Aviation Continuation Pay (ACP - The Bonus)

[ClearedHot]

TT,

VERY interesting numbers.  If the MC-130 numbers are that good then clearly Cannon is not having an impact on retention in that community, although I am curious if any of those folks had secondary ADSC from moving to the MCJ.  The MC-130H draw-down is going to create a very small community of folks at one location,it will be interesting to see their retention numbers the next few years.

On the C-145...technically they don't do NSAV anymore, we retired the majority of the fleet, the remaining aircraft are now in the reserves at Duke.  The 6th SOS has some great folks, but they have been continuously under-resourced by commanders who did not see their value.  I was in the room when one past AFSOC/CC was openly bashing them asking the crowd to name one time, just one time when they opened a door in the recent conflicts...a lot of folks were looking at each ready to speak up for several examples, but it was clear it was rhetorical and he did not want to hear a response. 

The C-146 is the primary NSAV aircraft and they are moving from Cannon to Duke, the active duty folks will get a two year ADSC but I know several who are taking the ADSC but NOT the ACP...they are simply counting down.

While AFSOC is not YET facing the same level of hurt as the 11F community, it is on the way and somewhat exacerbated by leadership.  In the room with yet another AFSOC/CC when he was told about the looming problem of pilot retention, he replied...they will stay if they are patriots and if not we don;t want them, we will just make more...I was absolutely speechless. I will be very general to protect their identity, but there are several sitting SQ/CC's who are planning to bail when their current tour is complete.

[pawnman]

1 hour ago, ClearedHot said:

TT,

VERY interesting numbers.  If the MC-130 numbers are that good then clearly Cannon is not having an impact on retention in that community, although I am curious if any of those folks had secondary ADSC from moving to the MCJ.  The MC-130H draw-down is going to create a very small community of folks at one location,it will be interesting to see their retention numbers the next few years.

On the C-145...technically they don't do NSAV anymore, we retired the majority of the fleet, the remaining aircraft are now in the reserves at Duke.  The 6th SOS has some great folks, but they have been continuously under-resourced by commanders who did not see their value.  I was in the room when one past AFSOC/CC was openly bashing them asking the crowd to name one time, just one time when they opened a door in the recent conflicts...a lot of folks were looking at each ready to speak up for several examples, but it was clear it was rhetorical and he did not want to hear a response. 

The C-146 is the primary NSAV aircraft and they are moving from Cannon to Duke, the active duty folks will get a two year ADSC but I know several who are taking the ADSC but NOT the ACP...they are simply counting down.

While AFSOC is not YET facing the same level of hurt as the 11F community, it is on the way and somewhat exacerbated by leadership.  In the room with yet another AFSOC/CC when he was told about the looming problem of pilot retention, he replied...they will stay if they are patriots and if not we don;t want them, we will just make more...I was absolutely speechless. I will be very general to protect their identity, but there are several sitting SQ/CC's who are planning to bail when their current tour is complete.

"If they don't like it, they can leave"...this is the same mentality that created the fighter pilot shortage.

[ClearedHot]

20 hours ago, Ram said:

This statement above, plus you said "get out while you can" just a few months back.

 

Cm'on, CH...show us your cards.

I'm retired now so my view of the cards is dated.  I tired to tell a LOT of senior folks this was coming and they did not seem concerned.  Towards the end you could tell they were beginning to see how serious it was but it was too late for them to make real change.  I heard lot of chatter from bros on the Airstaff and Stoploss was being discussed, but I don't know if they decided on a redline.  Another previous MAJCOM commander commented that stoploss was a "viable retention tool"...he is retired now and I don't know if his views shared by the other seniors...obviously we all thought he was out of his mind, you can't stoploss folks until 20 years and the message it would send would only make the situation worse.

[C-21.Pilot]

Don't sign the bonus.  Just don't.

[ViperStud]

Some rumors are spreading in the ANG and that the AGR bonus is staying at 25k/yr even if/when the AD bonus goes up. That'd be an interesting play.  AGRs deal with far less bullshit than AD counterparts yet they still are resigning their positions to get a line number. Anyone in the know have any SA?

[matmacwc]

Says the new AGR

[SocialD]

13 hours ago, ViperStud said:

Some rumors are spreading in the ANG and that the AGR bonus is staying at 25k/yr even if/when the AD bonus goes up. That'd be an interesting play.  AGRs deal with far less bullshit than AD counterparts yet they still are resigning their positions to get a line number. Anyone in the know have any SA?

Very interesting play indeed.  We have guys about to end a year or 2 of MLOA that are on the fence about extending...this bonus will be a big player.  There are new patches resigning and going to the airlines.  The Guard BS is much less than our AD counterparts, but it's still very much UP, relatively speaking.  

Edited November 25, 2016 by SocialD

[Jaded]

They need to implement the TR bonus they've been talking about or they're going to have an exodus from the reserves as well.

[herkbum]

They need to implement the TR bonus they've been talking about or they're going to have an exodus from the reserves as well.

We have heard about a TR/extended orders bonus for RPA units. Does anyone have any insight into this? We are researching, but curious if any bubbas are getting it or have some knowledge.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

[SnapLock]

Looks like Congress set the bonus to be maxed out at $35K. JQP is reporting that this is what is in the NDAA that just passed the House. Sure, it's not about the money, but I don't see how going from $60K to $48K to $35K is going to help retention when the starting point should have been $35-$40K years ago. 

I think stop loss is coming... Get out while you can. I know I am.

[Guest]

Looks like Congress set the bonus to be maxed out at $35K. JQP is reporting that this is what is in the NDAA that just passed the House. Sure, it's not about the money, but I don't see how going from $60K to $48K to $35K is going to help retention when the starting point should have been $35-$40K years ago. 
I think stop loss is coming... Get out while you can. I know I am.

YGBSM. For 50k+ a year I'd consider letting Big Blue dictate another 6-9 years of my life. Hopefully they revise that figure upward for the 2018 NDAA or this decision will be an easy one. Of course, even if Congress authorizes a higher bonus, us MAF guys will probably get left out since we're so well manned.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Warrior]

Source?


Edit: I believe you, just interested to do the reading on my own.

Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

[SocialD]

 You can see them all here at the National Guard Bureau Legislative Liaison...just search section 616.

Looks like the House was down with 60k and the Senate was not.  Note:  Didn't look through the whole bill, just CTRL-F "incentive."  

Quote

H.R. 4909

SEC. 616. INCREASE IN MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF AVIATION SPECIAL PAYS FOR FLYING DUTY.

Section 334(c)(1) of title 37, United States Code, is amended by striking subparagraphs (A) and (B) and in- serting the following new subparagraphs:

‘‘(A) aviation incentive pay under sub- section (a) shall be paid at a monthly rate not to exceed $1,000 per month; and

‘‘(B) an aviation bonus under subsection (b) may not exceed $60,000 for each 12-month period of obligated service agreed to under sub- section (d).’’. 

 

 

Quote

S.2943 Bill

SEC. 616. AVIATION INCENTIVE PAY AND BONUS MATTERS.

(a) MAXIMUM INCENTIVE PAY AND BONUS AMOUNTS.—Paragraph (1) of section 334(c) of title 37, United States Code, is amended by striking subpara- graphs (A) and (B) and inserting the following new sub- paragraphs:

‘‘(A) aviation incentive pay under sub- section (a) shall be paid at a monthly rate not to exceed $1,000 per month; and

‘‘(B) an aviation bonus under subsection (b) may not exceed $35,000 for each 12-month period of obligated service agreed to under sub-

section (d).’’.

 

 

Quote

Joint Explanatory Statement

Aviation incentive pay and bonus matters (sec. 616)

The House amendment contained a provision (sec. 616) that would amend section 334(c)(1) of title 37, United States Code, to increase the statutory limits for the aviation incentive pay and retention bonus to $1,000 per month and $60,000 per year, respectively, and would allow the Secretary concerned the flexibility to increase the aviation incentive pay limit set forth in regulations issued by the Secretary of Defense under section 374 of title 37, United States Code.

The Senate bill contained no similar provision.

The Senate recedes with an amendment that would authorize a maximum aviation bonus of $35,000 for each 12-month period of obligated service, and requires the appropriate Service Secretary to submit a justification with each fiscal year's budget request for the aviation bonus amounts by aircraft type category, the business case supporting the amount requested, and a description by the Secretary concerned on how they will address manning shortfalls by non-monetary means.

The conferees note the current Chief of Staff of the Air Force stated in response to advance policy questions in preparation for his confirmation hearing, “We will tailor any potential bonus based upon specific platform and overall Air Force requirements. The requested increase is not a set amount. If approved, this will give us the flexibility to tailor bonus amounts and contract terms by platform.” The conferees strongly agree with targeting aviation bonuses toward the most critical manning shortfalls by aircraft type category as a way to incentivize retention behavior, and strongly support this method for use across the Department of Defense.

The conferees also expect the Services to continue developing and implementing policies to tackle non-monetary reasons for low aviator retention rates, and to use these

incentive and bonus authorities to incentivize needed retention levels using a business case rather than as a reward or entitlement, to correct both the undermanning of certain aircraft type categories and the overmanning of others.

Edited December 6, 2016 by SocialD
Sorry, this formatting sucks!

[fire4effect]

Question from the peanut gallery. With the apparent train wreck that is pilot retention and the likely increasing desperation the powers that be will be feel, how many of those who have completely severed their military ties have considered resigning their commission? As long as a commission is held recall is a possibility. As far as the Reserves a stroke of the pen and anybody can find themselves back on AD.

I could easily see the conversation go like this sometime post 20JAN2016.

President Trump: Secretary Mattis I have a list of targets I want to obliterate.

Secretary Mattis: Mr. President we don't have enough pilots to execute the mission. Not enough are staying in even with the bonus we're offering.

President Trump: Well dammit Secretary Mattis what do we do to fix this?

Secretary Mattis: Stop-loss the ones still in and we can put our Reservists on AD. As far as the rest who haven't resigned their commission we can bring them back too.

I do recall (one data point)  meeting a separated (I think outside of 8 years) Captain back in good ol OIF who submitted his resignation paperwork when he saw all the recalls and wanted to get ahead of the game. They said thanks for your letter but you can't resign just yet. Also we thank-you for updating us with your current address so here are your orders and have a wonderful military day.

I don't know but given the sensitive bedside manner that both Trump and Mattis possess I wouldn't really be surprised if it got bad enough they would do whatever was necessary in their mind.

Guess we would find out the true power of the president's pen.

Edited December 7, 2016 by fire4effect
left out a "do"

[magnetfreezer]

1 hour ago, fire4effect said:

Question from the peanut gallery. With the apparent train wreck that is pilot retention and the likely increasing desperation the powers that be will be feel, how many of those who have completely severed their military ties have considered resigning their commission? As long as a commission is held recall is a possibility. As far as the Reserves a stroke of the pen and anybody can find themselves back on AD.

I could easily see the conversation go like this sometime post 20JAN2016.

President Trump: Secretary Mattis I have a list of targets I want to obliterate.

Secretary Mattis: Mr. President we don't have enough pilots to execute the mission. Not enough are staying in even with the bonus we're offering.

President Trump: Well dammit Secretary Mattis what do we do to fix this?

Secretary Mattis: Stop-loss the ones still in and we can put our Reservists on AD. As far as the rest who haven't resigned their commission we can bring them back too.

I do recall (one data point)  meeting a separated (I think outside of 8 years) Captain back in good ol OIF who submitted his resignation paperwork when he saw all the recalls and wanted to get ahead of the game. They said thanks for your letter but you can't resign just yet. Also we thank-you for updating us with your current address so here are your orders and have a wonderful military day.

I don't know but given the sensitive bedside manner that both Trump and Mattis possess I wouldn't really be surprised if it got bad enough they would whatever was necessary in their mind.

Guess we would find out the true power of the president's pen.

Maybe... and many pilots would be happy to go obliterate targets. This scenario relies on Mattis that he won't say "Mr. President we don't have enough pilots to be slide monkeys at CJTF-HQ" instead.

[Guest]

Question from the peanut gallery. With the apparent train wreck that is pilot retention and the likely increasing desperation the powers that be will be feel, how many of those who have completely severed their military ties have considered resigning their commission? As long as a commission is held recall is a possibility. As far as the Reserves a stroke of the pen and anybody can find themselves back on AD.
I could easily see the conversation go like this sometime post 20JAN2016.
President Trump: Secretary Mattis I have a list of targets I want to obliterate.
Secretary Mattis: Mr. President we don't have enough pilots to execute the mission. Not enough are staying in even with the bonus we're offering.
President Trump: Well dammit Secretary Mattis what do we do to fix this?
Secretary Mattis: Stop-loss the ones still in and we can put our Reservists on AD. As far as the rest who haven't resigned their commission we can bring them back too.
I do recall (one data point)  meeting a separated (I think outside of 8 years) Captain back in good ol OIF who submitted his resignation paperwork when he saw all the recalls and wanted to get ahead of the game. They said thanks for your letter but you can't resign just yet. Also we thank-you for updating us with your current address so here are your orders and have a wonderful military day.
I don't know but given the sensitive bedside manner that both Trump and Mattis possess I wouldn't really be surprised if it got bad enough they would whatever was necessary in their mind.
Guess we would find out the true power of the president's pen.

A stop-loss wouldn't necessarily work on pilots if they were truly intent on getting out. "I'm not flying anymore, FEB me" was not an option available to army grunts who got stop lossed in the past. In the current state of things, an FEB might not even hurt your airline prospects too badly.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ClearedHot]

8 hours ago, ihtfp06 said:

A stop-loss wouldn't necessarily work on pilots if they were truly intent on getting out. "I'm not flying anymore, FEB me" was not an option available to army grunts who got stop lossed in the past. In the current state of things, an FEB might not even hurt your airline prospects too badly.

And you really think there are mass number of people willing to risk everything (including post USAF employment with the Airlines), to take such a drastic stand...no way.  The government is REALLY good at writing one-sided contracts, then re-writing them when someone finds a loop hole.

This situation is a giant zit that should have been dealt with in the early 2000's but 9/11 as horrible as it was, saved the USAF.  The reality is things will get worse before they get better.  It appears the Senate is not convinced the crisis is real or like some of the ignoramus senior leaders we've had the past few years, they think patriotism will somehow take over and we will magically meet our retention rates.   My opinion only, I believe they will be forced to use STOPLOSS or some similar measure much SOONER rather than later but as everyone here recognizes, that is not a long-term solution and will likely make things worse.  Unless there is a major new conflict, this goose is cooked and it will be served. 

As this situation continues to unfold like a slow motion train wreck, I am actually more concerned about the second and third order effects.  The warning signs are there when you see policy letters that effectively water down RTU training and encourage maximum throughput.  Watch the accident rates, watch the combat results, and watch the next group of leader who rise.

[HU&W]

10 hours ago, ihtfp06 said:

A stop-loss wouldn't necessarily work on pilots if they were truly intent on getting out. "I'm not flying anymore, FEB me" was not an option available to army grunts who got stop lossed in the past. In the current state of things, an FEB might not even hurt your airline prospects too badly.

In this situation, I'd expect you'd be facing more than just a loss of wings from an FEB.  There are a whole host of UCMJ articles that could be used to make an example of the first few folks to test this in a stop loss, and the airlines would likely notice a felony conviction.

[sqwatch]

Why risk an FEB when being a stop-lossed pilot could give you the opportunity to make flying what you always wanted it to be.
Brief, Fly, Debrief.
Two hour lunches and feet on the desk for everything else. I'd almost sign up for that.
If you want to know why the Senate doesn't want to pay you more, it's because it could come at the cost of other jobs (and contractor lobbies) in their states:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/pentagon-buries-evidence-of-125-billion-in-bureaucratic-waste/2016/12/05/e0668c76-9af6-11e6-a0ed-ab0774c1eaa5_story.html?utm_term=.b46d40194826
 

Every pilot who sticks around the AF is a pilot not working in the private sector. Imagine how pissed you would be as a chief pilot who suddenly looses a significant number of his line flyers who dropped mil orders because the government just out bid his company's paycheck. I'd be sure to send my senator/lobbyist a very sternly worded email.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[fire4effect]

21 hours ago, magnetfreezer said:

Maybe... and many pilots would be happy to go obliterate targets. This scenario relies on Mattis that he won't say "Mr. President we don't have enough pilots to be slide monkeys at CJTF-HQ" instead.

Agree. It falls under the heading of "serious misallocation of valuable military resources"

Break

And if the DOD wants to REALLY  get a recalcitrant (my ACT word for the day) pilot's attention they set up a process where they can get the FAA to suspend the Airman Certificate of anyone who faces a FEB or UCMJ action. Not sure if it would need a separate Congressional Action to make it happen though it would be hard to say if a Republican Congress would actually go along with it anyway. As everyone who holds a certificate knows it's considered a "privilege"

 

[sqwatch]

And if the DOD wants to REALLY  get a recalcitrant (my ACT word for the day) pilot's attention they set up a process where they can get the FAA to suspend the Airman Certificate of anyone who faces a FEB or UCMJ action. Not sure if it would need a separate Congressional Action to make it happen though it would be hard to say if a Republican Congress would actually go along with it anyway. As everyone who holds a certificate knows it's considered a "privilege"
 

Ridiculous on many levels



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[fire4effect]

3 minutes ago, sqwatch said:

Ridiculous on many levels



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Very much so but given what has happened in this country over the last several months not much would surprise me. Trump has just threatened Boeing with canceling the new Air Force One over cost. Can he? Good question. But as a very shrewd businessman he has absolutely no compunction with playing hardball.

[matmacwc]

56 minutes ago, fire4effect said:

 

And if the DOD wants to REALLY  get a recalcitrant (my ACT word for the day) 

 

F-Me, I got an average of 32 on the ACT and I didn't know that word.

[sqwatch]

Very much so but given what has happened in this country over the last several months not much would surprise me. Trump has just threatened Boeing with canceling the new Air Force One over cost. Can he? Good question. But as a very shrewd businessman he has absolutely no compunction with playing hardball.

Compunction-another one of those 5 dollar words.

Fortunately, there are lots of lobbyists and congressmen (not to mention well paid Boeing employees) that will work within the law to keep that gravy train rolling.

My take on this whole election- unless you're celebrating Mattis as secdef, a republican lock on SCOTUS for a generation, an AG who will crack down on hippies who stop traffic or liberal anxiety in general, the rest will be more of the same. I won't be able to buy a machine gun, Mexicans and Muslims will be just fine, Boeing will build a new AF1 and the protection of title 10 orders will remain.

Everybody calm the fvck down.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Oldtanker]

"In keeping with the Air Force's current practice of offering pilots anywhere from $10,000 to $25,000 for every year they extend their contracts, not every pilot will get the maximum possible bonus proposed in the defense authorization bill. In the joint explanatory statement accompanying the bill, lawmakers said that Goldfein told them the bonus will be tailored by platform, based on the Air Force's requirements".

https://www.airforcetimes.com/articles/ndaa-aviator-retention-pay

The discussion of heavy drivers receiving  a $48k to $60k a year bonus is dead. I believe $35k is unlikely based on the above statement.