Aviation Continuation Pay (ACP - The Bonus)

[NKAWTG]

Can someone explain the rationale behind taking an early bonus contract? As I understand it, you don't get any more pay, and it just locks you into the ADSC a year earlier. So AFPC gets an extra year of certainty and we get what?

[Ram]

Can someone explain the rationale behind taking an early bonus contract? As I understand it, you don't get any more pay, and it just locks you into the ADSC a year earlier. So AFPC gets an extra year of certainty and we get what?

Reference a post of mine a few pages back. Those with expiring ADSCs early in the fiscal year stood to lose money on a deal when the bonus wasn't offered until mid-FY.

In my case, it meant an extra $12K.

EDIT: Here's the link to my original post explaining it:

DOUBLE EDIT: Aw, fuck it...allow myself to quote myself (to make it easier to find/read):

If you're doing the 9 years @ $25k, you can't max-out past 20 YAS. So, if you take the bonus for 9 years and only have 8.36 years before you hit 20 YAS, your last year of $25k is prorated to whatever time you have left.

So, let's hypothetically say the FY15 bonus wasn't offered early. Like FY12 and FY13, if it were announced on 1 Jul 15, any 11F wanting the 20 year option who had their original ADSC end before the bonus announcement date would lose a month for each day after 1 Oct 14 the FY15 bonus was announced.

For example, if you graduated UPT on 1 Oct 04 (first day eligible for the FY15 bonus) and singed for the bonus in Jul 15, you'd be signing a deal for the next 8.17 years. AFPC calculates that last year of the bonus as 0.17 x $25k (since you can't get a bonus past 20 YAS), and you get $4.17k instead of the full $25k.

Edited August 3, 2015 by Ram

[NKAWTG]

Thanks for enabling my internet laziness. I had not considered how timing of the release date vs UPT grad date would prorate the bonus. Damn that fine print.

[Ram]

In my opinion, the "early offer" of the bonus worked out well for me. For AFPC and for some potential takers, it's a win-win for everyone.

AFPC gets a win if they get an early taker, as that's data they get a whole year ahead of time. Pilots can get a whole 9 years worth of $25K, which meets the intent of the bonus program without incurring an ADSC beyond retirement eligibility AND allows the full scope of the bonus to be honored without perceived AFPC trick-fuckery.

One could also read into it that AFPC is serious about retaining as many as possible through 20 YAS, but let's be serious: There's much more they could/should do (for a much cheaper price, I might add) that would do a helluva lot more to positively impact retention.

[189Herk]

For those that signed up last year and finally got paid december-ish, has anyone gotten check #2? Wondering when we can expect that, assuming maybe the anniversary of the day you signed the bonus?

[herkbum]

For those that signed up last year and finally got paid december-ish, has anyone gotten check #2? Wondering when we can expect that, assuming maybe the anniversary of the day you signed the bonus?

I have always gotten mine in the anniversary month of signing, which is what was stated in the agreement when I signed it. So read your paperwork. Edited August 9, 2015 by herkbum

[Flaco]

I have always gotten mine in the anniversary month of signing, which is what was stated in the agreement when I signed it. So read your paperwork.

Same. Got my 2nd payment month of signing.

[11F]

I signed mine back in July-13 (before the early offering was going on), and I receive mine on the anniversary of the day I put wings on my chest, 05-Sep-03.

[stract]

asking for a friend...

If someone signs up for the bonus (in this case the CSO bonus), can they change their mind before either a) the agreement is finalized or b) receiving the first payment?  If anyone can clarify, I'd appreciate it.

[TankerDriver]

Any idea when the FY16 ACP is coming out?

I can tell you AD isn't alone with people wanting to bail. Us guardsmen are getting sick of the BS also. Granted we have a little more control over our lives, but we're busier than we've ever been before. Between PACOM taskings and CENTCOM mobilizations that seem to never end, our typical traditional guardsmen do a whole lot more than the "one weekend a month/two weeks a year. We're spending 2-3 months of a year TDY in addition to accomplishing local training, exercises, PME, etc... it's a busy part-time job. We lost a handful of Lt Col's this year due to self initiated retirements and will lose another handful next year for the same thing. These are all guys senior at their airlines who just don't want to deal with the expectation that the Guard is going to maintain an AD-like ops tempo. It's just not going to happen when these people have to juggle life between two jobs that take them away from home many days throughout the year. There is no bonus for pilots with +10 years in the ANG/AFRC unless you're an AGR. We even have a few Majors who are punching out of the mil aviation world for less deployable non-flying positions so they can focus on their airline jobs and not have to be worried about getting mob'd for the second time in a year to go play in the sandbox again. I'm afraid "the sky is falling" and the USAF is in big trouble over the next 5-10 years on both the AD and RC sides of the house.

The ANG is losing full-timers left and right due to a lack of AGR opportunities and a lack-luster ART program that is going to die an ugly death to the explosion of airline hiring.

If anyone has ever had aspirations to be an airline pilot at some time in their lives, now is the time. Taking a bonus is not worth the sacrifice when it comes to the QOL and pay in the commercial airline world. With most of the legacy airlines hiring 500-600 pilots per year, waiting 10 years to put in an app could be catastrophic.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

[TnkrToad]

Anyone seen stats on how many are staying past 20?

     If so, I'd be curious to hear what the trend is. My guess is it ain't good. Those who took the bonus and stuck it out 'til 20 are free agents (barring other ADSCs they incurred beyond the bonus). If retention of those folks decreases significantly, simultaneously with low bonus take rates (still sitting at just 50.6%), I really gotta wonder where Big Blue is going to get competent O-6 and above commanders and staff officers to lead the organization. Considering all of JQP's blog posts about leadership problems we already have, I shudder to think it likely to get worse as quality folks see greener pastures in the airlines/elsewhere when they reach 20 (if they even make it that far). I hope, as the Air Force contemplates next year's bonus (and rated force management writ large), they consider the long-term outlook for retaining quality folks--not just to fill cockpits and staff jobs, but senior leadership positions. If not, seems to me the Air Force will be taken over by helicopter pilots (they seem to be the only pilot group taking the bonus), then non-aviators--by default. 

[ViperStud]

This isn't a future problem; it has already happened. Where do you think guys like Rat, Yogi and that idiot at the pentagon who got housed by a chick came from?  The combination of picking generals at the Capt ranks along with our leadership/culture problems and poor incentives to stay have left us in a position to bleed talent for many years.  Few good dudes stay and several people thrive in this culture when they would be total failures if (A) they were in the private sector or (B) someone had the balls to take them off the path they got put on when they got their SOS DG and kissed ther commander's ass for their first strat.  We don't promote the best, we promote the ones among those that are left who best fill their containers  

An old an old squadron mate was pushed hard by leadership as a Capt/Maj - eventually goes to (I think) Shaw to be a SQ/CC. The other CCs there learn that this new dude picked up the #1 CC strat before he's even set foot on base. I mean, you've gotta keep the golden boy on the golden path even if objectivity goes out the window. 

My point: the bonus is small potatoes compared to the cultural and leadership problems. Can it help if executed well?  Sure, but there are bigger problems that make the bonus almost irrelevant WRT retaining talent. 

[TnkrToad]

This isn't a future problem; it has already happened. Where do you think guys like Rat, Yogi and that idiot at the pentagon who got housed by a chick came from?  The combination of picking generals at the Capt ranks along with our leadership/culture problems and poor incentives to stay have left us in a position to bleed talent for many years.  Few good dudes stay and several people thrive in this culture when they would be total failures if (A) they were in the private sector or (B) someone had the balls to take them off the path they got put on when they got their SOS DG and kissed ther commander's ass for their first strat.  We don't promote the best, we promote the ones among those that are left who best fill their containers.  

      No argument here. I fully agree that the AF tends to select folks for senior leadership way too early. I've observed before on this forum that many of today's senior leaders were folks who took the bonus and/or elected to stay on AD in the mid- to late-90s when we last saw a major airline hiring spree. Plenty of great folks stayed in too and have been working to keep this ship afloat, but I figure Rat got to the position he did in no small measure because a lot of his competition got out. Poor retention leads to limited options, which leads to a greater likelihood of crappy leaders getting selected for command.

       What concerns me going forward is that our leaders have typically had graybeard O-4/O-5 types who were not on the command track who had the will and ability to tell these guys that their decisions/policies sucked, and why. My impression (accurate or not) is that such graybeards hardly exist anymore on AD. I get that the Rat-esque types are impervious to logic, but some are good folks who are simply inexperienced/in over their heads and need help. I remember General Horner talking about how he depended on a bunch of passed-over O-4s to run the Desert Storm air war. If the only aviators we retain past 20 yrs service are (1) careerists bucking for O-6 and (2) O-5s sitting in cushy jobs at Hickam/USAFA/other sweet locations where they're happy to stay on AD so long as they don't have to move, then the negative impact of toxic and/or clueless leaders will be amplified.

       Simply retaining enough raw numbers of aviators via the bonus and other programs is no panacea, but at least it could give true reformers some help and breathing room. The stats for this year's bonus aren't promising (barely over 50%, with a month to go). If retention of folks past 20 is trending significantly downward, we can count on more Rat's in the future.

[SnapLock]

This isn't a future problem; it has already happened. Where do you think guys like Rat, Yogi and that idiot at the pentagon who got housed by a chick came from?  The combination of picking generals at the Capt ranks along with our leadership/culture problems and poor incentives to stay have left us in a position to bleed talent for many years.  Few good dudes stay and several people thrive in this culture when they would be total failures if (A) they were in the private sector or (B) someone had the balls to take them off the path they got put on when they got their SOS DG and kissed ther commander's ass for their first strat.  We don't promote the best, we promote the ones among those that are left who best fill their containers  

An old an old squadron mate was pushed hard by leadership as a Capt/Maj - eventually goes to (I think) Shaw to be a SQ/CC. The other CCs there learn that this new dude picked up the #1 CC strat before he's even set foot on base. I mean, you've gotta keep the golden boy on the golden path even if objectivity goes out the window. 

My point: the bonus is small potatoes compared to the cultural and leadership problems. Can it help if executed well?  Sure, but there are bigger problems that make the bonus almost irrelevant WRT retaining talent. 

^^^THIS^^^ Can someone please explain to me why people get selected for general as an O-3 and why this makes sense? I really don't understand. It seems like in almost every example in life you can do well but have to keep performing and trying hard or else you'll get beat out by someone else. Whereas, in the AF you get a school slot and a good staff tour afterward and you're virtually guaranteed to be a SQ/CC, but if you're not on this track you have almost zero chance of moving up.

[brabus]

And ironically, "picking Generals" at O-3 is one of the leading reasons why many of the "chosen" dudes get out after their last ADSC.  There's a lot of "high caliber officers" who would probably stay in longer if they weren't forced onto the COCOM track at O-3.

[Herkasaurus]

but I figure Rat got to the position he did in no small measure because a lot of his competition got out. 

I fully agree with you, however the problem lies much deeper than "promotion by attrition". I highlighted this because the Rat was hired by the reserves and was heading that way until September 11th hit. He had 1 foot out the door, then came back to destroy and set the AF back by years. 

It blows my fückin mind that some reserve squadron actually hired that shithead. But when did he lose his mind and go beyond full AF retard? I don't even know where to begin to find an answer to that. He rose to power from being in the right place, right time, and a healthy dose of luck to make that piece of shit the SECAF speechwriter. Maybe he had it pent up for years and took it out on the masses, kinda like CZ...who is retiring soon. 2 complete and utterly worthless "leaders" gone in the same year, it's like a dream. I bet they're gonna play golf together and one up each other on who was a bigger dick. 

[pawnman]

So...any word on if that CSO bonus will be expanded to 12Bs any time soon?

[DirkDiggler]

^^^THIS^^^ Can someone please explain to me why people get selected for general as an O-3 and why this makes sense? I really don't understand. It seems like in almost every example in life you can do well but have to keep performing and trying hard or else you'll get beat out by someone else. Whereas, in the AF you get a school slot and a good staff tour afterward and you're virtually guaranteed to be a SQ/CC, but if you're not on this track you have almost zero chance of moving up.

I can't explain why it makes sense but I can shed a little light on the process of why the AF selects people so early in their career for grooming to O-7.  The entire AF officer promotion system is based on a Pole Year to general officer at 24 years.  In order for an individual to be realistically competitive for O-7 at 24 years, he or she needs to be a BTZ guy at least once, if not more.  If someone isn't BTZ, their chances of O-7 are practically non-existent (I'm sure its theoretically possible but extremely unlikely).  The system is biased in such a way to select officers fairly early (in today's environment IDE select off your O-4 board is a big one due to how difficult it is to get a school slot as a candidate)  and build on their forward momentum, especially once someone makes BTZ once.  A lot of good SQ/CCs and SRs may realize that many (if not most) officers have little or no interest in O-7 but the promotion system currently in place is fairly rigid in what it rewards and recognizes as promotionable/BTZ material (I've seen 2-3 guys that were marginal or poor SQ/CCs that continued to advance within the current system because of already being BTZ/fast track guys).  While I don't know Rat personally (thankfully) if he was the SECAF speech writer then there was a good chance he was working for a general officer who had DPs to give and a very small pool of officers to dole them out to; jobs like that are very promotable even though they pretty much are devoid of actual leadership experience.  Guys like him are also usually hyper aware of their Pole Year and what they need to progress, generally at the expense of their colleagues and anyone unfortunate enough to be stuck under their command.  Cleared Hot or Liquid may be able to explain this more clearly or correct anything I typed above that's incorrect, a lot of guys don't know much about this stuff cause the AF as a whole doesn't explain the promotion system very well or at all to new officers.  Hope this helps.       

[Ram]

It's also worth saying that "picking generals at the O-4 board" is a pretty HUGE generalization.  IDE select rate for major selects is about 20% or so (give or take).  That's an overly large pool of "potential generals," even if you factor in some pretty large attrition. 

I'd say a more accurate statement lies in what Dirk said about BTZ requirements.  2-BTZ to LtCol (only 3 to 4% of eligibles) is much closer to what I'd consider a pool of potential flag officers.

[17D_guy]

I can't explain ... WORDS... Hope this helps.       

Had this discussion with a few crusty execs.  They agree with everything you said and further stated it takes 7 years to get someone into the position to groom them for higher command.  So when these guys/gals retire short notice, it throws the whole promotion system into a lurch.

 

These individuals had jobs and steps lined up for YEARS ahead of time.  Imagine the type of personality this breeds - "Dude, you're set for life as long as you don't commit a crime or kill someone."

[TankerDriver]

Can anyone post a summary of the take rates for the last 3 years?  Are these rates on myPers?  Couldn't find them.

[Lord Ratner]

It blows my fückin mind that some reserve squadron actually hired that shithead. But when did he lose his mind and go beyond full AF retard? I don't even know where to begin to find an answer to that.

I know a few commanders who were "total bros" when they were captains and majors, then went full crazy when given command. And I know more than a few captains who are great dudes, but I worry about what they will be like as commanders.

Leadership is hard, if it weren't for the fact I have virtually zero chance of command, I'd be worried about myself being in power as well. Unfortunately the pilot world doesn't rate and promote based on leadership abilities and experience. Since there are too many officers and not enough leadership positions, we use program management and education as discriminators.

But what most of us want, a return to a flying focus, doesn't enhance leadership ability either. I think there is a huge credibility boost a squadron commander gains from being proficient in the jet, but at the group and above level I don't think flying ability helps any more than being an exec or getting DG at SOS.

I don't know the right answer, but there is a reason civilian corporations hire CEOs and presidents from outside the company. Ford doesn't need the best design engineer or riveter at the helm. Leadership is a skill unto itself, and it cannot be nurtured or measured through other actions and skills.

[brabus]

But what most of us want, a return to a flying focus, doesn't enhance leadership ability either

I get the gist of your point, but disagree flying doesn't at minimum enhance and grow one's leadership capability.  There's a lot of leadership skills required in aviation - maybe some communities/areas more than others, but overall there is leadership required and increasing ability to lead is generally required as one's experience and position in their community increases.

[BuddhaSixFour]

I don't know the right answer, but there is a reason civilian corporations hire CEOs and presidents from outside the company. Ford doesn't need the best design engineer or riveter at the helm. Leadership is a skill unto itself, and it cannot be nurtured or measured through other actions and skills.

I fundamentally disagree. A CEO can move from industry to industry because large portions of what big corporations do is independent of their field. It's not that a CEO possesses some sort of magical universal leadership skill.  It's that they have a deep, highly transferable skill set in corporate management and happen to be good leaders to boot. They may not be the best riveter, but he/she better damn well know what riveters do, how to get that riveter paid, attract and train other good riveters, and manage the supply chain to provide them with rivets. Leadership without action or other skills means you are at best qualified to be the Vice President of your local Toast Masters Club.

I would also say that flying... particularly in combat as part of a team... is better leadership development than most things. There is, however, a separate issue of learning to navigate the Air Force bureaucracy. Unfortunately, that's a fundamental skill required for serving effectively at higher ranks. Don't conflate leadership and rank.

I do agree with you that there is a point where flying talent matters less, but I think the line should be higher than you put it. Through the Wing/CC, leaders need to be reasonably proficient and at least solidly above average as aircrew (pilots, navs, whatever). I have no desire to pretend to be the leader of a unit I can't take into combat... period. " Good luck, boys! I signed your high-risk ORM and I'll write some mean Single Mission Air Medals for you if... er... when you get back!" said Robin Olds never.

But starting at the DO-level, I see how quickly everything else drowns out flying and how after a few years, our "leaders" just aren't proficient enough to do it any more. They make the reasonable and responsible decision to let go of flying except during training lines with high illumination and an instructor at the controls. It is not their fault. It is how we've chosen to make things work.  It is, however, bullshit.

"You don't need to be a good pilot to be a good leader," is a lie a shitty pilot once told to keep their career on track. Unfortunately, someone who didn't understand the difference between "leader" and "administrative wonk" believed them. Now, we've forgotten what we've lost.

We will remember someday.

[Lord Ratner]

I fundamentally disagree.

I think we agree more than you think

A CEO can move from industry to industry because large portions of what big corporations do is independent of their field. It's not that a CEO possesses some sort of magical universal leadership skill.  It's that they have a deep, highly transferable skill set in corporate management and happen to be good leaders to boot.

What would you say the highly transferable skill set is?

They may not be the best riveter, but he/she better damn well know what riveters do, how to get that riveter paid, attract and train other good riveters, and manage the supply chain to provide them with rivets.

You think the CEO deals with payroll and recruiting of unskilled labor?

Leadership without action or other skills means you are at best qualified to be the Vice President of your local Toast Masters Club.

I would also say that flying... particularly in combat as part of a team... is better leadership development than most things.

I'll bite. How does a combat sortie in a fighting falcon impart organizational leadership skills?

There is, however, a separate issue of learning to navigate the Air Force bureaucracy. Unfortunately, that's a fundamental skill required for serving effectively at higher ranks. Don't conflate leadership and rank.

I do agree with you that there is a point where flying talent matters less, but I think the line should be higher than you put it. Through the Wing/CC, leaders need to be reasonably proficient and at least solidly above average as aircrew (pilots, navs, whatever). I have no desire to pretend to be the leader of a unit I can't take into combat... period. " Good luck, boys! I signed your high-risk ORM and I'll write some mean Single Mission Air Medals for you if... er... when you get back!" said Robin Olds never

Wing commanders aren't really the ones tagged to be in the lead aircraft of a 50-ship bomber formation. That's the sq/cc job, right?

But starting at the DO-level, I see how quickly everything else drowns out flying and how after a few years, our "leaders" just aren't proficient enough to do it any more. They make the reasonable and responsible decision to let go of flying except during training lines with high illumination and an instructor at the controls. It is not their fault. It is how we've chosen to make things work.  It is, however, bullshit.

"You don't need to be a good pilot to be a good leader," is a lie a shitty pilot once told to keep their career on track. Unfortunately, someone who didn't understand the difference between "leader" and "administrative wonk" believed them.

Are you implying that one cannot be a good leader without being a good pilot? That leaves quite a few career fields out of luck

Now, we've forgotten what we've lost.

We will remember someday.

I have seen very little connection between leadership and flying. Admiration, respect, sure. But running an organization of hundreds is not in the same realm... At least that's what I think