Aviation Continuation Pay (ACP - The Bonus)

[Ant-man]

7 hours ago, Pooter said:

This base of preference option looks sketchy at best and predatory at worst.

Yep. The list of bases is broken down by core MWS, and they are essentially all the same format: ops bases for your aircraft, the FTU, or any UPT base. First come, first serve basis. That's how they get around the problem of appeasing everyone at once. Also, if you only do the BOP it's a four year commitment. Who is gonna trade a four year ADSC for two years at their base of choice?

https://www.milsuite.mil/book/groups/dpap

[Pooter]

2 hours ago, Ant-man said:

Yep. The list of bases is broken down by core MWS, and they are essentially all the same format: ops bases for your aircraft, the FTU, or any UPT base. First come, first serve basis. That's how they get around the problem of appeasing everyone at once. Also, if you only do the BOP it's a four year commitment. Who is gonna trade a four year ADSC for two years at their base of choice?

https://www.milsuite.mil/book/groups/dpap

And the craziest part is your BOP time hacks as soon as you sign the paper but the ADSC is tacked on the end after your UPT one expires. 

[Bigred]

5 hours ago, Pooter said:

And the craziest part is your BOP time hacks as soon as you sign the paper but the ADSC is tacked on the end after your UPT one expires. 

And it’s BOP in name only. They make it clear that as soon as the AF needs to move you, they will. The ADSC goes away but what’s the point of the program if the AF can just say sorry but you gotta move. 

[Swizzle]

3 hours ago, Bigred said:

And it’s BOP in name only. They make it clear that as soon as the AF needs to move you, they will. The ADSC goes away but what’s the point of the program if the AF can just say sorry but you gotta move. 

And give you a PCS commitment of 1-2 years or 3 for OCONUS accompanied while under a DPAP ADSC? So when does the DPAP ADSC go away if BoP is not honored? 1 year before or after being voluntold for another PCS?? 

didn't read the fine print covering that administrative dilemma 

[brabus]

Nothing has changed - if you’re leaning on staying in regardlesss, then go for it. If you’re one foot out the door and this is what pulls you back in, you’re an idiot. 

[Pooter]

1 hour ago, brabus said:

Nothing has changed - if you’re leaning on staying in regardlesss, then go for it. If you’re one foot out the door and this is what pulls you back in, you’re an idiot. 

Exactly. One wonders the man-hours wasted in the halls of AFPC cooking up this latest crock of shit, that appeals to precisely no-one except those planning to stay in anyway.

[General Chang]

Goodness, you guys would complain about winning $1,000,000 in Powerball because it wasn’t the grand prize.  These are options, people!  Get a grip!

[busdriver]

7 hours ago, Pooter said:

 those planning to stay in anyway.

The bonus is and always has been about exactly this.  It is question to people who plan to stay in till 20; "what is your free agency worth?"  It has never been about keeping people in, the AF can't afford those dollar figures.

AFPC processes are built around numbers, if they can get people to give up their free agency, AFPC can then count on a minimum amount of bodies to plan for the future.  The only actual change in this latest release is that folks have to decide to stay a year (or 2) before previous generations.  

Good advice has already been given, if you've already made up your mind to stay to 20 then by all means sign the bonus.  But only extend out to 20.  There is life after the military and once you hit 20, you really want leverage and choices again.

[Swizzle]

So if USA is in for another CR, and maybe no paycheck during a gov't shutdown, and likely in the future, could a DPAP contract be indentured servitude? Aka no $ for work contract? And maybe not even the BoP, at the discretion of USAF?!  Interesting plausible path...

[Pooter]

4 hours ago, General Chang said:

Goodness, you guys would complain about winning $1,000,000 in Powerball because it wasn’t the grand prize.  These are options, people!  Get a grip!

Taking the bonus is quite literally the opposite of having options.

I wouldn't be complaining if the money was even remotely competitive or if the BOP option didn't read like a predatory scam. 

[FourFans]

In case anyone one the fence didn't hear it: Don't take the bonus.

[Dapper Dan Man]

 It has never been about keeping people in, the AF can't afford those dollar figures.

I think we need to challenge the “AF can’t afford those dollar figures” rhetoric way more than we do. So many times we hear this from flag officers, leaders, or policy makers and take it at face value without really putting that reasoning to the test.

The AF could afford those dollar figures if they could successfully advocate with lawmakers to reallocate resources they already have on the books. The AF can afford plenty, but the problem is what they’re allowed to spend it on. Physicians receive bonuses in amounts that might actually get a pilot to stay, yet where is the advocacy for that? Is there a doctor shortage in the Air Force that we’re just not talking about?

Or, the AF could produce less pilots and put that savings into retaining their experienced ones. Even if the cost of putting one person through UPT and FTU averaged only $2M, the AF could instead put that towards retention and pay 20 pilots $100,000 right now to stay. This isn’t earth shattering stuff…anyone who’s taken an HR class can tell you that hiring, onboarding, and training are some of the most expensive parts of running your company.

The AF is on record saying that they’d rather produce talent than retain talent, even though that’s the more fiscally irresponsible option. I think if we challenged this line of thinking and brought attention to it with lawmakers, they’d be more open to revising the NDAA and compelling the AF to come up with resource allocation options (and therefore bonus options) that would actually entice people to stay.

Write your congressmen.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Boomer6]

8 hours ago, Dapper Dan Man said:

 

I think we need to challenge the “AF can’t afford those dollar figures” rhetoric way more than we do. So many times we hear this from flag officers, leaders, or policy makers and take it at face value without really putting that reasoning to the test.

The AF could afford those dollar figures if they could successfully advocate with lawmakers to reallocate resources they already have on the books. The AF can afford plenty, but the problem is what they’re allowed to spend it on. Physicians receive bonuses in amounts that might actually get a pilot to stay, yet where is the advocacy for that? Is there a doctor shortage in the Air Force that we’re just not talking about?

Or, the AF could produce less pilots and put that savings into retaining their experienced ones. Even if the cost of putting one person through UPT and FTU averaged only $2M, the AF could instead put that towards retention and pay 20 pilots $100,000 right now to stay. This isn’t earth shattering stuff…anyone who’s taken an HR class can tell you that hiring, onboarding, and training are some of the most expensive parts of running your company.

The AF is on record saying that they’d rather produce talent than retain talent, even though that’s the more fiscally irresponsible option. I think if we challenged this line of thinking and brought attention to it with lawmakers, they’d be more open to revising the NDAA and compelling the AF to come up with resource allocation options (and therefore bonus options) that would actually entice people to stay.

Write your congressmen.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

My take is that the AF understands this completely. However, the AF has no interest in retaining pilots that aren’t full send on drinking the koolaid. The current system provides them an easy way to get rid of pilots that aren’t already going to do whatever it takes to make 20, while opening up space for young LTs that are more pliable and more likely to shut up and color. To me the handling of COVID removed any doubt I had that the AF disapproves of critical thought and prefers a “please sir, I’ll have some more” attitude. The pay incentives offered are more of a flick of table scraps to a malnourished pet in order to maintain a submissive attitude.

[General Chang]

We do not need to retain pilots.  We need to produce pilots.  1500 per year.  This is the real conundrum dominating conversation here in the Pentagon- how we ramp to 1500. 

[HossHarris]

1 minute ago, General Chang said:

We do not need to retain pilots.  We need to produce pilots.  1500 per year.  This is the real conundrum dominating conversation here in the Pentagon- how we ramp to 1500. 

How’s that been working out for y’all these last 6-9 years or so since management decided the retention problems were unsolvable and decided to produce their way out?

Has the definition of “experienced” been changed again since I retired?

[General Chang]

10 minutes ago, HossHarris said:

How’s that been working out for y’all these last 6-9 years or so since management decided the retention problems were unsolvable and decided to produce their way out?

Has the definition of “experienced” been changed again since I retired?

Risk to fill squadrons with nothing but Lieutenants and Captains is acceptable.  Enough FGOs will stick around to adequately fill the commander positions.  The research is conclusive.  People on this forum don’t want to hear that, but not wanting to hear something doesn’t mean it’s not true.  The Pentagon is 100% focused on production ramp to 1500.

[CaptainMorgan]

Risk to fill squadrons with nothing but Lieutenants and Captains is acceptable.  Enough FGOs will stick around to adequately fill the commander positions.  The research is conclusive.  People on this forum don’t want to hear that, but not wanting to hear something doesn’t mean it’s not true.  The Pentagon is 100% focused on production ramp to 1500.

Please ban this f*ck already. He’s been funny enough, but I worry actual GOs read his shit and think it’s serious, not satire.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Magnum]

1 hour ago, General Chang said:

Risk to fill squadrons with nothing but Lieutenants and Captains is acceptable.  Enough FGOs will stick around to adequately fill the commander positions.  The research is conclusive.  People on this forum don’t want to hear that, but not wanting to hear something doesn’t mean it’s not true.  The Pentagon is 100% focused on production ramp to 1500.

You must have forgotten your morning coffee enema before that briefing.  The slide I saw said 1500 Fighter pilots.  That's in addition to the 1500 pilots for everywhere else.  The studies and data have proven that this is possible through hot pits and shutting down only 1 engine for T-38 crew swaps on the 8 go days. A request for best practices from Delta will give us an idea on how to keep the Sims going 24/7.  On a happy side note, they also briefed how they were able to reduce finance's hours of operations to 10-1300 with a 1.5 hour lunch by simply taking phones off the hook.  Very productive days ahead guys!

[Bigred]

18 hours ago, Dapper Dan Man said:

 

I think we need to challenge the “AF can’t afford those dollar figures” rhetoric way more than we do. So many times we hear this from flag officers, leaders, or policy makers and take it at face value without really putting that reasoning to the test.

The AF could afford those dollar figures if they could successfully advocate with lawmakers to reallocate resources they already have on the books. The AF can afford plenty, but the problem is what they’re allowed to spend it on. Physicians receive bonuses in amounts that might actually get a pilot to stay, yet where is the advocacy for that? Is there a doctor shortage in the Air Force that we’re just not talking about?

Or, the AF could produce less pilots and put that savings into retaining their experienced ones. Even if the cost of putting one person through UPT and FTU averaged only $2M, the AF could instead put that towards retention and pay 20 pilots $100,000 right now to stay. This isn’t earth shattering stuff…anyone who’s taken an HR class can tell you that hiring, onboarding, and training are some of the most expensive parts of running your company.

The AF is on record saying that they’d rather produce talent than retain talent, even though that’s the more fiscally irresponsible option. I think if we challenged this line of thinking and brought attention to it with lawmakers, they’d be more open to revising the NDAA and compelling the AF to come up with resource allocation options (and therefore bonus options) that would actually entice people to stay.

Write your congressmen.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

To be fair, the AF can’t give anything higher than 50k, that’s limited by law and requires some waivers from a few undersecretary’s that deal with finance/personnel.

All that said, from what I understand, there’s nothing that limits the Air Force from offering something like a three year, 50k per year contract. I’d be willing to bet the take rate would actually be higher if there was a 3 year option. 

[HossHarris]

8 hours ago, General Chang said:

Risk to fill squadrons with nothing but Lieutenants and Captains is acceptable.  Enough FGOs will stick around to adequately fill the commander positions.  The research is conclusive.  People on this forum don’t want to hear that, but not wanting to hear something doesn’t mean it’s not true.  The Pentagon is 100% focused on production ramp to 1500.

I know what stupid coa management chose. 
 

you missed/dodged the question…

How’s that workin out for y’all?

[StoleIt]

9 hours ago, General Chang said:

Risk to fill squadrons with nothing but Lieutenants and Captains is acceptable.  Enough FGOs will stick around to adequately fill the commander positions.  The research is conclusive.  People on this forum don’t want to hear that, but not wanting to hear something doesn’t mean it’s not true.  The Pentagon is 100% focused on production ramp to 1500.

I know this is a troll account, but the lack of pilot-centric FGOs does have second and third order effects that ripple throughout the enterprise.

In my little corner of the Air Force, we claim to hire the "best" and "most experienced" pilots because, after all, we are "AMCs only Selectively Manned Unit." In the last 2ish years, that I've paid attention to, our hiring boards went from 1-2 O-3's now to the inverse. This next hiring board has 1 O-5, 4 O-4s, and about 20 O-3s. The dynamic has changed, the experience level has drastically changed, but we claim "perfection is our standard" has not changed (oh yea, they dropped the hours requirement significantly to apply).

So, we will continue to get our nuts crushed by WHMO (waves at Rainman) by an institutional issue because nobody wants to call a spade, a spade.

Big Air Force might not value retention of skilled aviators but, I am going to laugh when it bites them because it starts causing major inconveniences to our Top 5 customers. My only regret is the people who set up the house of cards will never see justice for their mismanagement...and some poor CGO is going to buy a Q3'd for something silly that delayed a mission and they were never taught.

[Swizzle]

1 hour ago, HossHarris said:

I know what stupid coa management chose. 
 

you missed/dodged the question…

How’s that workin out for y’all?

Take rate is up!!

...when you decrease the denominator, and rig the math.

AFPC should put a metric of take rate percent vs IDE in-res select/attendee. That would reveal the take-to-stay/play rate of rewarding the yes-people under their control, the 'on-ramp' people.

To be fair, no gripe is holistic without an accompanying proposed fix, so, reward free, independent thinkers who have the courage to speak up and act. Senior leaders should listen instead of shoving everyone into your box-construct of self-licking ice creams (Aka adapt and the system adapt like AF teaches and preaches). Build new carton constructs, like see-through milk containers so everyone avoids any sour, curdled milk! What AF does not realize is people see the covered, non-descript AF container is fermented and about to explode.

[mcbush]

41 minutes ago, Swizzle said:

Take rate is up!!

...when you decrease the denominator, and rig the math.

AFPC should put a metric of take rate percent vs IDE in-res select/attendee. That would reveal the take-to-stay/play rate of rewarding the yes-people under their control, the 'on-ramp' people.

But that would require intellectual honesty and a desire to solve the problem, neither of which are present here.

 

23 hours ago, Dapper Dan Man said:

The AF is on record saying that they’d rather produce talent than retain talent, even though that’s the more fiscally irresponsible option. I think if we challenged this line of thinking and brought attention to it with lawmakers, they’d be more open to revising the NDAA and compelling the AF to come up with resource allocation options (and therefore bonus options) that would actually entice people to stay.

Write your congressmen.

 

Congress is no better than HAF DAF. You want to see the response I got last time I wrote my Congressman?

 

[Swizzle]

2 hours ago, mcbush said:

But that would require intellectual honesty and a desire to solve the problem, neither of which are present here.

 

Congress is no better than HAF DAF. You want to see the response I got last time I wrote my Congressman?

 

That is like a ChatGPT output, 1st run..

[Danger41]

That sucks about your Congressman @mcbush. The only time I ever reached out to mine (Sen Mike Rounds from South Dakota), I went to his website, followed the contact procedure, and had a staffer reach out to me by the end of the day. Problem was solved in 3 days. I was actually shocked at how well it went.