been exacerbated by at least two decades' worth of unfortunate rated management decisions . . . with airline retirements only worsening an already significant problem. You're right; the next 6-9 years will be very challenging.

[11F]

Theory: If we were to reduce the UPT ADSC from 10 years to 6-8 years, pilot retention rates would increase as long as a bonus was offered at this point. At this point, few know if they're a major/school select and just might stick around a little while longer to see what happens.

I know it's a little underhanded, but it's a theory.

[ViperStud]

Doubtful. First, it would have to drop to 6 years. At the 9 year point (UPT+7) I knew the board results. I know it's a little later now but who knows how long that will last. I doubt big blue would lop 40% off the commitment with the current pilot retention issues.

Second, and the bigger issue, is one of the biggest problems with our management - they can't understand why people don't want to be like them. Who cares about being a school select? Mostly the career guys that are staying in regardless of ADSC or bonus. I know plenty of selects that are punching before school; it's not much of a carrot.

I doubt many of us are too worried about promotion, particularly to Maj. I know it's happening now that people are getting passed over, but the odds are small and in the few cases I've seen there were obvious reasons why it happened.

I just don't see anyone who is getting out saying "man if I only had the chance to go to school, I would bail on the reserves, guard, airlines, etc."

[Smokin]

The theory also ignores the relatively high number of guys 7-daying their school assignment. I haven't seen any big AF data on it, but I know multiple guys who have 7-day'ed school over the last two years and know even more selects who are planning on it or have already applied for Palace Chase. School pretty much guarantees at least O-5 and a squadron command, so these guy's aren't worried about their career progression, yet they're still bailing.

[Stank]

Here's a scenario: let's say 4 years ago you signed up for the five year bonus. Today you get hit with a 365 deployment to the CAOC and decide after all your previous deployments and with the airlines hiring it might be a good time to get out. Can you punch? How much money of the bonus would you have to return? All that you have received so far? (4 years worth) or would you just stop receiving the bonus and not owe any money? Hypothetical question only.

[di1630]

Here's a scenario: let's say 4 years ago you signed up for the five year bonus. Today you get hit with a 365 deployment to the CAOC and decide after all your previous deployments and with the airlines hiring it might be a good time to get out. Can you punch? How much money of the bonus would you have to return? All that you have received so far? (4 years worth) or would you just stop receiving the bonus and not owe any money? Hypothetical question only.

You wouldn't return any of it because you'd be on your 365 as you signed an adsc for 5 more years.

[ViperStud]

Do different rules apply to 7/3-day opts wrt UPT ADSC vs bonus ADSC? Either way it's an ADSC. I do remember fine print in the release saying you'd repay any unearned portion, I just forget the exact examples they gave.

It would stand to reason that if you were in a position to 3-day a 365 with UPT commitment, it would be the same.

[HeloDude]

Here's a scenario: let's say 4 years ago you signed up for the five year bonus. Today you get hit with a 365 deployment to the CAOC and decide after all your previous deployments and with the airlines hiring it might be a good time to get out. Can you punch? How much money of the bonus would you have to return? All that you have received so far? (4 years worth) or would you just stop receiving the bonus and not owe any money? Hypothetical question only.

I would imagine that unless you had extenuating circumstances (ie your wife was dying of cancer), then I don't see the AF letting you out of a commitment, especially if it's to fill a 'must fill' deployment. It's funny you ask this because I personally know a good dude (prior WO) who had taken the old long term bonus that took him past 20 YAS and when he tried to drop retirement paperwork at 20 and pay back/not collect his unearned portion of the bonus, the AF said no and instead...he got hit with a 365 to the CAOC. Grant it, this is anecdotal, but I think this recent example can give you an idea of where the AF stands on this issue.

I can't believe I'm quoting Chang right now, but he was correct when he said that the $25K/yr bonus (even the large bonus now) is a "drop in the bucket" and worth it to the AF to not have to worry about someone dropping papers at some random time. For the younger guys on here, take heed: If you're not fairly confident that you want to stay in for a bonus commitment, then don't take the bonus.

Sorry man. Good luck with the deployment if it happens.

[Flybynight]

Any bets on another Limited Period Recall Program starting up again?

[TnkrToad]

Question for the Army flyers who frequent this forum, or those who work with them:

Is the Army aviation community (especially the fixed wing folks) experiencing the same problems with retention now?

With the airlines hiring, and the prospect of making a whole bunch more than Army W.O. pay (I assume the Army is offering its aviators nothing close to what the USAF is), I'd think the Army would be hemorrhaging fixed wing guys like crazy right now.

- I get it that most of the Army fleet is rotary wing, but they've got a fair number of fixed wing aircraft, as well. This has to be a topic of discussion among Army aviators

- If the Army is having the same retention problems, I have to wonder if this will have a second/third order effect on the USAF. Army shortfalls have a way of getting "fixed" by in-lieu-of (ILO) Air Force "solutions"

- If the Army isn't suffering the same pilot losses as the Air Force, then it's worth asking what they're doing right

-- I don't expect them to do much of anything right wrt things that fly, but it's worth asking the question

TT

[di1630]

June #s: overall eeked up to 46.4%

Fighters at lowest at 38.1%....even lower than RPA at 46.3%.

Bomber- 42.9

C2-53.8

Mob-47.8

Rescue-71.4

Sof-50

[icohftb]

How would these stats, specifically fighter numbers, be affected by the "early" takers from last year?

[cmdro]

Question for the Army flyers who frequent this forum, or those who work with them:

Is the Army aviation community (especially the fixed wing folks) experiencing the same problems with retention now?

I can't speak to retention rates, but they (fixed wing) have the same manning issues we do.

With the airlines hiring, and the prospect of making a whole bunch more than Army W.O. pay (I assume the Army is offering its aviators nothing close to what the USAF is), I'd think the Army would be hemorrhaging fixed wing guys like crazy right now.

Until recently, fixed wing guys had to do a tour or two in rotary first. While a WO3 might have 3k total hours, only 150 of that might be fixed wing time, which does not make them very competitive in airline hiring early on. It seemed like the WOs who were hitting retirement were getting to around 1.5k-2k fixed wing hours in general.

- I get it that most of the Army fleet is rotary wing, but they've got a fair number of fixed wing aircraft, as well. This has to be a topic of discussion among Army aviators

- If the Army is having the same retention problems, I have to wonder if this will have a second/third order effect on the USAF. Army shortfalls have a way of getting "fixed" by in-lieu-of (ILO) Air Force "solutions"

ILO like you talk about has already happened, however, the Army tends to fix manning issues by going GOCO, at least on the fixed wing side of the house.

[di1630]

How would these stats, specifically fighter numbers, be affected by the "early" takers from last year?

Included I think. In fact 69%+ of the takers did so early from how I read it.

[TnkrToad]

Included I think. In fact 69%+ of the takers did so early from how I read it.

Sorry to ruin your word play, but the actual percentages are even more startling--80% (283/351) of the takers thus far were those who signed early contracts in FY14. This is the overall average, so of course some communities are markedly worse. I haven't done the math on all the MWSs, but using the KC-135 community--most dear to me, over 90% (28/31) of the takers thus far were early contract types. Only 3 KC-135 bubbas have actually signed the bonus since they released it a few months ago.

Obviously, still plenty of time for numbers to change, but here's a thought experiment. The early contracts are the canary in the coal mine:

- Last year, 38% of FY15 eligibles signed up early

- Only 15% (109/744) of FY16 eligibles have taken the early bonus thus far. That doesn't even account for all the IDE types & folks already trapped by ADSCs that'll keep 'em in for another 5 yrs

- If the number of early takers doesn't increase dramatically in the next few months, then Big Blue will have to get awfully generous in FY16 to keep talent in the active duty

- The only monetary incentives I can think of that might possibly help are dramatically increasing the bonus for initial eligibles and/or offering bonuses to those who are retirement eligible. Hopefully they'll pursue both options, in order to stop the hemorrhaging of talent

TT

[BADFNZ]

I can't speak for everyone, but I know a sure fire way to get me to at least consider the bonus: Get rid of 365 deployments. I can deal with the queep, the SARC classes, the Freedom of Religion CBTs, and whatever other shit you can throw at me to try to get me to feel less like a pilot, but what I can't deal with is the potential kick in the junk of being away from my family for a year. You want to keep talent in the AF? Stop sending them to Bumfuckistan for a year to train pilots who couldn't care less whether they were flying planes or herding goats. There's no amount of cash on this planet that would get me to take that.

[brabus]

One step further would be not necessarily shitcanning every 365/remote assignment on the planet, but just the 95% that are complete ballwash/bullshit and have either zero real value or, almost as bad, may have some minor value, but they're forcing people to do them who's AFSC has nothing to do with the actual work. If you have to do a remote assignment once in your career, whatever, nobody would really care that much if it was in their primary job, but when you ask people to do one that involves stoplight powerpoints and that's about it...well, doesn't take an MIT grad to figure that one out.

[Ram]

^ This.

We are all about hacking the mission and serving, but when you feel like everyone's time is being wasted at the expense of your spouse and kids, you can't help but sympathize with folks who would do anything to avoid that, including pulling the handle on a possibility of joining the check of the month club.

[BuddhaSixFour]

It sounds like there are a lot of deployed staff positions that are just a waste of everyone's lives and could just be eliminated. But some of them are probably justifiable as necessary *if* a contingency kicked off even if they're a total life suck otherwise.

For those, I propose BSF's trademarked "Deploy from Home" concept. For the first two weeks of your 180-day PowerPoint extravaganza, you deploy, drop your bags off, and learn what your job would be if you ever had to do it. Then, rather than having your life wasted with busy work, you fly home, use the magic of the Internet to stay plugged in, and go about your normal life on a 12-hour mandatory recall. We wouldn't even need to move your bags. Just drop you on any available flight. At the end of your tour, if nothing happens, your stuff gets shipped back to you. Yeah, it would kill your leave plans for 6 months, but the deployment was going to do that anyways.

Would it work for every job? No. Could it work for a lot? Probably. Just a thought.

[disgruntledemployee]

Would it work for every job? No. Could it work for a lot? Probably. Just a thought.

What if you get pregnant?

I have a better idea, delete the useless job altogether. We've all been there and seen or played the wasted job and know what it looks like. Delete! There, now give me my 10% of the savings so i can retire a multi millionaire.

Out

[FlyinGrunt]

But you're missing the genius of what Buddha just laid out: it might actually happen, since it preserves the downrange empires. The O-6s and up get to keep their coveted number of people under their control, and the required work gets done, AND if something ever does kick off, those organizations are already stood up.

Buddha, having done a few deployed staff gigs . . . kudos. I think, were an O-7 or up to propose it, that your idea would help solve the problem. Hell, people might actually volunteer, just for the career cachet.