Jump to content

otsap

Registered User
  • Content count

    59
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

21 Excellent

About otsap

  • Rank
    Crew Dawg
  1. The way I read the chart posted on the previous page is that Tier 6 and 7 can sign the bonus for a "minimum" of 3 years, but up to 22 YAS. Tier 8 has one option; 5 years. So if you took the 1 year option last year, you wouldn't be "initial eligible" (Tiers 1-5), but Tiers 6-8 would apply to you instead, and you'd be able to sign for 3 more years at a minimum, not to exceed 22 YAS. And I've never been wrong before. The most confusing part of that chart to me is how it applies to an 11U that is not initial eligible. It looks like such a person would be in Tier 6, but also Tier 8. Tier 8 gives an 11U $35K a year for 5 years ($175k), specifically. But if an 11U wanted to sign up for 1 year more, or 6 years total, then according to Tier 6 they get $30k a year (180k). So signing up for one more year only adds $5k to your total. It shouldn't be so convoluted.
  2. otsap

    Pilot Shortage Deepens, USAF is SCREWED.

    You and I were a class, maybe two, apart. That was a rough summer for airsickness hooks. For some reason tac form turned the T-6 into a flying barany chair.
  3. otsap

    Gun Talk

    And this is why no one should be forced to sell a product to another person. They should be able to make that decision and reap the possible consequences. The cake shop may well go out of business. But this logic applies to Dick's as well. It would be a mistake to think that the gun rights community is small or inactive. I would suggest that Dick's, despite its largess, put itself at greater risk for business losses than the cake shop, despite its small stature. Of course, had the cake shop's decision stayed a local matter, it wouldn't have been as big a risk as it is now that the media got a hold of it. The lawsuit against Dick's should follow the same path as the cake shop, meaning both should be found in favor of the business, imho. Revealing a tiny bit of the virute-signalling hypocrisy on the left would also be.........(standby).........the icing on the cake. Curious if you have a source for this as it would counter my knowledge of the subject. Under federal law, which I'm using since the discussion was about the Supreme Court and Constitutional rights, sexual orientation and age are equally protected. In other words, neither of them carry a suspect or quasi-suspect classification, meaning that they currently fall under rational basis review with regards to discrimination. There have been a few opinions by U.S. District Courts, and one Appellate Court, that indicated the possibility of quasi-suspect classification for sexual orientation, but nothing more. State law on this issue is nice and all, but discrimination cases tend to bring up constitutional issues. That, combined with the Supremacy Clause, put these cases square in the federal court's wheelhouse.
  4. otsap

    I need some advice

    I'd hate to back you off from your 110%, but I would not do it again. I had an exciting job that paid fine, but I've always been a sucker for green grass. So I took the leap and flying has been awesome, the people are great, and there have been days that I couldn't believe I was getting paid. On the other hand, there are a lot of awesome things other than flying (skiing being at the top of my list as well), there are great people pretty much everywhere, and I enjoyed my prior job as much as I've enjoyed this one. Everyone is different, and only hindsight will tell you what the best choice would have been, and that kind of hindsight only occurs if you do both. Back then, I would have hated to be left wondering what might have been; but now that I know, I would rather be left wondering. It's funny you mentioned skiing, because I did that regularly in my previous life, and I have yet to get an assignment where it's an option, other than taking leave of course. Personally, I'd rather be skiing. I enjoy(ed) it much more than flying...ymmv.
  5. otsap

    Roth IRA???

    Bingo! No one seems to realize this. I tried to argue this point in another thread about 3 years ago, but everyone lost their minds saying it was the effective rate, or that I didn't understand tax brackets, etc, so I didn't bother. Thanks for bringing this little nugget back into the discussion. No doubt our effective rates are super low, especially with tax free earnings from deployments. But if you contribute $5500 to a Traditional IRA, that $5500 is deducted from the top of your income for the year, and would have been taxed at the highest marginal rate.
  6. otsap

    B-1 (Bone) questions

    So then do you see the root problem as more a matter of training, or is it more related to w/dependent BAH?
  7. Looks like 2018 NDAA was signed 12 Dec, with sections 611-616 relevant to bonus, fly pay, etc. It appears Congress pushed the "standby" button for another year, though section 616 asks for a pilot retention report, fwiw. https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/2810/text#toc-HC7F1BB1E614941BFAC355EAF593EDEC7
  8. otsap

    Airline hiring prep, gouge, advice

    Don't you go dying on me!
  9. It's probably been mentioned before, but it would be a significant (and maybe easier?) change if the bonus was tax-free. It would be a lot of money to the person receiving it, but since there aren't a lot of bonus takers in a given year, it wouldn't even cause the lowliest IRS agent's assistant secretary to look up from their calculator. If Congress is so reluctant to up the bonus on the front end, then without affecting their front end costs, they could improve it on the back end (sts).
  10. otsap

    Flight Evaluation Board (FEB)

    You also keep using the word "hearsay" as if it means "false"; the two are not the same. Hearsay is a rule of evidence applicable to legal proceedings, not FEBs, and it actually doesn't imply falsehood/lies at all.
  11. Yeah that's BS. It got worse for 11Us as well, from 25K for 9 years to 35K for 5 years. Seems odd that each "tier" goes down in yearly bonus amount (35k/30k/28k) while also reducing the longest contract term (13y/9y/5y), but then with the 11U/18X/RPA folks they bump the amount up to the max and limit the contract term to 5 years at the longest. My guess would be that the AF believes it can produce 18X'ers easy and fast enough to make up for losses, which it can. Therefore it doesn't need the long commitment, as opposed to those who are 11F/M/H/etc, who take years to make. Still, an 18X will have 7 years in when their 6 year ADSC is up and they are eligible for the bonus, earlier than anyone. And the longest contract is 5 years, putting them at 12 years when that bonus contract would be complete. Thats roughly around the time that 11Xs get their first shot at a bonus. Doesn't look like a plan for long term development of 18X'ers and creating organic leadership from that community.
  12. otsap

    AFPAK Hands- Opportunity Beckons

    I think people would consider this program, if their ADSC were REDUCED one year for each year they put into it. And if the Air Force could somehow guarantee an airline gig upon separation. With a major. And full retirement. Then it would be a "great opportunity".
  13. Yes and no. DOPMA does supersede, but the AFI governing Officer Promotions has a sneaky little caveat in the section titled Declining Promotion. If you are put on the promotion list, and subsequently decline the promotion (which sounds like a damn headache, by the way), then you will not be promoted. However, your name REMAINS on the promotion list. So practically speaking, you will not pin on the next rank, but you will also not be considered a "twice passed over" officer. It's a weird area, but in effect, you can't get out of your ADSC if you go this route. Duck, I mentioned this before I think, and it's only anecdotal, but in our squadron on both of the last two Major boards, we had someone with a DP and no letter (common), DP and a DNP me letter, a P with no letter, and a P with a letter. On both boards, the proverbial "line in the sand" between who got promoted and who did not, was the DP v. P. In other words, the DPs with no letter and DP with a DNP me letter were all promoted, and the P with no letter and the P with a DNP me letter were not promoted. I don't think this means that the letter carries no weight. I think it confirms what Learjetter was saying about the priority being on the AF's needs via the DP/P, which is seen as your CC's recommendation. It can only help though, in my opinion, if your CC's recommendation (P), and your own wishes (letter), are aligned.
  14. Yes, they were passed over as well.
×