Aviation Continuation Pay (ACP - The Bonus)

[herkbum]

We want to see the desire to be in the unit. As my spiel goes to those that visit-we look at it as if you are joining our family. 1 visit isn't going to cut it. We are also going check you thru the bro network. Think of it as rushing a frat. If we constantly see your face, then we know you really want to be part of our unit, not just shot gunning out apps and phone calls to see if anyone bites.

One of our last hires said he was stumped at the interview when we asked him to tell us something about him we didn't know. He stumbled because he had been at the squadron so much he thought he had told us everything. That's the level of determination we are looking for. We want you to be around for 10-15 or so yrs, so we are going to make sure you fit in. And you should be sure we are going to fit in for you as well. Never forget it's a 2 way relationship.

I agree with everything you are saying.  What about the people who are on the other side of the world or can't make it to the unit more than once or not at all due to those circumstances?  What if said person has a great resume and recommendations, and your unit is in their home town? Are people like that not going to get hired?

Not just by sending a piece of paper. We want to meet you and talk to you face-to-face. The resume and recs may get you in the door, but we will not hire you based on that alone. If you are "on the other side of the world", we will talk to you on the phone and cut you some slack, but we will not hire you without meeting you. Would you?

[SnapLock]

2 hours ago, herkbum said:

Not just by sending a piece of paper. We want to meet you and talk to you face-to-face. The resume and recs may get you in the door, but we will not hire you based on that alone. If you are "on the other side of the world", we will talk to you on the phone and cut you some slack, but we will not hire you without meeting you. Would you?

Nope, I'm not saying that I would.  I'm just trying to drill down and figure out the process to find the truth data.  

[Harvey]

On March 31, 2016 at 1:52 AM, pawnman said:

Constant exercises, control exerted from on-high at a level far exceeding anything in ACC, and this strange commitment to forcing people to change platforms.  Pretty much none of my B-1 bros wanted to go fly a BUFF, resulting in an email to all B-1 aviators from the wing commander questioning our patriotism and loyalty.

C-17 functional is now advertising the opportunity for us to cross flow to the BUFF. I'm guessing pawnman was right about the amount of B-1 guys who are interested in crossing over. 

[ViperMan]

12 minutes ago, Harvey said:

C-17 functional is now advertising the opportunity for us to cross flow to the BUFF. I'm guessing pawnman was right about the amount of B-1 guys who are interested in crossing over. 

Do you have to be airdrop qualified? 

[magnetfreezer]

Do you have to be airdrop qualified? 

Based on red flag, no.

[pawnman]

21 minutes ago, magnetfreezer said:

Based on red flag, no.

ZING!

[GKinnear]

13 hours ago, Harvey said:

C-17 functional is now advertising the opportunity for us to cross flow to the BUFF. I'm guessing pawnman was right about the amount of B-1 guys who are interested in crossing over. 

There's a bunch of 11M dudes who have actual CAS/Air-Ground experience out at Creech. Just saying...

[Homestar]

Does that count?

[MooseAg03]

Apparently it's combat now.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[xaarman]

On 2/19/2016 at 9:04 PM, osulax05 said:

I originally posted this in the military cuts thread, but the tanker clown music overshadowed it.

Anybody have insight into this verbiage from the NDAA?

 

Posted Sunday at 8:28 AM

From the text:

REPORT.—Not later than February 1, 2016, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the congressional defense committees a report setting forth the empirical case for an increase in special and incentive pay for aviation officers in order to address a specific, statistically-based retention problem with respect to such officers. The report shall include the results of a study, conducted by the Secretary in connection with the case, on a market-based compensa-tion approach to the retention of such officers that considers the pay and allowances offered by commercial airlines to pilots and the propensity of pilots to leave the Air Force to become commercial airline pilots. 

 

 

 1

Somewhat on this, but when Leadership met with the airlines, the RAND corporation came up with this:

 

https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1412.html

[guineapigfury]

TLDR.  The USAF would love to "collaborate" with the Airlines; the Airlines have no incentive to do so.

[Duck]

Haven't read it yet but I have this picture in my mind. "Hey, so yeah, we fvcked up our retention so can maybe we like work together now? I mean it's national security stuff"

[icohftb]

Any significant changes to take rates? 

Edited May 7, 2016 by icohftb

[guineapigfury]

56 minutes ago, Duck said:

Haven't read it yet but I have this picture in my mind. "Hey, so yeah, we fvcked up our retention so can maybe we like work together now? I mean it's national security stuff"

Duck, you're on the right track.  It's only 40ish pages and worth the read.  On the plus side if they can't keep people in AGR slots, maybe there will be one open for me when I pull the ejection handle next year.  After 4 years in RPAs I'd take any plane at any base.

[Duck]

I plan on reading it in between our Saturday Chick-fil-A and Soccer practice.

[Guest]

TLDR.  The USAF would love to "collaborate" with the Airlines; the Airlines have no incentive to do so.

That's acknowledged in the article. The main, feasible COA that was proposed was to hire regional pilots and accelerate pilot training for them. What the article failed to address was that future conditions are likely to create a scenario where no regional pilot is gong to consider leaving their job for 2Lt pay.

[Tulsa]

The Rand Report was painful to read.  The BL being the Airlines have no incentive to cooperate with the broke dick USAF.  Fast tracking regional dudes seems appealing until you realize flying an Embraer from Valdosta to Atlanta 3 times a day has little transferability at least to the CAF.  It seems the CSAF and HAF folks fail to realize is all people really want is choice and control of their life.  I think the renovations to the retirement program will completely change some of these manning problems with folks not holding out for the 20 year carrot. I'd also change the ADSC for UPT back to 6 years, maybe 8 years if we also move to a 4-5 year PCS cycle.  That gives someone a chance to make IP/AC in their MWS first assignment and go to another OPs for WIC/TPS consideration or ALFA to finish out their commitment.  The WIC/TPS commitment will lock in folks to another gate at 10 or 12 years of service, which could be incentivized with the bonus.

For the majority of AD pilots, at that 6-8 year point you need to make a choice, do I have enough hours for an ATP and go Airline/ARC route or take another assignment.  Unfortunately, FAIPs would have to make the decision at the end of their first OPs assignment.  With the 20 year retirement off the table we need to shift to a more frequent decision gate concept at 6, 10, 14, and 20 year points.  The bonus would still be useful, but I think you're getting the folks that were going to stay for 20 years anyways.  You could also incentivize the bonus to specific missions vice AFSC wide (ie. UPT, RPA, PIT), since you will have more frequent turnover and earlier departures from AD.  While the turnover of this proposed system may be more frequent, giving your folks more choice and control in their life should help improve service morale to something north of pretty darn good. 

[Duck]

I feel like the AF is going to go for the opposite and push for a 13 year UPT ADSC.

[Duck]

I feel like the AF is going to go for the opposite and push for a 13 year UPT ADSC. Gets

[ThreeHoler]

I feel like the AF is going to go for the opposite and push for a 13 year UPT ADSC. Gets

This has been floated through leadership. Not sure of its current status.

[TnkrToad]

2 hours ago, Tulsa said:

I'd also change the ADSC for UPT back to 6 years, maybe 8 years if we also move to a 4-5 year PCS cycle. 

You could also incentivize the bonus to specific missions vice AFSC wide (ie. UPT, RPA, PIT), since you will have more frequent turnover and earlier departures from AD.  While the turnover of this proposed system may be more frequent, giving your folks more choice and control in their life should help improve service morale to something north of pretty darn good. 

What could possibly go wrong . . . 

- 6 or 8 year commitment would make it substantially more appealing to get out at earliest possible date than the current 10 yr, due to the added seniority/additional pay this would allow for on the outside

- Even less experience/corporate knowledge in squadrons due to earlier separations

- Less squadron experience still due to higher AETC requirements (more turnover = more pilots needed per year = more AETC IPs needed to train them)

- Even less incentive for folks to attend WIC (WIC ADSC overlaps with SUPT ADSC now. Force people to extend their latest ADSC to go to WIC, and watch applications drop like a rock)

- Even less money to pay bonuses/fund QoL initiatives/buy new planes, because that cash is being spent on putting more folks through SUPT

- Best part, even worse decisions from HHQ staffs, because even fewer pilots with requisite rank/experience to fend off bad ideas

Given that all the above would make it even harder to fill COCOM requirements (BTW, the warfighting is the reason the Air Force exists), I don't see how cutting the ADSC commitment--especially down to 6 years--would be a good idea. 

TT

[guineapigfury]

If you want to see how 6 year commitments for pilots will work out, give it 2 years.  Thats when 18Xers start hitting the end of their 6 year URT ADSCs in large numbers.

Edited May 8, 2016 by guineapigfury

[Duck]

And here I thought the Air Force existed as some kind of strange social experiment. Warfighting is what it's purpose was meant to be? Incredible! I would have never guessed!!!

[Karl Hungus]

How much taxpayer money did we pay RAND to do this, when any staffer- where the real hard work of Air Power happens!- could spend a day or two skimming a decade's worth of posts on this board and AirlinePilotCentral and come to the same conclusion?  Laughable. 

The COAs are a stretch at best.  Even RAND admits that.  Proficiency advancing prior-121 pilots through UPT?  Insert story of former regional guy who failed out of T-6s here.  Not to mention, you're going to give them preferential treatment on OTS boards and force ARC units to do the same?  Good luck!  Forcing ARC units to do LFEs/deployments during winter months when airlines are less busy, and stop having UTAs on the first weekend of the month?  LOL.  

Fix QoL/work rules and you won't have the mass exodus of talent.  You wouldn't even have to pay pilots (much) more- just provide QoL/work rules close to on par with a combination of the civil sector and the ARC.  Doing so would require some real leadership and some painful acknowledgements on the AF's part that they've ed up.  Instead, our management comes up with 13 year ADSCs.  That'll fix it!

[brabus]

Fix QoL/work rules and you won't have the mass exodus of talent

Shack. It's not about money for a lot of people, it's about the horrendous level of bullshit/terrible family QoL that makes guys run.  I know too many dudes who "would never fly for the airlines," and we're not driven there by the money, but ultimately by how the Air Force had mismanaged the shit out of their "work life," which directly impacted their "family life" in a negative way.  It shouldn't be hard to kill bullshit deployments (especially 365s), it shouldn't be hard to knock off the queep/taskers that have zero utility to anyone, and it shouldn't be difficult to see that taking care of people on a personal level is extremely important.  Keep people happy and they won't leave...it's simple.