Aviation Continuation Pay (ACP - The Bonus)

[Duck]

I don't know too many guys who are actually working till 65. I would guess that most guys by 70 would probably be to tired to keep up the grind.

[Champ Kind]

6 hours ago, di1630 said:

Jeeezus, stop loss? What a mess us pilots have talked about for 6-9+ years. I just checked the 9 May acp update....most takers were 2015....hardly any signed up late. I have very little faith the fence-sitters are giving up $69 per day in lost bonus to hold out until last minute so I'm betting rates don't change a lot.

Especially since the only guys sitting on the fence are likely in their last look for IDE.  Those results come out in October.  Bonus programs end with the FY.  I can't imagine why someone would sign now versus at the last minute in September, except maybe an assignment..  but even, that is one potential good-deal assignment.  To me, there is no way I'd sign a 9-year bonus based solely on an upcoming 3-4 year good deal.

Edited May 16, 2016 by Champ Kind

[SnapLock]

Chang,

You suck!  The fact that you probably went IDE in-res and are on staff now and will likely be a CC and make O-6+ is why I am leaving ASAP.  Really let that sink in for a moment.

To everyone else, if there is a stop loss will pilots still be able to take the bonus?  I have every intention of getting out, yesterday, but if there is a significant stop loss I think there are some people out there that would still want to take the bonus.  Will it still be available in that scenario?

[Guest]

Chang,

You suck!  The fact that you probably went IDE in-res and are on staff now and will likely be a CC and make O-6+ is why I am leaving ASAP.  Really let that sink in for a moment.

To everyone else, if there is a stop loss will pilots still be able to take the bonus?  I have every intention of getting out, yesterday, but if there is a significant stop loss I think there are some people out there that would still want to take the bonus.  Will it still be available in that scenario?

Better question: if you decline the bonus, and are subsequently stop-lossed, will you be eligible to receive compensation at the bonus rate?

[Magnum]

On 5/15/2016 at 9:08 PM, General Chang said:

Guys, this is easy from the AF perspective...if we start having a significant long-term problem with retention, we'll stop-loss in the near term and move to 15-yr commitments long term.  Take it to the bank.  And before you pilots start whining on this forum, you knew this would be a possibility when you signed on the bottom line.

The more of your friends that take the bonus, the longer we can put off S.L. and expanded commitments.

Two thoughts on this weeny.  First is he hasn't the slightest clue about how the Air Force accomplishes its mission.  Sure, he's been to the Maxwell think tank that has taught him how air warfare is conducted, by people who have never actually accomplished the mission.  If he did have a clue, he'd understand why pilots are complaining and not just resort to name calling.  Second, I can't wait for this guy to get a taste of corporate America.  His approach to management will bankrupt any company he works for.  Successful companies know how to treat their talent since they are what makes the company successful.  The USAF has it easy.  Their talent isn't demanding insane pay, afternoon naps, hover boards, company cars or bowls of jelly bellies with all of the green ones picked out.  We simply want to be able to do the one job we're trained to do better with a better QOL. 

Chang, I refuse to believe that when the USAF has tons of information on how to help retention they would rather just say F-it, let it roll and do nothing, rather than make meaningful changes that will keep tactical experience.  Oh wait, never mind, it does make sense now that I think about it.

[BuddhaSixFour]

Disregard. I'm actually thinking of another user on here. No idea who Chang is. 

Edited May 17, 2016 by BuddhaSixFour

[Duck]

Buddha that's scary. So does stop-loss also apply to twice passed over and denying continuation?

[SnapLock]

1 hour ago, BuddhaSixFour said:

So, I have no intentions of outing Chang because I appreciate his being here and commenting, and I'm only 75% sure of who he is anyways.

All I'm going to say is that he's A) a capable leader in enough ways to B) be on a strong upward trajectory, and C) well enough connected that if he's saying it, it is more than idle speculation.  I thoroughly disagree with his proposal, but I would never write the man off or play shoot the messenger.

I consider his comments an actual peak behind the curtain. FWIW.

^^^This is exactly what I was thinking.  I've assumed for a while now that the AF thinks we're being whiny little pricks and they're not going to "negotiate" with us. Look at the evidence.  Senior leaders mentioning the ability to stop loss, no real reform coming down the pipe, not acknowledging that there is a problem, sending out surveys and asking questions but never sending any responses to those surveys or any change to the status quo.  I could go on and I'm sure there is a lot of evidence that I'm not thinking of.  The only assumption that all of us should make is that nothing is going to change.  Things will probably only get worse when it comes to additional duties, 365s and morale.  If we're not preparing for things to get worse and a stop loss then we probably have ours craniums in the sand.      

[General Chang]

Ok, let's all take a deep breath and take the emotion down a notch.  Big picture...HAF has bigger fish to fry than keeping pilots on the right side of the happy meter.  Top of the list: finding $$ to recapitalize our fleet.  We have tools to (short term) solve a potential pilot shortfall and (long term) ensure it doesn't happen again.  No hesitation will occur if we cross the red line.  Pilot satisfaction is simply not at the top of the list right now with tools like stop loss, expanded commitments, and (good possibility) expanded bonus options available.

Hate the messenger all you want...fair warning: heed the message.

[goingkinetic]

Its going to be interesting watching senior leaders explain the multiple rounds of VSP, and the number of pilots twice passed over to my congressman. Somehow I think negligence and mismanagement isn't going to go over too well. My best guess is the red line gets tripped sometime late 2017 to early 2018. Data point I'm up for the bonus and I'm not taking it.

[Prozac]

4 hours ago, General Chang said:

Ok, let's all take a deep breath and take the emotion down a notch.  Big picture...HAF has bigger fish to fry than keeping pilots on the right side of the happy meter.  Top of the list: finding $$ to recapitalize our fleet.  We have tools to (short term) solve a potential pilot shortfall and (long term) ensure it doesn't happen again.  No hesitation will occur if we cross the red line.  Pilot satisfaction is simply not at the top of the list right now with tools like stop loss, expanded commitments, and (good possibility) expanded bonus options available.

Hate the messenger all you want...fair warning: heed the message.

F-35s are more important than people. Got it. How's that saying go? "Lockheed first, people sometimes" -- or something like that?

[herkbum]

Ok, let's all take a deep breath and take the emotion down a notch.  Big picture...HAF has bigger fish to fry than keeping pilots on the right side of the happy meter.  Top of the list: finding $$ to recapitalize our fleet.  We have tools to (short term) solve a potential pilot shortfall and (long term) ensure it doesn't happen again.  No hesitation will occur if we cross the red line.  Pilot satisfaction is simply not at the top of the list right now with tools like stop loss, expanded commitments, and (good possibility) expanded bonus options available.

Hate the messenger all you want...fair warning: heed the message.

As a Guard guy, I don't have a dog in this fight, but how can you completely disregard what the disenfranchised group of people are telling you? How can you not listen to them when they explain how to help alleviate some of your manning problems? I think you get it completely wrong when you say their happiness is a nonfactor. Big Blue may not be corporate America, but employee satisfaction is important. This is the AIR Force. Whether you like it or not, pilots are a crucial part of what the AIR Force is all about. I truly hope your comments are not representative of AFPC, but after following this thread from the beginning and over 2200 posts, nothing that has come out of there has proven otherwise. God help those on AD.

[Vetter]

This is going to be comical to watch.  The view of those like Chang will truly be the downfall of the Air Force.  Once the true volunteer aspect leaves with stop-loss or indentured servitude type contracts, the train will come off the tracks.

As a red blooded, combat proven American, there's one thing  I value more than anything.  That's freedom to do what the I want with my life.  I gave 13 years of my life to the defense of my nation.  I am proud of that, but the moment I felt that was being taken for granted, I stopped playing the game and took my ball elsewhere.

My advice to anyone on the fence is to start getting your plan together yesterday. If there is stop-loss, go back to your SERE days of using passive resistance.  If I was stop-loss'd, I'd stop doing every single additional duty and focus 100% on flying.  I'd call out sick at least once a week.  I'd fail every single PT test.  Hell, I'd find a way to go DNIF without messing up my airline prospects.

I hope it doesn't come to what Chang is proposing, but realize your Sr Leadership, both in Congress and in the Pentagon may have just become your enemy.

I thank God every day I was able to get out when I did.  I landed on my feet and I know you guys will too.

Edited May 17, 2016 by Vetter

[Sprkt69]

8 hours ago, General Chang said:

Ok, let's all take a deep breath and take the emotion down a notch.  Big picture...HAF has bigger fish to fry than keeping pilots on the right side of the happy meter.  Top of the list: finding $$ to recapitalize our fleet.  We have tools to (short term) solve a potential pilot shortfall and (long term) ensure it doesn't happen again.  No hesitation will occur if we cross the red line.  Pilot satisfaction is simply not at the top of the list right now with tools like stop loss, expanded commitments, and (good possibility) expanded bonus options available.

Hate the messenger all you want...fair warning: heed the message.

Yet there are plenty of things that can be done with out using any/or just a little bit of funding (like the money from expanding the bonus)

When the writing has been on the wall for over a decade, I have negative sympathy for the results of planning like what you propose. And I thank the Gods of Aviation I went Guard!

[TheInner]

I have heard some substantiated rumors that leadership has basically said that we aren't going to be able to meet in the middle on retention and the focus is now simply on absorption (at least in the 11F world).  The FTU business is already seeing increased numbers and reduced timelines between classes.  It will take a few years to see if it works but it does seem like big blue has chosen the path of accepting a couple more years of low 11F manning and waiting for this surge of output to "fix the glitch."  Of course, in standard AF sine wave fashion this same conversation will be repeated in a few years when everyone being jammed through the pipeline right now starts getting out for all the same reasons.  Think that the AF will ever learn that retention really is a problem they need to solve with something other than a check?

[nunya]

5 minutes ago, TheInner said:

I have heard some substantiated rumors that leadership has basically said that we aren't going to be able to meet in the middle on retention and the focus is now simply on absorption (at least in the 11F world).  The FTU business is already seeing increased numbers and reduced timelines between classes.  It will take a few years to see if it works but it does seem like big blue has chosen the path of accepting a couple more years of low 11F manning and waiting for this surge of output to "fix the glitch." 

Right now, in a cubicle in Atlanta, Dallas, and Chicago, some bean counter just said, "More input, hmm...  10 minus 1, carry the 2, divide by 3... so you'll be trained and ready to interview in 8.69 years?  Perfect."

[ClearedHot]

9 hours ago, General Chang said:

Ok, let's all take a deep breath and take the emotion down a notch.  Big picture...HAF has bigger fish to fry than keeping pilots on the right side of the happy meter.  Top of the list: finding $$ to recapitalize our fleet.  We have tools to (short term) solve a potential pilot shortfall and (long term) ensure it doesn't happen again.  No hesitation will occur if we cross the red line.  Pilot satisfaction is simply not at the top of the list right now with tools like stop loss, expanded commitments, and (good possibility) expanded bonus options available.

Hate the messenger all you want...fair warning: heed the message.

Choke yourself you sanctimonious prick.   For the record, you are not as smart as you think you are, you have simply become a mindless part of the collective, endlessly spewing the same old PA verbiage.  Here is the thing, I know the game, I’ve done all the in-res schools….ACSC, ASG, War College in DC…and I’ve sat behind the glass doors on the E-Ring as an exec and watched the buffoonery.  Playing the $ money card overlooks a GLARING error, we did it to ourselves.  The lack of vision from people like Buzz and Zatar is what got us here, for all too long we have been stuck in the endless Do Loop of “we can only have a fifth gen force” and we are paying the price for it in spades.  10 years ago a LOT of very smart people tried to tell them the $ crunch was coming and we could not afford a force of only F-22’s and F-35’s.  Despite the fact that on the second night of OIF A-10’s were fighting inside the “Super MEZ”, the seniors insisted we double-down on fifth gen and now we cry when we have no $ to buy anything else. What do you expect when we are flying Raptors that cost $44,000 a flying hour and F-35’s that cost $36,000 a flying hour instead of a mixed high-low fleet that could have economically fought the fight we have been in for the 15 YEARS!  Then as we piled ever more coal into the 5^th gen steam engine that we couldn’t afford, we decided to cut people to pay the bill, and we took those people from the admin heart of the Squadrons (CSS), where they were needed most…Now, after purposely cutting people we suddenly come to the conclusion that the Air Force is On Verge of Manpower Collapse…freaking brilliant! 

Sadly, we had multiple chances to off-ramp this road to perdition and the Navy tried to show us the way like in 2006 when they broke the “no more 4^th gen fighters for any service pact.” I was there the day the boss found out the Navy was getting 24 extra Super Hornets and I was in close trail as he barged into the N-8 office screaming explicatives at the CNO and his XP staff.  The Navy response “well the Super Hornet is not a 4^th gen airplane, it is a 4.5 gen airplane and we probably can’t afford all the F-35’s anyway.”  Congress has been more than willing to gift us extra Vipers and Eagles every year, but we foolishly keep saying no and doubled down to the point we had to start closing fighter squadrons to pay the bills.  The last ten years have seen a steady retreat from the TacAir redline, No lower than 2,300 fighters!…Ok No lower than 2,100 fighters!  There was a huge gasp at 2,000, but we sliced right past that number faster than some late night yaki mandu through your system after a Friday night in Aragon Alley.  As we started closing fighter squadrons we suddenly had fewer to fill AEF taskings so the bros and sisters on the end of the whip have to run even faster to make up for the shortage…starting to see the picture now?

When it comes to your "retention tools" again, you don’t get it…what you call having bigger fish to fry than keeping pilots on the right side of the happy meter and using STOP LOSS as a retention tool is the PROOF that the entire thing is a scam.  How can senior leaders profess to care about the force, mission first…people always, and say things like “Morale is pretty darn good” almost in the same breath they admit the Air Force is on the verge of a manpower collapse?  This CSAF has made countless impassioned speeches about caring for people and “every Airman has a story”, but in the end as you admit the people are just numbers and their happiness doesn’t really matter.  I get it that you will never make everyone happy and there will always be sport bitching, but this is something very different.  This is the heart of your ability to be an Air Force, your professional pilot force telling you with their feet…”THINGS ARE Fed UP!”  Only 38% of the pilot force took the bonus last year and the numbers look worse for this year…so I would submit you better make time to fix the happy meter. 

 It is not about hating the messenger, it is about hating the smug asshat that parades around the room showing glee in his pronouncements from on high.  You represent much of what is wrong with the current system.

[Clark Griswold]

12 hours ago, General Chang said:

Ok, let's all take a deep breath and take the emotion down a notch.  Big picture...HAF has bigger fish to fry than keeping pilots on the right side of the happy meter.  Top of the list: finding $$ to recapitalize our fleet.  We have tools to (short term) solve a potential pilot shortfall and (long term) ensure it doesn't happen again.  No hesitation will occur if we cross the red line.  Pilot satisfaction is simply not at the top of the list right now with tools like stop loss, expanded commitments, and (good possibility) expanded bonus options available.

Hate the messenger all you want...fair warning: heed the message.

I would start looking under the cushions in this jet.

[HiFlyer]

It amazes me that anyone would call stop-loss a "retention tool".  Granted, you keep a few people a little longer in the short term, but if the problem is that you are burning out the force, it only accelerates the burn and speeds the increasing percentage of the force that makes the decision to bail out ASAP.  Additionally, a lot of potential accessions see the burn and decide to go elsewhere to either fly, or adopt a different career, so not only does retention of the existing force suffer but it makes it harder to get new bodies in the pipeline.  Retention means appealing to the force in a manner to make them WANT to stay in, not MAKE them stay in.  BTW, I'd sure like to see some of those other "long term solutions".  If pilots are getting out for a set of definable reasons, I'd hope the solutions address them, and not a few PC headliners that look good in the media, like working hard on that multi-gender bathroom issue.

Maybe I'm just an old dinosaur, but in my 49 years of AD and contractor service to the AF and DoD I've seen this road traveled three times and it hasn't worked yet!!

[SurelySerious]

Ok, let's all take a deep breath and take the emotion down a notch.  Big picture...HAF has bigger fish to fry than keeping pilots on the right side of the happy meter.  Top of the list: finding $$ to recapitalize our fleet.  We have tools to (short term) solve a potential pilot shortfall and (long term) ensure it doesn't happen again.  No hesitation will occur if we cross the red line.  Pilot satisfaction is simply not at the top of the list right now with tools like stop loss, expanded commitments, and (good possibility) expanded bonus options available.

Hate the messenger all you want...fair warning: heed the message.

But you have the opportunity, a pivotal moment, to implement actual organizational change and fix the culture that is driving people to leave. No money required, just amending useless/harmful policies and leadership behavior.

Or, you can implement stop-gap measures that will perpetuate the problem of discord.

[Clark Griswold]

2 hours ago, SurelySerious said:

But you have the opportunity, a pivotal moment, to implement actual organizational change and fix the culture that is driving people to leave. No money required, just amending useless/harmful policies and leadership behavior.

Or, you can implement stop-gap measures that will perpetuate the problem of discord.

True - but thinking about this, is he (next CSAF) willing to do what is really necessary to recover the jet.  In order to affect the change needed, pretty much he's going to have change out if not the entire GO cadre in USAF, a helluva lot of them and get a SECAF willing to clean out the dead wood on his/her side also.  Lower echelons also to some degree.

We can come up with great proposals but until you get rid of the obstacles that just water it down till there's no punch nothing will happen...

He will have to let a lot of his friends get a chance to get on board or get a pink slip...

[Bode]

I hope people like Chang are taking this info and choosing to use it wisely. Honestly I bet they are not.

Just sat in a meeting with a bunch of IG members and they said that every base they visit complains about two things: two much queep (in the form of additional duties and what not) and poor manning.

This queep stays for some ridiculous reason and there are ways to fix the manning (start by going back to the first problem).

Also take a look at flight pay they numbers haven't changed much since 1989. That inflated value of the $650 a month category is $1185. I know that doesn't change everything but that is $6k a year. Maybe that doesn't fix everything but it won't hurt. I personally would rather take a flight pay increase of signing my life away to collect about $15k in bonus money.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Bode]

Guys, this is easy from the AF perspective...if we start having a significant long-term problem with retention, we'll stop-loss in the near term and move to 15-yr commitments long term.  Take it to the bank.  And before you pilots start whining on this forum, you knew this would be a possibility when you signed on the bottom line.

The more of your friends that take the bonus, the longer we can put off S.L. and expanded commitments.

How ridiculous is this? Do you actually read what you post?

So if individuals have already signed TEN year commitment they should sign another one (up to 9 years) to prevent up coming up with a long commitment.

Sounds completely sensible......or not.

Let work on common sense here.

[viper154]

16 hours ago, General Chang said:

Ok, let's all take a deep breath and take the emotion down a notch.  Big picture...HAF has bigger fish to fry than keeping pilots on the right side of the happy meter.  Top of the list: finding $$ to recapitalize our fleet.  We have tools to (short term) solve a potential pilot shortfall and (long term) ensure it doesn't happen again.  No hesitation will occur if we cross the red line.  Pilot satisfaction is simply not at the top of the list right now with tools like stop loss, expanded commitments, and (good possibility) expanded bonus options available.

Hate the messenger all you want...fair warning: heed the message.

You can have all the gucci gear you want, its not going to make a difference in the world if you don't have a force of highly trained/skilled/motivated people to fly/maintain/support the gear. I have seen your office, among others take the most valuable asset this military has (motivated people excited about their job) and turn them into bitter, disgruntled, and burnt out guys/gals counting down the days until they can GTFO. You don't get that its not about the money. History has shown, the most modern and powerful militaries have been defeated time and time again, by inferior and ill equipped enemies, that have a motived force with a reason to fight. People are your most valuable asset, and you are bending them over and giving it to them with no lube. Out. I have to go do my SAPR CBT............

[trons513]

Question from a new Lt (flame suit on) who won't graduate UPT for another 2 years or so: If the ADSC is increased to 15 years, would those of us who have already signed the 10 year ADSC paperwork (before commissioning) be grandfathered in or would we have our ADSCs pushed out to 15 years as well? Research indicates that shorter ADSCs were grandfathered in at least once in the past.

If this belongs somewhere else, let the public humiliation begin and I'll change course.