Aviation Continuation Pay (ACP - The Bonus)

[Sprkt69]

He said they attempted, and the other services (namely Army) shot the bonus amount down ($70k)

[Danger41]

Why would that matter? An F-22 Pilot is more valuable (money invested already/percentage of the force) in terms of retention than an Army pilot. Tactically, the Apache guy is worth his weight in gold in his role but the Raptor guy is a much rarer commodity and represents a much bigger loss when he isn’t retained.

[Best-22]

1 hour ago, Danger41 said:

Why would that matter? An F-22 Pilot is more valuable (money invested already/percentage of the force) in terms of retention than an Army pilot. Tactically, the Apache guy is worth his weight in gold in his role but the Raptor guy is a much rarer commodity and represents a much bigger loss when he isn’t retained.

How would you support this position to a third party who thinks we are biased because we’re in the Air Force? Pure numbers based on flying hour cost, or by saying their skill set is too hard to replace? 

 

I dont necessarily disagree just trying to check my own biases.

[Majestik Møøse]

6 minutes ago, Best-22 said:

How would you support this position to a third party who thinks we are biased because we’re in the Air Force? Pure numbers based on flying hour cost, or by saying their skill set is too hard to replace? 

 

I dont necessarily disagree just trying to check my own biases.

The Army thinks that pilots are more expendable than the Air Force does, right or wrong.

[SFG]

29 minutes ago, Best-22 said:

How would you support this position to a third party who thinks we are biased because we’re in the Air Force? Pure numbers based on flying hour cost, or by saying their skill set is too hard to replace? 

I dont necessarily disagree just trying to check my own biases.

The third party, RAND, already supports his position.

Edited March 24, 2019 by Klepto
=)

[Danger41]

1 hour ago, Best-22 said:

How would you support this position to a third party who thinks we are biased because we’re in the Air Force? Pure numbers based on flying hour cost, or by saying their skill set is too hard to replace? 

 

I dont necessarily disagree just trying to check my own biases.

Valid question and I would point to the ammount of Apaches (or whatever helo you’re looking at) and compare that to the number of Raptors. It’s about a 7:1 ratio. Therefore, you lose a pilot to separation, it hurts the AF 7 times more. I know that’s way over simplified but it illustrates the point. 

If you want to have a biased, emotional (but correct) argument then ask the Army how their most basic doctrine works if they don’t have air superiority. And then ask them how well their ops have been since April 1953 when they haven’t had an attack from the air strike their forces. 

[jice]

Re: production vs retention.  We must think we’ve really found out how to replace experience with something else.

I hope we don’t find ourselves looking back and trying to figure out why the job became more dangerous in training.  Worse yet, I hope we don’t find ourselves with any reason to wonder about the value of experience, in hindsight, after a full up global conflict.

[ThreeHoler]

Why would that matter? An F-22 Pilot is more valuable (money invested already/percentage of the force) in terms of retention than an Army pilot. Tactically, the Apache guy is worth his weight in gold in his role but the Raptor guy is a much rarer commodity and represents a much bigger loss when he isn’t retained.

Because Joint is spelled A-R-M-Y.

[Sprkt69]

1 hour ago, jice said:

Re: production vs retention.  We must think we’ve really found out how to replace experience with something else.

I hope we don’t find ourselves looking back and trying to figure out why the job became more dangerous in training.  Worse yet, I hope we don’t find ourselves with any reason to wonder about the value of experience, in hindsight, after a full up global conflict.

VR. That what is replacing experience. That and the “we will accept all risks”

[Sprkt69]

53 minutes ago, ThreeHoler said:

 

Because Joint is spelled A-R-M-Y.

 

USAF pilot bonuses also effect the other services as they have to match, sort of.  And the Army could care less about their pilot retention. They will “still be the Army without pilots”

[Guardian]

I love to know the best way to fix a bucket with many holes in it is to pour more water in.

[Guest]

I love to know the best way to fix a bucket with many holes in it is to pour more water in.

The Air Force can’t plug the holes. They’ll attempt to expand production, and when that doesn’t solve the problem, maybe they’ll be able to get congressional authorization to plug the holes (stop loss).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[FUSEPLUG]

3 minutes ago, ihtfp06 said:

The Air Force can’t plug the holes. They’ll attempt to expand production, and when that doesn’t solve the problem, maybe they’ll be able to get congressional authorization to plug the holes (stop loss).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not one STS?  You’re shitting me....

[Guardian]

They tried to plug Tami-21’s hole

[raimius]

18 minutes ago, ihtfp06 said:

The Air Force can’t plug the holes. 

 

11 minutes ago, FUSEPLUG said:

Not one STS?  You’re shitting me....

Did he need an STS, or was he making multiple observations?

[ThreeHoler]

Not one STS?  You’re shitting me....

There probably is some shitting after all that hole plugging.

[Dapper Dan Man]

An O-8 just briefed us that “we will produce our way out of the problem.”

This seems to be the AF’s official position on the pilot shortage. I have never understood it. Guardian nailed it with “best way to fill a bucket with holes is to pour more water in.”

Looking at this from a money standpoint, I don’t see how the AF gets away with it. They’re going to spend millions over 2-3 years to make a single rookie pilot, but they can’t spend more than 35K a year to retain an experienced one.

If I was in the CSAF’s shoes, I would march straight to the hill and demand a revision to the law to let me pay my people more. “I’m going to dial down production, and use the extra resources to retain. This is a money allocation problem, not an ‘I need more money problem.’ It makes no sense to spend 50 times the money to make a product than you could spend to retain one with 10 times as much experience.”

If that could be realized, a six figure bonus would be reasonable. Make that an option, I bet you’ll see a lot more folks consider staying in.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

[SFG]

Chief Wright posted this quote on his FB and now I understand the AF’s pilot shortage strategy!

“Success is the ability to go from failure to failure without losing your enthusiasm.”

[tac airlifter]

29 minutes ago, Klepto said:

Chief Wright posted this quote on his FB and now I understand the AF’s pilot shortage strategy!

“Success is the ability to go from failure to failure without losing your enthusiasm.”

You’re 100% spot on.  I spoke with Chief Wright recently and was underwhelmed.  He genuinely believes that quote.  Results don’t matter, only attitude.  It’s based on the theory that a proper attitude will eventually produce results, but he can’t articulate that and within a bureaucracy lacking accountability the quote is correct on its surface.  

Gents, the USAF will not improve the way it treats people.  It doesn’t care about you.  They hear your comments, and don’t care enough to pay you better or change their policies.  People on these forums are generally aircrew with a culture of caring about results. The Air Force does not care about your results and they don’t care that you care about results. They just want you to act happy and smile and have a thin waist, they do not care if you lose wars.  The sooner you grasp the nature of our service culture the sooner you can be at peace with your decisions within it, or your decision to leave it.

 

[Sprkt69]

1 hour ago, Dapper Dan Man said:

 

This seems to be the AF’s official position on the pilot shortage. I have never understood it. Guardian nailed it with “best way to fill a bucket with holes is to pour more water in.”

Looking at this from a money standpoint, I don’t see how the AF gets away with it. They’re going to spend millions over 2-3 years to make a single rookie pilot, but they can’t spend more than 35K a year to retain an experienced one.

If I was in the CSAF’s shoes, I would march straight to the hill and demand a revision to the law to let me pay my people more. “I’m going to dial down production, and use the extra resources to retain. This is a money allocation problem, not an ‘I need more money problem.’ It makes no sense to spend 50 times the money to make a product than you could spend to retain one with 10 times as much experience.”

If that could be realized, a six figure bonus would be reasonable. Make that an option, I bet you’ll see a lot more folks consider staying in.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

 

It’s not like Congress is on board to pay more either. 

[Majestik Møøse]

15 hours ago, Sprkt69 said:

USAF pilot bonuses also effect the other services as they have to match, sort of.  And the Army could care less about their pilot retention. They will “still be the Army without pilots”

This is really the root cause. Helicopters are a “nice to have” for the Army; their leadership comes from infantry and would never admit they need aviation to win a force-on-force conflict. Raptor pilots, on the other hand, are no shit required for America to win a war vs a peer enemy. Obscene helicopter losses are sustainable; fighter jet losses aren’t. Air Force leadership knows that, but for whatever reason doesn’t have the political clout or will to articulate this in a Joint environment or publicly in front of Congress.

[SFG]

4 hours ago, Sprkt69 said:

It’s not like Congress is on board to pay more either. 

If only there was someone who represented the AF’s needs to Congress. 🤷🏾‍♂️

[norskman]

8 hours ago, Majestik Møøse said:

....Obscene helicopter losses are sustainable; fighter jet losses aren’t. Air Force leadership knows that.....

WTF over?.... I love when FW dudes treat us like disposable assets. You do realize that it takes years ( just like a pointy nose driver ) to develop a solid helo IP? Just because the Big Green doesn't have SA on their manning issues doesn't make us worthless. 

Edited March 26, 2019 by norskman

[Pretty_Darn_Good]

If your still waiting on the AF to address retention I have some ocean front property in Oklahoma to sell you. 

Anyone heard from the ACTF in the last 6 months? I think they may have given up after the 69 initiatives bumper sticker that never went anywhere.

Based on recent testimony from AF management to the Hill even despite the T-6 OBOGS issues we still produced 1211 pilots last year and with increased production are on track to meet 95% of pilot manning by FY 22-23.  I find it hard to believe myself, but seems to resonant on the Hill.  I keep hoping the AF will ask for larger bonus/incentive authority for aviators, but magic 8 ball says “outlook not good.”

I cringe to think about overall aviation experience levels 6-10 years from now if all we do is continue to focus on growing our way out of this.  Unfortanately, mishaps are a lagging indicator and will have 2-3 different CSAFs by then, so why worry about it now? 

 

[Sprkt69]

28 minutes ago, Pretty_Darn_Good said:

If your still waiting on the AF to address retention I have some ocean front property in Oklahoma to sell you. 

Anyone heard from the ACTF in the last 6 months? I think they may have given up after the 69 initiatives bumper sticker that never went anywhere.

Based on recent testimony from AF management to the Hill even despite the T-6 OBOGS issues we still produced 1211 pilots last year and with increased production are on track to meet 95% of pilot manning by FY 22-23.  I find it hard to believe myself, but seems to resonant on the Hill.  I keep hoping the AF will ask for larger bonus/incentive authority for aviators, but magic 8 ball says “outlook not good.”

I cringe to think about overall aviation experience levels 6-10 years from now if all we do is continue to focus on growing our way out of this.  Unfortanately, mishaps are a lagging indicator and will have 2-3 different CSAFs by then, so why worry about it now? 

 

Easy there. The “C” in ACTF is no more. It’s considered a no no word these days.