Aviation Continuation Pay (ACP - The Bonus)

[jazzdude]

But without all the turnover we'd be taking away opportunities from all those deserving O-6s!

I was primarily focused on the 4 star level with my previous comment, like the MAJCOM/COCOM/CSAF level. That way there could actually be some long term vision/plan for the organization, and accountability for decisions. It'd be insane for a company to constantly change out CEOs every 2-4 years just to give someone else a turn at it for career progression; why do we do it in the military?

On a semi-related note, "The Generals" by Thomas Ricks is a interesting read, basically documenting the decline in leadership at the General level in the army over the years. A lot of what is discussed is easily relatable to the Air Force's current leadership problems.

[BashiChuni]

congress isn't without blame in this debacle either

[FlyinGrunt]

OK, so CH mentions in the other thread that there are rules for stop-loss, such as a time period, etc.  Looks pretty unrestricted to me . . .

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/12305

(USC Title 10 12305)

Am I missing something?  Are there some EOs out there putting out more guidance?

[TnkrToad]

8 hours ago, FlyinGrunt said:

OK, so CH mentions in the other thread that there are rules for stop-loss, such as a time period, etc.  Looks pretty unrestricted to me . . .

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/12305

(USC Title 10 12305)

Am I missing something?  Are there some EOs out there putting out more guidance?

Might be my poor reading comprehension, but the focus of the website you linked to is on activating the ARC, rather than stop lossing AD. This brings up a good point, though. Before implementing Stop Loss on AD members, the AF should pursue fuller use of the ARC, CRAF and/or other civ contract air transport (and even air refueling). No need to abridge AD airmen's freedoms, when there are already other valid means to achieve the desired effects. 

Don't get me wrong; the Air Force is still screwed, due to a combination of personnel decisions over at least the last two decades. If we more heavily utilize the ARC to backfill the AD, the ARC will hemorrhage people even faster than now. If we attempt to limit the pain to AD through Stop Loss, while maintaining the current level of ARC utilization, (1) the ARC won't get the prior-AD bodies it needs to stay healthy, and (2) the AD will suffer all manner of morale issues, which will have impacts for years to come. Just see all the consternation on this forum over a policy that hasn't even been implemented yet. More heavily utilizing civ civilians to do airlift, AR, aggressors, etc., will only drive up external demand for prior-AD talent even more. 

The only near-term fix that occurs to me, although it might just be a drop in the bucket (I don't have access to valid data), is for the Air Force to look very hard at where it has its rated talent. I'm reasonably familiar with the current situation at USAFA: why do we have 11Fs as AOCs at USAFA? Some of the brightest, shiniest pennies in the 11F community, yet they spend three years out of the cockpit, contributing nothing to the war fighting community. Simultaneously, there are rated USAFA faculty members who are not currently flying, and the airfield needs them to fly IOT train/inspire future aviators, but there are so few attached flying billets that those who are available and want to fly can't. These kinds of situations, multiplied across bases/units around the world, would at least help address our manning crisis. The AF needs to keep looking harder internally before Stop Loss can be considered as a viable option.

TT

[LookieRookie]

16 minutes ago, TnkrToad said:

Might be my poor reading comprehension, but the focus of the website you linked to is on activating the ARC, rather than stop lossing AD. This brings up a good point, though. Before implementing Stop Loss on AD members, the AF should pursue fuller use of the ARC, CRAF and/or other civ contract air transport (and even air refueling). No need to abridge AD airmen's freedoms, when there are already other valid means to achieve the desired effects. 

Don't get me wrong; the Air Force is still screwed, due to a combination of personnel decisions over at least the last two decades. If we more heavily utilize the ARC to backfill the AD, the ARC will hemorrhage people even faster than now. If we attempt to limit the pain to AD through Stop Loss, while maintaining the current level of ARC utilization, (1) the ARC won't get the prior-AD bodies it needs to stay healthy, and (2) the AD will suffer all manner of morale issues, which will have impacts for years to come. Just see all the consternation on this forum over a policy that hasn't even been implemented yet. More heavily utilizing civ civilians to do airlift, AR, aggressors, etc., will only drive up external demand for prior-AD talent even more. 

The only near-term fix that occurs to me, although it might just be a drop in the bucket (I don't have access to valid data), is for the Air Force to look very hard at where it has its rated talent. I'm reasonably familiar with the current situation at USAFA: why do we have 11Fs as AOCs at USAFA? Some of the brightest, shiniest pennies in the 11F community, yet they spend three years out of the cockpit, contributing nothing to the war fighting community. Simultaneously, there are rated USAFA faculty members who are not currently flying, and the airfield needs them to fly IOT train/inspire future aviators, but there are so few attached flying billets that those who are available and want to fly can't. These kinds of situations, multiplied across bases/units around the world, would at least help address our manning crisis. The AF needs to keep looking harder internally before Stop Loss can be considered as a viable option.

TT

To your AOC comment, because that's what they put for their first choice for school. I'm sure a lot of them actually like AOC for a school gig especially since it's a command tour. Not to mention USAFA AOC is a very high indicator for O-6.

 

For the attached flying billet thing, the pilot Dean of the Faculty guys need to press their Respective flying coordinator to get USAFA/A1K to change more billets to P prefix and update the API codes IAW USAFAI36-3503 Management of Flying Personnel.

[Gazmo]

ARC cannot backfill AD any more than we do now without REAL mobilization. They've given us mobilization authority at the unit level to make unit-level leadership the bad guys without having to publically advertize that our national interests are so great that we are relying heavily on the ARC to fight our wars... eerrr.. peace-keeping missions... eerrr.. whatever you want to call what we are doing right now. Jesus H Christ, Al Udeid has got to be 75% ARC right now on the tanker side. 12 years ago we (when I was on AD) were manning the Deid, Manas and Al Dhafra at the same time, but AD decided to get rid of a super-tanker wing (Grand Forks) and Robins. Most of those jets went to the ARC. Guess who's back filling the tanker mission now. The ARC.

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk

[TnkrToad]

To your AOC comment, because that's what they put for their first choice for school. I'm sure a lot of them actually like AOC for a school gig especially since it's a command tour. Not to mention USAFA AOC is a very high indicator for O-6.
 
For the attached flying billet thing, the pilot Dean of the Faculty guys need to press their Respective flying coordinator to get USAFA/A1K to change more billets to P prefix and update the API codes IAW USAFAI36-3503 Management of Flying Personnel.

So in other words, it's like I said--USAFA represents a way in which the AF could work to solve its own shortage:

- 11F in-res school select: "I wanna go learn how to be a counselor, then be a USAFA AOC!"
- AFPC: "Thanks for your interest in national defense; we'll send you to ACSC/CGSC/wherever, then you'll be off to a validated 11F-required billet in Joint/HAF/ACC/whatever staff, where you're really needed."
-- In order to ensure USAFA can still inspire cadets to be pilots, it sends 11Ms/11Rs/11Hs/whatever pilot AFSC is at least notionally healthy instead.

Likewise with faculty attached flying--as you indicated, it's an internal AF issue (A1K needs to create more P-prefix billets at USAFA)

Physician, heal thyself...


Sent from my iPad using Baseops Network Forums

[TnkrToad]

ARC cannot backfill AD any more than we do now without REAL mobilization. They've given us mobilization authority at the unit level to make unit-level leadership the bad guys without having to publically advertize that our national interests are so great that we are relying heavily on the ARC to fight our wars... eerrr.. peace-keeping missions... eerrr.. whatever you want to call what we are doing right now. Jesus H Christ, Al Udeid has got to be 75% ARC right now on the tanker side. 12 years ago we (when I was on AD) were manning the Deid, Manas and Al Dhafra at the same time, but AD decided to get rid of a super-tanker wing (Grand Forks) and Robins. Most of those jets went to the ARC. Guess who's back filling the tanker mission now. The ARC.

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk

Assuming the AF gets its own house in order and maximizes utilization of the pilots it has (a long shot, I know), then it seems AF leaders would go to the meeting with something other than simply threatening Stop Loss. Assuming we can't get any relief from tasked missions (again, good luck), it seems the primary COA would be partial mobilization of the ARC (for the elements that are truly undermanned), in conjunction with Stop Loss for the AD (again for the same AFSCs that are mobilized). No matter what, it'll be bad news for the AF and airlines. Airlines will be shorted of both the ARC folks they already have on property, as well as supply of folks coming off AD. The AF will have a crap storm on its hands, with disgruntled ARC and AD folks.

I don't think the AF should talk Stop Loss without simultaneously discussing further ARC mobilization.


Sent from my iPad using Baseops Network Forums

[Guest]

19 hours ago, pilotguy said:

And I love how they will use this stop loss option at the table with the airlines to threaten them and force them to play ball...screwing us all over in the process.  I love feeling like a piece of property

Isn't there a green dot or sarc you can call for that? 

[Sprkt69]

3 hours ago, Gazmo said:

They should worry about saving their bonus money and hiring more support troops. FM, FSS, admins, bring the orderly rooms back, etc... let the pilots do their primary jobs.

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk
 

I will quote an old DO that told me "your an officer first and foremost, the flying doesn't really matter" as I was voluntold to help plan the Christmas party.  And he is an O-6 CV now while I'm in the Guard

[matmacwc]

6 hours ago, TnkrToad said:

why do we have 11Fs as AOCs at USAFA? Some of the brightest, shiniest pennies in the 11F community, yet they spend three years out of the cockpit, contributing nothing to the war fighting community. Simultaneously, there are rated USAFA faculty members who are not currently flying, and the airfield needs them to fly IOT train/inspire future aviators, but there are so few attached flying billets that those who are available and want to fly can't. 

TT

Have you seen the retirement benefit for teaching at USAFA?  Your retire as an O-7, no shit, no matter what rank below that you actually retire at.  Somebody will call BS and look it up, but it's true.

[TnkrToad]

Have you seen the retirement benefit for teaching at USAFA?  Your retire as an O-7, no shit, no matter what rank below that you actually retire at.  Somebody will call BS and look it up, but it's true.

Umm, no.

Retiring as an O-7 (get the retired rank so they can feel good about themselves, but not the pay) only applies to O-6 permanent professors.

Extremely few of those, and given how long folks stay in those billets, really rare for the opportunity to even come around. Non-perm prof O-6s and below retire like normal. There is no special retirement benefit for simply teaching at USAFA.

Regardless, we're digressing from the main point--rated aviators at USAFA, who could be actively flying at USAFA--where there is a demonstrable need for them--are going unutilized because of nothing but misguided Air Force policy (too few coded billets at USAF, in this case).

This is just one example of what I'm sure are many around the Air Force where the AF could address manning problems through better personnel policy, rather than crude tools like stop loss. If senior AF leaders want to be taken seriously by Congress, much less airline execs, they should ensure the AF house is in order first.

TT


Sent from my iPad using Baseops Network Forums

[Jaded]

What does it take for inactive reservists to get activated? Is it done at the same time as a regular activation, or is it a different and more difficult process for the USAF?

I ask because if stop loss combined with ARC activation is in the future, it may be time to hang up the spurs. Getting activated to fight for our country is one thing; getting activated due to perpetual personnel mismanagement is methinks a bridge too far.

[Gazmo]

Traditional deployments for ARC used to come in AEF cycles and were mostly filled on a volunteer basis. As we know, the AEF concept went down the shitter over a decade ago so now most of us "rainbow" for continuous ops. Most of us have a crew or two in CENTCOM on a continuous basis. Fighter units are more AEF centric, but the tanker world right now fills a rainbow. After 9/11 many tanker units were activated and sent to CENTCOM for OEF. These days, individual wings are given mobilization authority at the WG/CC level so if the whole unit says, "Screw you! We're not going!", the Wing King has authority to mobilize crews to fill the tasking. Most of us still volunteer as it means doing a 30 day rotation vs. a 60 day one. Some people like getting mobilized because of USERRA and the associated protection they receive with mob orders. Not so shockingly enough, there are some employers out there giving reservists/guardsmen shit for volunteering. It does the ARC no good volunteering, but we're damned if we do and damned if we don't.

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk

[ViperMan]

4 hours ago, matmacwc said:

Have you seen the retirement benefit for teaching at USAFA?  Your retire as an O-7, no shit, no matter what rank below that you actually retire at.  Somebody will call BS and look it up, but it's true.

I call BS. It's department heads that are O-6s while in the position - after they are done, they then retire as O-7s.

[Guest]

I call BS. It's department heads that are O-6s while in the position - after they are done, they then retire as O-7s.

This is correct. And they usually spend a decade plus as dept head to get that benefit


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ViperStud]

Ok I'm being totally selfish but would stop-loss affect AGRs at all?  Right now, AGRs are curtailing orders once hired by the airlines. If stop-loss somehow prevented that - um....gamechanger. 

[Herk Driver]

Have you seen the retirement benefit for teaching at USAFA?  Your retire as an O-7, no shit, no matter what rank below that you actually retire at.  Somebody will call BS and look it up, but it's true.

No...

 

Saw Tanker Toads explanation and he is correct.

 

Changed to avoid further digression.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

[Skitzo]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[pawnman]

10 hours ago, TnkrToad said:

 

So in other words, it's like I said--USAFA represents a way in which the AF could work to solve its own shortage:

- 11F in-res school select: "I wanna go learn how to be a counselor, then be a USAFA AOC!"
- AFPC: "Thanks for your interest in national defense; we'll send you to ACSC/CGSC/wherever, then you'll be off to a validated 11F-required billet in Joint/HAF/ACC/whatever staff, where you're really needed."
-- In order to ensure USAFA can still inspire cadets to be pilots, it sends 11Ms/11Rs/11Hs/whatever pilot AFSC is at least notionally healthy instead.

Likewise with faculty attached flying--as you indicated, it's an internal AF issue (A1K needs to create more P-prefix billets at USAFA)

Physician, heal thyself...


Sent from my iPad using Baseops Network Forums

 

People get out because they don't like the job.  Force people to do nothing but the job that makes them want to quit, and they will quit.  Give them some bright spots that show you can do something you want for a year or two, and you may retain more.

[Danny Noonin]

Ok I'm being totally selfish but would stop-loss affect AGRs at all?  Right now, AGRs are curtailing orders once hired by the airlines. If stop-loss somehow prevented that - um....gamechanger. 

Stop loss does not likely affect AGRs. But nothing says they have to let you curtail an AGR tour. You have orders for X time. They never have to let you out of them. They typically have let folks go because over the last 15+ years there has typically been a line of folks that would want to take that job. If that's not so anymore that could affect someone's ability to get a curtailment approved. Theoretically.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Gazmo]

Stop loss does not likely affect AGRs. But nothing says they have to let you curtail an AGR tour. You have orders for X time. They never have to let you out of them. They typically have let folks go because over the last 15+ years there has typically been a line of folks that would want to take that job. If that's not so anymore that could affect someone's ability to get a curtailment approved. Theoretically.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

True. Which is why lots of technicians are turning down AGR jobs because they don't want to be stuck and not be able to get out of their orders when the company calls. AGR jobs used to be the carrot on the string for a long time and now that carrot has shriveled up and rotted away.

 

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk

 

 

 

[tac airlifter]

8 hours ago, Skitzo said:

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You alright bro?

[SocialD]

21 hours ago, TnkrToad said:

I don't think the AF should talk Stop Loss without simultaneously discussing further ARC mobilization.

 

Oh boy, you want to talk about killing the ARC force.  Many of our guys are just barely hanging on as it is.  Before we start talking mobilization of the ARC, lets talk about cutting bullshit deployments.  Many of the Guard fighter squadrons are being "deployed" to locations to sit and do NOTHING.  Our guys are more than willing to go to the AOR and do the jobs we're trained to do, but keep sending us to bs TSPs, and you'll see guys start bailing...it's already started.  I know quite a few that have moved onto UAVs, non-flying gig or just gotten out over this.  Dudes are quickly losing their will to go sit in some "deployed" location and fly CT lines, all the while taking a GIANT pay cut from their civilian jobs.  They're starting to ask themselves WTF are we doing here and why am I away from my family for this shit?

[faipmafiaofficial]

Looks like Grosso doesn't agree with Everhart

https://www.airforcetimes.com/articles/air-force-stop-loss-is-not-on-the-table-in-effort-to-retain-pilots

 

the disturbing part about this is it seems that the Air Force generals aren't even close to being on the same page with each other AND you even have generals acting on their own and talking with the industry about potential measures that aren't even being considered. Unreal

Edited April 12, 2017 by faipmafiaofficial