Aviation Continuation Pay (ACP - The Bonus)

[Sprkt69]

 

2 hours ago, Homestar said:

They also are aware that it isn't about money.  Money doesn't hurt, but it doesn't solve the problem either.  They need to figure out how to make guys want the AF when they have solid option on the outside.  Overall, I got the feeling that while they're not blind to the current and pending shortage of pilots, they just don't have the information they need to make decisions.  It was mentioned that this will be the first year that the AF runs an exit survey for pilots.  They should have been doing that for years.

Too little too late. Even their call about whether or not you are applying to the airlines was another swing and a miss. If they don't want to listen, then they deserve the outcome. And saying we accept the risk while briefing the multiple stars all is great if we cut the B course another X percent is the most cowardice thing I've heard in a long time.

[Bender]

Yeah, that was pretty good. The saddest thing was watching the Capt get stood up and dressed down for daring to suggest that there be a flying track for officers not interested in command. I felt that was unnecessarily patronizing. 

This situation would have gone poorly for me...very, very, very poorly.

Unfvcking believable...let the Captain talk. So scared, so worried about nothing...such mindless wielding of authority. Quite disgusting.

I wasn't there...I'm sure my imagination is way worse than reality...has to be, right?

Bendy

Sent from my iPad using Baseops Network Forums

[FUSEPLUG]

7 hours ago, Homestar said:

Yeah, that was pretty good. The saddest thing was watching the Capt get stood up and dressed down for daring to suggest that there be a flying track for officers not interested in command. I felt that was unnecessarily patronizing. 

And there's your fucking problem right there.  When this guy stands up to offer a simple solution, he is shot down in front of his mentors and peers. How the fuck do they expect to retain talent when this happens on a regular basis?

As a FY14 VSP recipient, traditional Guardsman and airline pilot, I look forward to the upcoming MAF retention crisis. Leadership built this house of cards.  I expect to watch it fall while sipping my coffee at FL380 enroute to Fort Lauderdale. 

Edited November 12, 2016 by FUSEPLUG
300th post. Make it an angry one...

[pcola]

5 hours ago, Sprkt69 said:

And saying we accept the risk while briefing the multiple stars all is great if we cut the B course another X percent is the most cowardice thing I've heard in a long time.

This.  We've already learned this lesson before - during and immediately after Vietnam.  Once the drastic (and inexcusable) pilot training shortfalls were brought to light during Vietnam, there was a definite "never again" feeling as the solutions evolved throughout the late '70s and the '80s.  Red Flag, and most of the other "flags" are a direct result of the training shortfalls illuminated by the Vietnam war.  We've come a long way...but what was the first thing to go when sequestration reared its ugly head?  Training.  Even Red Flag wasn't off the table when the cuts came.  Now we've reached the point of sacrificing the quality of fighter pilot provided to the CAF because that's the best we can do under the current conditions.  What a fucking ripoff. 

Everyone knows that once a new standard is accepted, it becomes the new norm.  These cuts in training will be difficult to reverse once they become the accepted standard.  We're only a few training cuts away from finding ourselves unprepared for the next war.  Yes, I realize that this is a "slippery slope" argument - that doesn't make it any less concerning.  It just baffles me that our "highly educated," PME-trained senior leadership is so ignorant of our own history that they've taken this step down the path of repeating our same mistakes. 

[Jaded]

When a general says they are "accepting risk" for under training B coursers, what that really means is that line flight leads will be forced to "accept risk" as they get unfinished products on their wing here in the new future.

The generals are accepting risk to their careers; the flight leads are accepting risk to their lives. Guess which risk the Generals are concerned about?

[Herk Driver]

I wasn't there...I'm sure my imagination is way worse than reality...has to be, right?
Bendy
Sent from my iPad using Baseops Network Forums

Reality wasn't terrible but the fact that you had someone stand back up so that you could directly refute his comment or make an example or whatever...it wasn't needed.

This had lots of people talking, at least at the O-6 level. Not the best approach and not the way to have a "conversation". This my earlier comment about pitch forks and torches...this was the point where the conversation took a turn for the worse.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

[flyusaf83]

15 hours ago, Homestar said:

They also are aware that it isn't about money.  Money doesn't hurt, but it doesn't solve the problem either.  They need to figure out how to make guys want the AF when they have solid option on the outside.  Overall, I got the feeling that while they're not blind to the current and pending shortage of pilots, they just don't have the information they need to make decisions.  It was mentioned that this will be the first year that the AF runs an exit survey for pilots.  They should have been doing that for years.

Money certainly isn't the primary factor, but it is important. For a lot of dudes, the pay cut you take for your first couple years in the airlines is something to consider when you have a family to worry about. If the AF can make staying a financially better long-term option as well, then it makes that decision easier (or harder depending on how you are leaning).

The biggest variable is QoL, however.  If the AF were to couple an increased bonus with civilian/enlisted queep-specialists (personnel/finance/scheduling/etc) assigned to flight rooms, no more BS 365s, no need to go in-res IDE, and the ability to easily make O-5 without flying less... I might stay put.

But yeah, none of that is happening.

[Homestar]

5 hours ago, Herk Driver said:

Reality wasn't terrible but the fact that you had someone stand back up so that you could directly refute his comment or make an example or whatever...it wasn't needed.

This had lots of people talking, at least at the O-6 level. Not the best approach and not the way to have a "conversation". This my earlier comment about pitch forks and torches...this was the point where the conversation took a turn for the worse.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

Yup

[Homestar]

14 hours ago, FUSEPLUG said:

And there's your fucking problem right there.  When this guy stands up to offer a simple solution, he is shot down in front of his mentors and peers. How the fuck do they expect to retain talent when this happens on a regular basis?

As a FY14 VSP recipient, traditional Guardsman and airline pilot, I look forward to the upcoming MAF retention crisis. Leadership built this house of cards.  I expect to watch it fall while sipping my coffee at FL380 enroute to Fort Lauderdale. 

The counter argument was that it's unlikely that pilots would want the rate of flying done as a Capt to continue for 20 years. That is, 120 days deployed and 100 more days TDY per year (or whatever the line guys in your unit are doing these days).  It's not a bad argument. But the speaker had the guy who asked the question about a non-command track stand back up for like 5 minutes while giving the counter argument. It was like how I talk to my 5 year old when he's done something stupid. Except this was an O-6 talking to a guy with a college degree in something who had been flying in the AF for 4-8 years. 

Edited November 12, 2016 by Homestar
Clarity

[whis]

The counter argument was that it's unlikely that pilots would want the rate of flying done as a Capt to continue for 20 years. That is, 120 days deployed and 100 more days TDY per year (or whatever the line guys in your unit are doing these days).  It's not a bad argument. But the speaker had the guy who asked the question about a non-command track stand back up for like 5 minutes while giving the counter argument. It was like how I talk to my 5 year old when he's done something stupid. Except this was an O-6 talking to a guy with a college degree in something who had been flying in the AF for 4-8 years. 

I'd be really interested to hear why leadership in the AF is against a non-leadership type track...

I also think the mentality that a non-leadership track would be capped at O-5 is a stretch. There are people in the AF that try to do everything they can to be on a leadership path... Yet they end their career as an O-5. IMO (and I'm sure more than one person on this forum will hate this idea) a person that volunteers to take themselves off of a leadership path should probably be capped at O-4...

I just wish that this type of thing didn't feel like a far off pipe dream... The force would def benefit from keeping a better knowledge base and experience in the squadron...


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

[matmacwc]

They do, it's called the ANG

[ViperMan]

On 11/11/2016 at 0:25 PM, Homestar said:

Yeah, that was pretty good. The saddest thing was watching the Capt get stood up and dressed down for daring to suggest that there be a flying track for officers not interested in command. I felt that was unnecessarily patronizing. 

IMO the root problem is that we assume there needs to be a "track" or "path" in the first place and built our model career progression on that assumption. Leadership (IMO) is not a characteristic that is forged in the halls of PME schools, or one that is necessarily identifiable in people that are young Captains. Why, again, are we choosing people to be Generals when they are in their mid 20s? A (likely) better model for achieving the rank of General is a sustained level of performance over the course of a (continuing) career - not what we currently have, which is where those who show some potential during their first assignment are strapped to a rocket ship and ride that early performance for years.

53 minutes ago, whis said:

I'd be really interested to hear why leadership in the AF is against a non-leadership type track...

I also think the mentality that a non-leadership track would be capped at O-5 is a stretch. There are people in the AF that try to do everything they can to be on a leadership path... Yet they end their career as an O-5. IMO (and I'm sure more than one person on this forum will hate this idea) a person that volunteers to take themselves off of a leadership path should probably be capped at O-4...

I just wish that this type of thing didn't feel like a far off pipe dream... The force would def benefit from keeping a better knowledge base and experience in the squadron...


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

 

It has to be O-5 because HYT/MSD for Majors is 18 years, and you can't have people gambling on getting to 20 when all it takes is a whim of the AF to say "thanks for your service," on your way out the door at 18 years and 0 days of service.

[matmacwc]

I'll be the asshole, for fuck sake, seems like I'm the only one that can curse around here.  The core of Air Force Officer training, is to be an officer, not a pilot.  While I agree that the "Air" Force's job is to fight and win in the skies it takes more than us.  I also agree that pilots lead the force, therefore, we are the ones that should be in charge someday when we get experienced and seasoned enough, sometimes chosen while we are young Lt's, which is a tragedy.   My point is, if you want to change it, it needs change from the bottom up, not while you are a captain, but at the basic training level.  I do not agree with enlisted aviators on many levels, but maybe warrant officers or a direct commission to the ANG of AFRC through the active duty model (sorry ANG and AFRC, you do need some help sometimes).  If you wanted to join a flying club, try your local FBO, or the U-2 program, which are just rumors I hear.

Edited November 12, 2016 by matmacwc

[whis]

I also agree with Pyro that the majority of the experience lies in the ANG and AFRC, but after serving more than one assignment at units that tout TFI...(other than B-Course) I can attest that it is a failure at best. The majority of the experience lies in the TRs and most of them can't be bothered by their part time job (I.e. Flying fighters for the AFRC) to be very valuable. It is an exercise in regaining currencies and min running mission planning and debrief because Training Periods don't allow it.

I also agree that a cap of O-4 won't work in the current system due to the current up or out mentality... But that is exactly what needs to change. Continuing to 20 as a major is just another thing that would need to change to make a two track system work. I don't have all the answers but I believe something needs to change... The status quo...or the waiting around to see what dollar amount they finally decided to land on for the bonus... Isn't going to work...


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

[Gazmo]

The ANG is becoming younger and younger. The dudes who got off AD in the late 90's that decided to stick around forever after 9/11 are all hitting their 28 years of service and retiring. These were the people who filled our TR slots to the point where we couldn't hire fresh meat, but at the same time didn't want to non-retain them because they were the most seasoned Lt Col IP's we had that everyone went to for guidance Well they all got to 28 years within a few years of each other. We're taking 25-30% of the unit. Some of our 18-20 year people are even taking nonflying ARC jobs to serve the remainder of their time with continues deployments to PACOM and CENTCOM.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

[guineapigfury]

I'll be a data point.  I would have gladly served until 20 as a Captain with a 1:1 dwell if I was actually flying.  Instead, someone at AFPC decided I should go to drones because I was on the wrong VML.  Now, instead of the Air Force getting another 10 years on their investment, I'll be a contractor in 3 weeks.  Deuces.

[Warrior]

It has to be O-5 because HYT/MSD for Majors is 18 years, and you can't have people gambling on getting to 20 when all it takes is a whim of the AF to say "thanks for your service," on your way out the door at 18 years and 0 days of service.

Not anymore. None of this is going to happen for those of us who are already 6-9 years in and the young pups are going to be on that new retirement plan.

Which is adds a whole new wrinkle to this discussion. Guess how many days I stay past my ADSC if I can take my TSP that's been matched all along with me?


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

[pawnman]

16 hours ago, BeerMan said:

For the guys bringing up the "flying only track" idea, what would it look like? 

Who here would accept a "flying only" track until 20 for Major's pay? Capts pay? What pay and benefits would you do it for?

If you're the most experienced guy/gal in the squadron and you're not doing leadership things, what does your deploy to dwell ratio look like? 1:1, 1:2, 1:3? 

How does the "flying only track" solve squadron, group, and wing leadership problems 5 years from now when the guys and gals in those jobs have less flying experience than the people in their squadron?

Fly a decent amount, control your deployments, and increase QOL with slightly less or equal pay, sounds like the Guard/Reserve. Matmacwc nailed it. For many communities the ANG and the Reserve are a large portion of the knowledge base and experience. 

The relationship has its problems, but it does a lot of what you are describing. 

Most of my senior leadership already has less flying experience than line dudes in the squadron.  I struggled to maintain my bearing when the OG/CC was introduced as a guest speaker "with over 100 combat hours".

[Muscle2002]

Most of my senior leadership already has less flying experience than line dudes in the squadron.  I struggled to maintain my bearing when the OG/CC was introduced as a guest speaker "with over 100 combat hours".

Agree, but as in all things, timing also matters. I flew with a couple of dudes who never flew in combat up until 2012, in part, because they came from AK where their squadron only did PACOM rotations. Their lack of combat time was only exacerbated by then being assigned to the FTU.


Sent from my iPad using Baseops Network Forums

[sqwatch]

Most of my senior leadership already has less flying experience than line dudes in the squadron.  I struggled to maintain my bearing when the OG/CC was introduced as a guest speaker "with over 100 combat hours".

There's plenty of good dudes who haven't deployed- luck and timing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Sprkt69]

10 hours ago, Warrior said:

 

 

Not anymore. None of this is going to happen for those of us who are already 6-9 years in and the young pups are going to be on that new retirement plan.

Which is adds a whole new wrinkle to this discussion. Guess how many days I stay past my ADSC if I can take my TSP that's been matched all along with me?


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

 

 

This is why the old ideology needs to change. The new retirement means people no longer care about getting to 20 as they can get some kind of retirement at the end of their commitment. So how many people would pop ninja smoke at the end of their commitment and move on? Probably enough that it will make a big impact to the force structure and leadership.

[pawnman]

20 hours ago, sqwatch said:

There's plenty of good dudes who haven't deployed- luck and timing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It makes it tough to believe them when they say things like "I understand the OPSTEMPO" or "I've been away from my family too".  One wonders where the disparity comes from when most guys in the squadron have deployed 3-4 times to the desert, and your senior leaders at the O-6 level have one 3-month deployment to Guam in '06.  It's not like our community ever stopped deploying...we were in constant combat rotations right up until the B-52s went to AUAB this year.  What else do folks like this do that they aren't deploying or drawing that 365 card?

[WheelsOff]

On 11/11/2016 at 1:27 PM, Homestar said:

Bottom line is that the MAF forecasts their pilot shortage to be 600+ by 2023 (I think). They can push more MAF pilots through initial which delays the inevitable. By 2023 the MAF pilot shortage will be as acute as the CAF pilot shortage is now. 

Good thing my commitment is up in 2022!

Did they have anything else interesting to say about this projected shortage, or was that it?

[jazzdude]

That was about it. And that retention is hard. Also, they're pushing to reevaluate staff positions for who is needed in those positions (fighter staff billet x has been filed by a MAF guy for years, does it really need to be a fighter pilot billet?). In my opinion, it's a shell game: MAF is trying to get bodies back from helping out the CAF to make their numbers better, but unless the billets go away, nothing really changes, and MAF will probably still be forced to fill it.

Sooooo...My bet is stop loss is coming

[Snooter]

7 hours ago, jazzdude said:

Sooooo...My bet is stop loss is coming

You bet your bottom I would start harassing my congressmen...