Aviation Continuation Pay (ACP - The Bonus)

[matmacwc]

22 minutes ago, Duck said:

Nothing's gonna get better while the current crop of O-6 to O-8s are around.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

Grooming the next crop, to do and think exactly the same.

Edited October 16, 2016 by matmacwc

[Bender]

Definitely not about medals...we say it's not about the money, but we know it helps...yet cannot begin to fix the current state for sure.

Peace is, no doubt, a great pacifier...but, lets say that isn't a variable to be controlled.

QoL is again and again the unquantified goto "latch onto" variable when discontent needs/wants to be quickly conveyed...the message is being missed. I see the tit and tat ("well visits", "volunteerism", etc.), but specificity is valuable.

If you only deployed (even if it was regularly) to only do your job and nothing else, would that meet the intent of QoL? What is the desired standard of QoL here?

Bendy

[Karl Hungus]

5 hours ago, Duck said:

Nothing's gonna get better while the current crop of O-6 to O-8s are around.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

If only we had some O-6s to O-8s on this board to comment (Liquid, Learjetter, Chuck17, etc)...

Odd that they don't chime in much on these threads, though.

[Duck]

If only we had some O-6s to O-8s on this board to comment (Liquid, Learjetter, Chuck17, etc)...
Odd that they don't chime in much on these threads, though.

From what I've seen, these guys aren't part of that group.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

[Karl Hungus]

10 minutes ago, Bender said:

If you only deployed (even if it was regularly) to only do your job and nothing else, would that meet the intent of QoL? What is the desired standard of QoL here?
 

Start by looking at who you're competing with for talent.  Civilian employers, airlines, AFRC, ANG.  How does your pay and QoL/work rules compare?

- Hard pay (salary)
- Soft pay (per diem, hotels, health care, opportunity to work more/less for more/less pay, 401k/pension, Space A/deadheading options, education, etc).  AD is better at this in some areas (pension/TRICARE until that goes away...) and worse in others (military lodging is mostly awful, compare travel on AD on a non-flying TDY vs FedEx deviating in international first/biz class, the disaster that is DTS and the JTR, etc)
- Total time away from home
- When away from home for work, where is that location?  A nice place, an average place, or a shithole?
- Control over career progression and living location
- Crew rest, FAR 117 requirements, crew duty days, etc
- Leave/vacation
- Additional duties- how much work are you expected to do outside of your primary duty?  Do you do everyone else's jobs for them? Do you take your work home with you? Does your employer pretend that all of its employees are equal?

Just a few things that came to mind, there are plenty more to add.  It's going to be incredibly painful for the AF to acknowledge that it's severely lacking in QoL and work rules with respect to pilot retention.  Throwing more money at the problem can indeed fix it, but it's going to take a hell of a lot more money than has been floated so far.  

[Herk Driver]

If only we had some O-6s to O-8s on this board to comment (Liquid, Learjetter, Chuck17, etc)...
Odd that they don't chime in much on these threads, though.

And what exactly do you want them to say? That you are right and they are part of the problem? Or just to commiserate with you?

There is a lot of sport bitching going on in this thread and no clear answers. There are a lot of misguided solutions as you guys have pointed out.

There are also lots of folks on this board that give a sh!t but many of them don't work or have input into these issues.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

[guineapigfury]

6 minutes ago, Herk Driver said:

And what exactly do you want them to say? That you are right and they are part of the problem? ...
 

Actually, that would be a nice start.  Admitting you have a problem is the first step for Alcoholics, it might work for the Air Force also.

[Herk Driver]

If only every O-6 had the control that you think they have...


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

[ClearedHot]

11 hours ago, Herk Driver said:

If only every O-6 had the control that you think they have...


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

Shack, we have little control...it is sickening how high some of the most basic and mundane decisions are pushed just to CYA.

For a service that has the tenet "Centralized Control, Decentralized Execution." the service takes great pride in throwing that out the window at every opportunity.  My first real clash with the system occurred when I was a squadron commander.  I was given the AFPC commanders hotline which was a direct number a G series commander could call to work real people issues.  The officer side was fairly straight forward in that I knew the lanes I could work to impact a person's career and assignment options.  The enlisted side was a complete abomination.  Long story short, I was manned at 63% on the enlisted side and I had a guy who had been in the unit for two years and had some family issues (his dad was terminally ill),...suddenly they wanted to move him to the AOC and replace him with a line Instructor from the critically manned ops unit.  I found out the ops unit was going to get a long-term DNIF guy coming back from overseas.  I talked to the other two squadron commanders and we all agreed, let the ops guy keep the much needed instructor, let me keep my guy who was doing three critical jobs outside his own (and I could manage his schedule to take leave to be with his dad), and send the DNIF guy to the AOC...makes sense right...not to the "E-9s" at AFPC.  I got a few days of push back and finally called the head E-9 functional to explain the situation and ask for some common sense.  His reply..."Sirrrrrr, the Air Force Enlisted Assignment process is far to big for you to take a personal interest in someone."  I lost it...Why the FUCK am I a Commander if I can't take an interest in my people!  I elevated it all the way through the Wing/CC and I LOST. 

We are broken...LEAVE while you can.

[Learjetter]

If only we had some O-6s to O-8s on this board to comment (Liquid, Learjetter, Chuck17, etc)...
Odd that they don't chime in much on these threads, though.

Search the thread, I've been pretty consistent with what I think.

Vandy should be smarter than this, and it has a sheen of desperation.

End the bonus entirely, increase fly pay to 2016 dollars at all levels, reduce initial ADSC to 6 years, let commanders at gp and sq work assignments by ending the RSAP and bringing back ACE at RPA wings and certain other bases.

Not to mention the political stuff like letting State to State stuff and USMil do USMil stuff.

[Learjetter]

Shack, we have little control...it is sickening... I got a few days of push back and finally called the head E-9 functional to explain the situation and ask for some common sense.  His reply..."Sirrrrrr, the Air Force Enlisted Assignment process is far to big for you to take a personal interest in someone."  I lost it...Why the am I a Commander if I can't take an interest in my people!  I elevated it all the way through the Wing/CC and I LOST. 
We are broken...LEAVE while you can.

I won't advocate for good folks to leave (but wont try to stop them either) because we need them to help regain control of the aircraft...but I had several personnel discussions much like this one. Perfect common sense and everyone as satisfied as possible...but a no-go by the "system" -- Sometimes elevated to 2 and star levels only to get similar results. That's something that needs fixing NOW

[Bode]

Search the thread, I've been pretty consistent with what I think.

Vandy should be smarter than this, and it has a sheen of desperation.

End the bonus entirely, increase fly pay to 2016 dollars at all levels, reduce initial ADSC to 6 years, let commanders at gp and sq work assignments by ending the RSAP and bringing back ACE at RPA wings and certain other bases.

Not to mention the political stuff like letting State to State stuff and USMil do USMil stuff.

How to you suck in people for shitty 365s when they are not bound by a commitment? I do agree to getting rid of the bonus and just increasing flight pay. Shit take away the bonus and take all the additional duties and hire some ass clown to do it for us. This would make my life better.

I know a lot of people that would love to stay in but the queep of doing office work more than flying bothers them. The up or out mindset which causes people to "need career progression" really doesn't work for the guy who knows he will never see a command or a bird on his shoulder. Those who wish to get to command will usually work hard to get there anyway so let them.

Break break

I also know there is a proposition in works to contract out Phase 2 training. This isn't an AF initiative but an option to free up pilots. I think it's a horrible idea but it's an option.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Jaded]

The question they are asking is not, "How much should the bonus be?"

The question they are asking is, "What do we do when we increase the bonus and it does not solve our manning crisis?"

[Herk Driver]

Search the thread, I've been pretty consistent with what I think.

Vandy should be smarter than this, and it has a sheen of desperation.

End the bonus entirely, increase fly pay to 2016 dollars at all levels, reduce initial ADSC to 6 years, let commanders at gp and sq work assignments by ending the RSAP and bringing back ACE at RPA wings and certain other bases.

Not to mention the political stuff like letting State to State stuff and USMil do USMil stuff.

Everyone has a different circumstance and the experience varies, but my Sq/CC experience had many similarities to CH. The enlisted assignment system has no input for CC's. The O side has a lot of input and there are options but they are not always ideal.

But, the idea that every O-6 has the ability to make the changes that are being advocated is downright ridiculous.

There are many decisions that are local and my goal has always been to make a difference where I could. I would like to think that I did that both at the Sq and Gp levels. I could be wrong but I will say that many people miss the forest for the trees. There is a lot of sport bitching and that's great but there is some goodness that occurs everyday.

When a guy (CC) has placed his @ss on the line I think that it gets overlooked in many instances. How many folks post on here the positives they have experienced? There are a few. Not many.

Critically think about the good, the bad and the ugly and then come back and lay it out.

And by the way, for the previous poster, don't try to equate this to alcoholics, the only similarity is that they attend meetings.






Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

[fire4effect]

Word to the wise. Get everything in writing. Even when it's yours it's not really yours. May turn out down the road "we were just joking". https://www.cbsnews.com/news/california-soldiers-forced-to-repay-enlistment-bonuses-la-times-report/ Adding insult to injury is having to pay back the full amount, including the 30% or so taxes that were taken at the time of payment.

[F16Deuce]

On October 17, 2016 at 8:13 AM, ClearedHot said:

Shack, we have little control...it is sickening how high some of the most basic and mundane decisions are pushed just to CYA.

For a service that has the tenet "Centralized Control, Decentralized Execution." the service takes great pride in throwing that out the window at every opportunity. 

"Centralized Control, Centralized Execution" is the new hotness.  Apparently you didn't get that memo......

[Ebony zer]

I just saw an article that the RPA bonus was going up to $35k per year! Here's the catch, it's for only 5 years ($175k) and the previous 9 year $225k is no longer available. Finally, you can't take half up front. I'm pretty sure this will solve all of the retention problems! 

[Chuck17]

On 10/16/2016 at 8:36 PM, Karl Hungus said:

If only we had some O-6s to O-8s on this board to comment (Liquid, Learjetter, Chuck17, etc)...

Odd that they don't chime in much on these threads, though.

I'll bite, but have to clarify a few things first.
1. Not an O-6 to O-8, haven't even pinned on O-5 yet.
2. Will embark on the sq/cc experience next summer.
3. Never been an exec, but spent the last two years close enough with enough GOs to speak from that experience.

4. Lastly, I stopped commenting here so much largely due to the many who refuse to engage in discourse in which there is an actual conversation. That and there's just not enough hours in the day. Opinion: There's too much TL/DR bullshit on this site. While brevity is the soul of wit, these problems won't be solved in 140 characters. To solve them, even to understand them, you have to engage your brain. That takes effort, god forbid. But... I still read this site everyday... Seriously!

That said, retention of the right people-aviators-is one of many problems facing the officer corps in the USAF today. It's is a nasty problem that the USAF has no clue how to fix and that's going to deepen before it eases. This is evident in the hamfisted closing of loopholes fits and starts we've seen thus far. The USAF as the tech force throws money at problems (or punts), whereas the Army for example throws people at problems... 

There's more to it than money or easing the add'l duty burden or reinvigorating the squadrons. QOL plays a part, and part of that is morale - the feeling that your work matters, that you are accomplishing the mission. When you treat people like crap, overwork them, and give them no hope that things will change, morale plummets. That's what's happened. Read General Tunner's description of aircrew morale in China-India when he arrived there in his book 'Over the Hump' and you'll see. We have a morale problem manifesting as a retention problem. Period. (Though it is not universal, this is what is killing the squadrons...)

Next let me clear up a common misconception... Colonels and low ranking GOs have far less power to affect change and make things better than you'd think. Not all colonels are equal, just as relationships (at least in public) between GOs shows that they are not all equal. (Reference: any staff, anywhere) While in some aspects their words are holy writ, in much of their daily duty they have very little power to make changes. Everyone gets a say, so consensus building logically takes time. You better get it cleared with your boss and your bosses boss and the the lawyer, etc. or else your neck is on the line... this manifests in bureaucratic delay and stagnation of decisions, at the worst case it shows up as risk aversion. Rarely are "go-do" orders so easily given, thus change is slow. This reality can be frustrating for the young.

For the most part it's good that change is slow (ironically) because we have a lack of depth, experience, and real education out there at those ranks. Yes, people have been to the schools, but many retain little and few are genuine experts (not to mention the wide variety on quality of the school experience). We use variance of assignments to get people "experience" thereby producing an effect that broader and broader officers are seemingly always in charge, always getting their feet wet. General Officers are for the most part exactly that: generalists, by design. Some communities have taken this to the extreme, my own included, in making younger and younger officers as broad as possible - with the result being a lack of depth in the general population, but especially at the senior ranks, again with few exceptions (WOs - take a look at how many MAF GO WOs there are out there...). 

That reality is only further exasterbated by the fact that we don't expect pilots to just be pilots, nor do we reward, promote, or encourage expertise in that narrowest of measures. We evaluate and promote everything else, and what gets measured gets done. We've done this to ourselves, simply by allowing it to be accepted as the norm. 

You fix the morale problem with a focus on what matters - job performance and mission accomplishment. And I don't mean job performance like as in "Captain X, who is scheduler # 12 is really good, I think he's our CGOQ..." I mean take a look at who the best is in their primary job - start with the flyers and work your way from there. Stop with the "well all he did was fly missions, no volunteer hours or anything in self-improvement." That's how you reinvigorate the squadrons. MAF dudes - how many units out there have a "top hauler" or "top boom" award for the most missions/tonnage flown, hours flown, or gas passed in a month/qtr/year? My guess is few to none - I've never seen it. That speaks volumes when everyone knows who the Volunteer of the Qtr is for the wing because they have a parking spot at the commissary....

Now then, as for the bonus - I tell guys to follow their hearts, do what's right for the family. And I don't mean the USAF family. I've had a lot of success in my career, and struggled as much as I've done well. I earned a divorce out of it, and don't have kids. As an "old" major, about to be sq/cc, that makes me the oddball. I have a wonderful woman in my life now and that's made me reevaluate what and how I operate. But I don't wish the lousy parts on anyone. I nonetheless have no regrets, even though I'm facing a one-year remote amid a budding relationship. 

But my situation is not the norm, and I take that into account when advising my guys. If you come for career advice, you'll get it with the bark on - that's what you're owed for asking. And some people don't like hearing they're not the best or that they should pursue other endeavors. While I won't temper my fire, I've never scoffed anyone who wanted out or to take care of their family. I won't. My own experience made the difference, and I'm not sitting here chugging blue kool-aide. You must do what's right for you, regardless of if it aligns with big blue's plan....

This problem is bigger than the O-6 to O-8 crowd indicted in the post above... and none of us can change it alone. You'll never push over the wall, but if you try you can find loose bricks...

Chuck

Edited October 26, 2016 by Chuck17
Clarity, spelling

[xaarman]

https://www.duffelblog.com/2015/04/jcs-dont-care-youre-resigning/

[Fuzz]

53 minutes ago, Chuck17 said:

Some communities have taken this to the extreme, my own included, in making younger and younger officers as broad as possible - with the result being a stagerring lack of depth in the general population, but especially at the senior ranks, again with few exceptions (WOs - take a look at how many MAF GO WOs there are out there...). 

MAF dudes - how many units out there have a "top hauler" or "top boom" award for the most missions/tonnage flown, hours flown, or gas passed in a month/qtr/year? My guess is few to none - I've never seen it. That speaks volumes when everyone knows who the Volunteer of the Qtr is for the wing because they have a parking spot at the commissary....

Chuck would you say it's due to the need to be broad (Phoenix programs etc) or the fact that the WOs have been low density due to the fact that the MAF WIC has only been around a little over a decade? Right now 3 of 4 squadrons at McChord, several squadrons at Charleston, Hickman and I believe Elmo and Altus all have WOs as commanders. Talking to my buddies in the Herc world several of their SQ/CCs are also WOs (or were at least as of a couple months ago). It seems that the program has started to reach a maturity level that "should" start producing more WO GOs than just Smokey. 

Also Mcchord has an Ops Leader of the Quarter award but it doesn't go above the Group Level and seems to rank below JCGO/CGO/FGO (all which require volunteer/self improvement).

Edited October 26, 2016 by Fuzz

[17D_guy]

45 minutes ago, Chuck17 said:

Lots of good words

This problem is bigger than the O-6 to O-8 crowd indicted in the post above... and none of us can change it alone. You'll never push over the wall, but if you try you can find loose bricks...

Chuck

Spot on.  We're starting to see the same thing impact the "cyber ops" side of the force as well.  Except the breadth is huge, possibly bigger than what you flyers are facing.  I can have a Lt-Capt sit and do COMSEC inspection, Flt/CC stuff at a base, or do no-shit ninja stuff against nation states.  2 of those 3 know they're not doing the sexy job, and the sexy guy isn't looking forward to doing the non-sexy stuff.

None of these guys have the ADSC to retain past about 8 years once done with even the most vigorous of training (CNODP/WO) and the tech side is throwing insane amounts of money, faster tech, faster training and better QOL.

They've pulled "non-ops" AFSC's into ops slots, without the recognition or all the training because a "body is a body" and they just need someone.  It's working ok for now, but all of this is going to come to a head, and faster, than the pilot retention side.

And having worked at a couple different staff levels, it's amazing how much a 3-star on down lack in power to get anything done.  Downright unmotivating when you see them champion for the right thing, to only get shut down due nonsense.

 

[Karl Hungus]

6 hours ago, Chuck17 said:

This problem is bigger than the O-6 to O-8 crowd indicted in the post above... and none of us can change it alone. You'll never push over the wall, but if you try you can find loose bricks...

 

 

Thanks for chiming in Chuck.  The "O-6 to O-8" comment was in regards to Duck's previous post about them not getting it and making any significant change under their watch.  The point was it would be nice to get a peek behind the curtain a little more often from those in that demographic (or close to them, in your case), given that the AF's overall answer to the talent exodus is full-on Baghdad Bob... "nothing to see here, folks, all is well".    

I agree with you that they're powerless to do anything, assuming they even wanted to.  We've destroyed the ability for most commanders from making any decisions on their own- everything, no matter how small, must be vetted by their boss, all the way up.  Even the most promising CSAF in a generation was unable/unwilling to make significant change beyond quasi-eliminating Blues Monday.  It would be hilarious if it weren't so sad.  Institutional inertia is crippling this service.  And then they wonder why their "HPOs" are 7-day opting out of IDE and nobody wants to be a Sq/CC anymore- it's just not that appealing. 

While a "(insert mission here) of the quarter" would be nice, not sure that would change many minds- but it's a start.  Separate promotion boards for 11xs, more money, elimination of bullshit 180/365s and additional duties, less SJW engineering, and an overall improvement in "work rules" might, though.  

[Chuck17]

9 hours ago, Fuzz said:

Chuck would you say it's due to the need to be broad (Phoenix programs etc) or the fact that the WOs have been low density due to the fact that the MAF WIC has only been around a little over a decade? Right now 3 of 4 squadrons at McChord, several squadrons at Charleston, Hickman and I believe Elmo and Altus all have WOs as commanders. Talking to my buddies in the Herc world several of their SQ/CCs are also WOs (or were at least as of a couple months ago). It seems that the program has started to reach a maturity level that "should" start producing more WO GOs than just Smokey. 

Also Mcchord has an Ops Leader of the Quarter award but it doesn't go above the Group Level and seems to rank below JCGO/CGO/FGO (all which require volunteer/self improvement).

I'd think that's part of it, but the Herk WICs been around ten years longer than the C-17 WIC. I think what the C-17 community is experiencing is a bubble in leadership that happens to wear a patch. The crop of dudes in that demographic/year groups is truly phenomenal, and those people would be there doing that job regardless of the patch. 

I agree with you, that there 'should' be many more than Smokey in the future. I think there are some great O-5s to O-6s out there who have a serious shot at making GO from that start (the WIC). My comment is more addressing the previous obsession with breadth in the command that is now being slowly shunted. The stars are moving the conversations back towards depth due in part to the character of future mobility employment. A2AD is a thing, and even on its softer side will affect us in C2, comms, and connectivity in ways we can't yet fully comprehend due to our relative freedom of action currently. Risk Aversion is actively being addressed in the command, among many ways by bringing balance to the breadth vs depth conversations.

Dont get me wrong, breadth is valuable, if not essential to our success in the mobility enterprise. It gives commanders and staffs options - opens up possibilities for people to serve in many facets other than their primary aircraft - whether that means AMOG, C2, or simply bringing outside perspective and cross-education to another community (integration). But we've been full stop on the "breadth" for so long in AMC that expertise is short - enough to get the attention of leadership. 

And fixing that is only goodness. 

Thanks for the shout out to McChord - it's too bad that the recognition doesn't go above group level though - after all it says AIRLIFT WING in the unit title... food for thought.

Chuck

Edited October 26, 2016 by Chuck17
Spelling

[panchbarnes]

I'd argue against the notion that the O-6s - O-8s are "powerless."  I accept the previously posted anecdotes as truth, but I say you will always have a choice to do something and not merely be "powerless."  It's a matter of how far you are willing to go for your cause and believes.  The AF CGOs, for the longest time, were thought to be powerless and replaceable, yet they've successfully got into the Big Blue's OODA loop by exiting, turning down IDEs, and etc (yeah it took several years to get here)...  I have to believe If the AF senior leaders/managers really wanted to see changes, they would have made it happen already, provided they are willing to put their careers on the line like the CGOs (imagine O-6s exodus en masse).  The problem is everyone has aspiration to further their career, especially at the higher levels when so much more is at stake (and more risk adverse).  Nobody wants to be known as that senior guy who quit/got fired based on principles (it would be hard for me as well).  I'm not faulting them for their choices/decisions to not challenge the system, all I'm saying they do have a choice and are not as powerless as they seem to be.  If the CGOs can take a stand then why can't the O-6s?  If you are going to enjoy the DV perks & benefits that come w/ the rank, then you better accept the responsibilities that come with it as well.

Additionally, the O-6s and O-8s do have a plethora of power and authorities to motivate Airmen/improve QoL/do good.  But what have they done when given the opportunities?

1.  Made local PT/uniform/leave/TDY/alcohol... policies more stringent than the AFI (just about every base/levels)

2.  Pushed out excessive voluntary/involuntarily tasker/programs and task saturate the entire Wing (every Wing)

3.  Reclama'd (against AFPC and MAJCOM for 2+ years) entire staff and group from all deployments and PCS w/ less than 4 yr TOS regardless of circumstances.  (we call you Maj Gen "No").  MAJCOM CC only did something about it right after the 2-star retired and claimed ignorance.

4.  Restricted an entire AFSC from cross-flowing into other AFSCs (again, Maj Gen "No")

5.  Allowed lower-tiered toxic leaders and sexual misconducts to fester and deny any knowledge when challenged (AETC bases *tsk tsk*)

6.  Allowed your E-9/E-8 goons to undercut officer authorities unchecked (AF-wide)

The list goes on and on but the point is that these are the QoL issues that are w/in the O-6s - O-8s control, and when given the chance to do something about it, they usually keep it status quo or deny accountability.  I can't tell you how many times I have heard O-6 commanders said that they are at the end of their career and have nothing to lose, only to fall inline w/ the rest of them and not rock the boat until retirement.

So no, I don't believe O-6s - O-8s are "powerless."

 

Edited October 27, 2016 by panchbarnes
spelling and grammar

[Duck]

Panchbarnes shack. The system rewards risk aversion, so what would benefit the O-6 to O-8 to actually make those very simple yet game changing decisions you highlighted. Simply telling the E-9 that he is still a Sergeant would be a start but they would get their feelings hurt and then a bunch of E-9s wouldn't have anything to do all day and probably commit suicide...


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums