Aviation Continuation Pay (ACP - The Bonus)

[AlifBaa]

34 minutes ago, NKAWTG said:

March ACP numbers were posted.  Slight up tick to 37% overall from 35% in February.  Last year, about 69% of the bonus takers were early signers.  If that trend holds true, then this year's take rate will end up around 42%. 

I'm curious what the air staff target is, and what the "sky is falling" number is. 

65% is the number I've seen used twice in the past ~5 years.   The most recent example was last week when CSAF asked congress for a bigger bonus in light of a 55% retention rate last year.  

As for "sky is falling:" we're there and the bosses know it.  That's why they're asking for a bigger bonus.  

Here's the picture I believe they're seeing:  Less than 65% retention at mid career, combined with an increase in end strength means you have to promote to O-5 at elevated rates.  As shown earlier, >80% of the force is making O-5 already (itself a big increase in promotion rates from only a few years ago... it used to be ~2/3 made the cut).  Airline hiring is still only beginning to hit its stride, which means retention is more likely to decrease than increase.  If retention rates drop to 42% as predicted above, O-5 will approach a 90% promotion rate (O-5 is the new O-4?).  It's not unreasonable to expect O-6 at 75% by the time today's O-4's are ready.  At that point, we may also see the O-6 board move prior to the 20 year retirement decision.  

Airline pay and stability have increased significantly since the original bonus, yet $35K merely corrects for inflation.  My guess is CSAF wanted more but was told by legislative affairs it wouldn't happen... hence the internal messaging a few months ago that "we can't compete on pay."  He likely thinks he can get the inflation bump this year, but won't be able to ask for more until the problem gets more visible.  

Watch for the messaging to say they lack competition within the promotion system.  That's what the Army did during OIF when they had to stop worrying about who they promoted in the face of service growth and declining retention.  They had a host of new retention bonuses within a few months.  We'll be there in a few years.  

[HuggyU2]

6 hours ago, ILoveScotch said:

I I think the pilot shortage is a win/win for both groups...

Do you honestly believe there is a pilot shortage?

[Karl Hungus]

On 3/4/2016 at 2:55 PM, ThreeHoler said:

Here is what y'all are missing: they finally admitted the target is retaining 65% of uncommitted pilots. They don't need all of you to take $35K. They don't want all of you to take $35K. They want the 10% they didn't get last year and the % they won't get this year.

This.

Does anyone really think that the inflation-correcting $35k/year bonus will boost retention from the 45% or so this year to their target 65%?  I have my doubts.  We'll just be throwing more money at those who were going to stay in anyway.  Extra money for the future ThreeHolers of the world- a fantastic deal for those folks.

We all know that the QoL/"work rules" aren't going to improve, which is what's really necessary to fix this retention problem.  $35k/year just isn't enough to sway a large number of people.  Perhaps they should be looking to correct flight pay for inflation as well.  $650/month in 1999 corrects to about $925.  $840 corrects to about $1200.

Or, more likely, we'll just see senior management institute Stop Loss.  

 

[TnkrToad]

6 hours ago, AlifBaa said:

65% is the number I've seen used twice in the past ~5 years.   The most recent example was last week when CSAF asked congress for a bigger bonus in light of a 55% retention rate last year.  

I'm not a personnelist, but it's pretty painfully obvious to me that the overall take rate number is only useful as a very broad indicator of the net effects of airline hiring and/or pilots' frustrations with Air Force/congressional policies. It's useless as an overall gauge of Air Force pilot manning/health, because there is so much variation between pilot communities, and between year groups within those communities. 

What really matters is various Air Force specialties' manning, and the extent to which retaining pilots reaching bonus eligibility can impact overall AFSC health. The outlook isn't good overall, but it's especially poor for certain communities. I'll use the RPA community as an example, but the principle works the same for all rated AFSCs:

The RPA community is hurting for manning already, and the Air Force is seeking to expand it further. It seems plausible that the Air Force really needs 100% of the bonus-eligible RPA drivers to stay in this year, so that the force can be grown while executing global operations. Given the current state of manning and projected growth, I'm guessing the RPA community might need a 100% take rate for several years, if it is to have a hope of getting healthy manning-wise. That ain't gonna happen, though. 

The only way to grow the community, then, will be through accessions--taking a lot more folks from commissioning sources and making them 18Xs--which involves a huge degree of short-term pain, as folks are taken off the line to train the newbies, and furthermore has the potential of creating an opposite problem down the road (a glut of 2016 year group 18Xers, all competing for very limited school/staff/command opportunities). 

For the current group of bonus-eligible RPA pilots, the Air Force didn't make enough folks from their commissioning year groups RPA pilots, and the Air Force is highly unlikely to retain enough via the bonus to get/keep the RPA community healthy. I don't know of any other plans to provide further monetary incentives for RPA pilots, to encourage them to become RPA drivers and/or retain those who already are 11Us/18Xers. I know of no plan to promote RPA drivers at higher rates, in order to provide a professional incentive to serve as an RPA pilot. Airline hiring is making it abundantly clear that taking more pilots out of manned cockpits is not going to be a good strategy. 

It strikes me that, if the Air Force wants to get the RPA community healthy (and I would say this goes for most pilot communities), the Air Force will need to substantially increase

- (1) monthly incentive pays--to encourage folks to enter the career field and hence buttress squadron operations,

- (2) ACP bonuses--to encourage folks to stay in the career field and hence buttress staff and command, and

- (3) consider another bonus offering at the 20-year, retirement-eligibility point--to ensure we eventually have senior leaders and senior O-5/O-6 staffers who are deeply familiar with RPAs. Given how long ago we were able to see this train wreck coming, I can't comprehend why options 1 & 2 weren't pursued long ago. These would seem to be the easiest--it would simply be a matter of updating incentive pays & bonuses to match current market conditions. I think Big Blue should consider Option 3, particularly for manned aircraft pilots, since the combination of airline hiring (airlines pay better) and military retirement (staying past 20 means effectively working for "half pay") will make it awfully hard to keep talent on AD. 

Of course, it would help if the president/congress provided leadership and funding, Air Force leaders chose not to engage in witch hunts, and officers were selected based on performance, rather than demographic diversity. 

TT

 

[General Chang]

12 hours ago, NKAWTG said:

March ACP numbers were posted.  Slight up tick to 37% overall from 35% in February.  Last year, about 69% of the bonus takers were early signers.  If that trend holds true, then this year's take rate will end up around 42%. 

I'm curious what the air staff target is, and what the "sky is falling" number is. 

Sky is not falling...between rapid influx of 18x and new enlisted RPA program, things will settle in the next few years.  No panic in the P-gon.

[TnkrToad]

18 minutes ago, General Chang said:

Sky is not falling...between rapid influx of 18x and new enlisted RPA program, things will settle in the next few years.  No panic in the P-gon.

And this, folks, is how we get the leaders we do in the Air Force:

- Focus on system inputs (ramp up manned pilot/18x/enlisted pilot production--see above)

- Ignore losses of experienced individuals, and thus fail adequately retain folks at key career inflection points (e.g., end of SUPT commitment, retirement eligibility at 20 yrs) . . . except for those who fit the right demographics. Ensure they're promoted at higher rates, in order to encourage them to stay in

- Promote those who bother to stay in past their min commitments/beyond 20 yr retirement eligibility (retention of adequate numbers of quality individuals be damned)

- Further isolate high-potential officers by sending them off to endless strings of schools and staff jobs

- Even further isolate senior leaders by giving them staffs comprised of those who--like the senior leaders--were among the few who bothered to stay on AD (and hence have little in common with the masses of folks serving under them, who are mostly waiting to finally reach the ends of their respective ADSC commitments) 

The Five-Sided Puzzle Palace must be an awesome echo chamber for GC and his buddies. 

TT

 

 

[Gazmo]

The sky is falling. When there are talks about introducing a pilot bonus for DSG ANG/Reservists because people are walking away before their 2o years, you know it's bad. As the AF looses both airframes and people, they will continue to tap more and more into the ARC. I've heard a rumor they are kicking around a 1:4 dwell for ARC deployments. For guys in the 11-15 yr range who don't have a whole lot of AD time for a substantial retirement check at 6o years old, it'll be an easy decision to leave if they're well off at their civilian company. The ARC is not gonna swallow being deployed 100+ days a year without kicking and screaming.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

[ILoveScotch]

I I think the pilot shortage is a win/win for both groups...

Do you honestly believe there is a pilot shortage?

In the AF? No. We'll likely lose experiance, but that'll be a leadership shortage, not a pilot shortage.

In the airlines? It's what media and CSAF is saying. Sure, I guess.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

[Guest]

Sky is not falling...between rapid influx of 18x and new enlisted RPA program, things will settle in the next few years.  No panic in the P-gon.

Because doubled production of 18X pilots is going to solve the manning problem with regards to all your disenfranchised CGOs/FGOs who are one more straw from punching?

Chang, you know pilot manning is screwed when pilots who "would never take an airline job" are quietly taking time off to get their ATPs "just in case." I know a lot of people that fall into that category.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Duck]

Yay! Changs back!

[ILoveScotch]

Sky is not falling...between rapid influx of 18x and new enlisted RPA program, things will settle in the next few years.  No panic in the P-gon.

Chang, you know pilot manning is screwed when pilots who "would never take an airline job" are quietly taking time off to get their ATPs "just in case." I know a lot of people that fall into that category.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

To be fair, this likely has more to do with the recent change in rules governing ATP acquisition than anything else...

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

[ned1]

I say INCREASE the pay....

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk

[BADFNZ]

3 hours ago, General Chang said:

Sky is not falling...between rapid influx of 18x and new enlisted RPA program, things will settle in the next few years.  No panic in the P-gon.

Edited March 8, 2016 by BADFNZ

[Polar Bear]

Um, the amount of stupidity in the air force has nothing to do with it being the "Nature of the business." 

More than any other branch?

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk

[Guest]

To be fair, this likely has more to do with the recent change in rules governing ATP acquisition than anything else...

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

Sure, the new ATP rules may have pressured some into getting it sooner than later. In the instances I'm referring to, we are looking at AF pilots who have previously envisioned themselves retiring and then taking non-flying jobs in the private sector. Their desired career transitions to non-flying jobs were predicated on an active duty retirement to fall back on; they no longer want to stick it out to 20.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Bode]

I know there are many of us that have zero airline ambitions regardless if we stick it out to 20 or not. I love what I do but plan on doing something completely different when I exit from the military. With that said the airlines have no appeal to me or many others.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Polar Bear]

I know you guys are aircrew, and as aircrew, I'm fully aware that we bitch a lot.

But man, you guys REALLY bitch a lot.

I took the bonus. $155k/year is what I'd have to make on the outside to achieve the same take home pay. Is it the best job in the world? Probably not. But the airlines never appealed to me, and are full of their own pitfalls. I'm 35 years old and I make $155k/year. For a single guy, that's a lot of money. I'm fully aware a 365 has my name on it, at some point. That's fine, even more money to stash away (tax free).

The job isn't that bad. Some guys have it worse than others, sure. But at 20 years, those of us that stayed in get to retire and do what we really want to do with the rest of our lives. Not a bad deal if you ask me.

Figured I'd throw in an opinion that goes against the norm here. Bitch away...

You can't post that you're voluntarily staying in the AF on this forum. This is Baseops, only angry people allowed :)

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk

[ned1]

My friends, extreme problems demand extreme solutions. We must throw every new officer into the rpa field and double pay for all rated positions if we are going to solve this HUGE problem.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk

[ILoveScotch]

My friends, extreme problems demand extreme solutions. We must throw every new officer into the rpa field and double pay for all rated positions if we are going to solve this HUGE problem.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk

Give it 5 years and RPAs will be in vogue. Eventually the problem will resolve itself. It's not a bad gig, especially once the ops tempo issues get resolved.

People are just trapped in their egos right now. The reality is computers can fly better. We are dinosaurs... it's just a matter of time. Don't worry, you can still wear your flight jacket and expensive watch.

Flame suit on!

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

[guineapigfury]

I'm doubtful we'll solve the RPA manning problem in the next 5 years.  The FTU continues to hemhorrhage IPs since noone wants to go back to Ops, at least on AD.  We've plussed up some at Holloman, but nothing like the doubling (or more) that is needed to produce the desired amount of crews in a sustainable manner.  Further, large numbers of 18Xers start to hit the end of their ADSCs in 2018.  The plural of anecdote is not data, but I know zero guys who are planning to stay unless they're late rate or prior E.  My prediction is the wheels come off in the fall of 2018 and we'll have a Stop Loss by the spring of 2019.

[ILoveScotch]

I'm doubtful we'll solve the RPA manning problem in the next 5 years.  The FTU continues to hemhorrhage IPs since noone wants to go back to Ops, at least on AD.  We've plussed up some at Holloman, but nothing like the doubling (or more) that is needed to produce the desired amount of crews in a sustainable manner.  Further, large numbers of 18Xers start to hit the end of their ADSCs in 2018.  The plural of anecdote is not data, but I know zero guys who are planning to stay unless they're late rate or prior E.  My prediction is the wheels come off in the fall of 2018 and we'll have a Stop Loss by the spring of 2019.

Genuinely curious:

What is the holdup in doubling holloman? Manpower? If a guy wanted to teach at the schoolhouse through 20, is he able to?

I guess I don't understand. Shouldn't the schoolhouse have no problems finding IPs if Ops life is so terrible?

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

[matmacwc]

I've heard nothing good about Holloman, as far as I understand it, the unwritten rule is the porch sends non seven day opt eligible  pilots.

im glad Chang is back, he's honest even when we ridicule.  The pentagon may not be worried, but I know the ANG is, but it is easier to leave.

[ILoveScotch]

I've heard nothing good about Holloman, as far as I understand it, the unwritten rule is the porch sends non seven day opt eligible  pilots.

im glad Chang is back, he's honest even when we ridicule.  The pentagon may not be worried, but I know the ANG is, but it is easier to leave.

Ok, so Holloman doesn't suck less than ops. If that's the case, then yeah, short term fix is bonus or RPA incentive pay to keep people from leaving long enough to get RPAs healthy.

You're going to have to spend money anyway you cut it. Either pay RPA operators more, foot the bill to move RPAs to better QoL locations, or pay the contractor price. Stop loss isn't a valid option. It's a last ditch maneuver that won't yield anything positive long term.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

[guineapigfury]

We are currently trending very young for many of our new arrivals.  Lots of 1Lts and A1Cs.  Some of that is they can't 7 day opt, some of it is that younguns are all this community has to send.  On the plus side the popcorn tends to stay fresh.  The diificulties at Holloman are similar to the difficulties elsewhere in RPAland minus shiftwork.  Crappy location, tedious and unrewarding work, hard to get leave approved, better money and QOL on the outside.  Imagine Altus without grass and the median operational experience of your IPs is 3 years with no IP experience prior to arriving.  The silver lining is that lots of dudes are pushing to the Guard and contracting, often staying at this base.  However,  those dudes are often just holding at the fix waiting for a better opportunity to present itself.  We don't have trouble finding people, we have trouble keeping them.  Assignments here follow normal assignment rules, so 3-4 years for those who don't separate or PC/PF.  I'm not advocating stop-loss, but I expect it.

Edited March 9, 2016 by guineapigfury

[Guardian]

But what about the finance officer? He'll be left out? Or the Security Forces officer?