Jump to content

FlyArmy

Registered User
  • Content count

    61
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

33 Excellent

About FlyArmy

  • Rank
    Crew Dawg

Recent Profile Visitors

877 profile views
  1. Agree. Ditto for airline X going bankrupt/out of business, or merging and the pilot group getting stapled to airline Z. Some things can't accurately be forecast/accounted for and will only be known at the age of 65. Medical status being one of them. But I assume in these NPV spreadsheets, opportunity cost (seniority/longevity) is accounted for. Just curious what the assumed value is. And what the assumed probability is that one loses a medical or goes to an airline that goes out of business, thereby negating and resetting seniority/longevity. Anecdotally, I would think the odds seem to favor being able to see an age 60-65 airline retirement and an airline not going bust and/or getting stapled (or some other seniority losing event), but I have zero data on that.
  2. What do the smart folks here calculate as more valuable...years added on to AD retirement, or years/seniority lost at a major? I can't imagine a scenario where an additional year of AD retirement is worth a lost year of seniority/longevity.
  3. FlyArmy

    The Next President is...

    I'll save him the trouble.
  4. FlyArmy

    The Next President is...

    The president isn't beholden to shit. He can do whatever he wants. As the CiCs, it is their prerogative to make the choice whether or not to return salutes. But since Reagan, presidents have returned salutes from those who salute them, out of respect, since not returning a salute is typically thought of as a sign of disrespect. A bow is a sign of submission and not a military custom or courtesy. Big difference. Furthermore, obama initiated a bow, he didn't do it as a response to being bowed to. He initiated a bow to a king who then just shook his hand. Do you seriously not see the difference here, or are you trying to push an agenda?
  5. FlyArmy

    The Next President is...

    Both the AFI and army reg say to salute officers of friendly foreign nations (referring to when to render a salute to a foreign officer). While NK isn't exactly a "friendly nation," in this case, it was a friendly visit, meant to come to mutually agreeable terms and develop a path ahead for a peaceful relationship. Because it was a "friendly" meeting between two heads of state trying to forge a peaceful future, the NK general rendered a salute to Trump, out of respect/custom/courtesy. Returning a salute is a standard, respectful gesture. NOT returning a salute is disrespectful. Trump didn't go over there to disrespect NK. He went over there to get shit done in a peaceful and respectful way.
  6. FlyArmy

    The Next President is...

    Returning a salute is a lot different than bowing to a king. Bowing is a sign of submission and is not a military or US custom/courtesy. Returning a salute is a sign of mutual respect and is customary, especially for the CiC. Not returning a salute is a sign of disrespect. When on a historic foreign summit, why on earth would he disrespect a general of a country with whom he is trying to mend decades long strained relations? Trump returns salutes to a brand new E2. Sign of mutual respect...he's not showing submission to said E2. I haven't been to SERE in a while, but last I checked you are required by the geneva conventions to salute enemy officers who outrank you if you are a POW. But you aren't required to bow. Trump bows to no one. Apples and oranges. Of all people, I'd think a military member would understand the distinct difference between bowing and returning a salute. If he initiated the salute, that'd be one thing (still nothing like a bow). But he didn't.
  7. FlyArmy

    Flying in ANG - Asthma

    It's a standard PFT...sit in a big tube and do several breathing loops. Then take some albuterol and do some more. Good results? Move on to the MCT. Bad results? May or may not do the MCT. May just stop right there with a DQ. Used to be the WP pulmonologist had discretion whether or not to do the MCT. Then she apparently changed the policy 18 months ago or so and now requires the MCT for everyone who ever had any mention of asthma, even if PFT is great, and even if a pulmonologist determined an erroneous initial pediatrician asthma dx. Here's the best part: pass the PFT/MCT and are "normal," you still have to get a permanent waiver for something you never had (the flight docs there have discretion to dismiss it altogether and pass you with no waiver, or do the waiver. I got the waiver and it sounds like that's the norm). Not a huge deal, but a system that requires a waiver for something someone never had is a flawed system imo. I flew in another service for 8 years with no waivers, lived by a burn pit for a year and a half, lived in very dusty environments, went through gas chambers, went though many "asthma rich" environments with cold weather, allergies, and high physical activity (e.g. ranger school), with no breathing difficulty, but got to experience the "asthma" testing and waiver process at wright patt for my FCI. Can't really prepare for it, unless you go to a civilian pulmonologist and take the test to see how you react to it before going to WP. The research I've done on MCTs make it look like it's a great test to confirm someone doesn't have asthma/RAD if they pass, but not a great test to confirm someone does have asthma/RAD. Apparently a chunk of the normal population (non-symptomatic, non-asthmatic) can fail the MCT, but not be symptomatic to "normal" asthma/RAD stimuli (cold/allergy/exercise). Seems like a case of the AF DQing more people than it needs to, but I'm no doctor. Good luck.
  8. FlyArmy

    Honest feedback

    If you want a fighter slot, go rush fighter units and try to sell yourself accordingly. Exhaust all your options in the time you have. If you don't get good feedback or get hired between now and TFOT dates, either try to delay TFOT or take the bird in the hand and go with heavies. Flying heavies is better than not flying. If it comes up in conversation while rushing, sure, tell them you got hired by your unit, but your real desire is to fly fighters, you have told your leadership that, and that's why you are out rushing. That wouldn't be the first thing out of my mouth though. I'm quite sure if you told them you are enlisted in such and such unit, the follow-on question will be "did you apply for a UPT slot in that unit?" By getting hired there, it shows that 1) they are willing to send you to UPT after knowing you and 2) you still want fighters, even though your home unit doesn't have them. Could help. But if you immediately throw that out there, could come across as a douche.
  9. That makes more sense. The original linked article said 30-37k hours in total, which didn’t seem like much of an ROI and seemed insanely overpriced. If that’s per year as you said (and after looking at the PWS looks like it is), that seems like a lot better deal.
  10. Sounds like the SASC/congress should shit on the AF leadership that shits on this non dual status idea and make it fkng happen. 2k pilots short, getting worse over the next few years, with retention being the biggest unsolved issue. Seems like an easy fix to retain talent in key positions where talent is required.
  11. Well, I have thought this through, but as I initially stated, I want to hear the reasons why my thinking is flawed, so thanks for trying to address it. However, here's what no one (incl you) has addressed. What requirement is there to keep the hypothetical GS-XX job tied to ARC and a requirement to be a TR? The GS-13s teaching army dudes at rucker are mostly retired army pilots, collecting active/federal retirements, and will get another at the end of their GS years. They get their W4/W5/O5 retirement, and do a GS13 job. They aren't in the guard or reserves. They show up, brief, fly 2 students, debrief, go home. The notion that this hypothetical job would have to be filled by an ART, who is also a TR, is where the problem lies with the understanding of my concept of how it should be. Perhaps in the AF, these jobs don't exist, and all GS-XX jobs are tied to ARC. But it doesn't have to be that way (and if it does, it shouldn't be, if that's the whole hangup, as you imply). And that's my point. Hypothetical Johnny F16 driver doesn't want to do the airline gig. He wants to be home every night, keep wearing a bag, being around fighter bros, wanting to fly fast jets, but can't in the current AF climate. He retires as an O5 with 20 years at say 45, gets out, and is now a GS13 working 4-8 hours a day doing nothing but flying red air as a GS13, potentially with a bonus tied to it if necessary. He's now making close to airline FO money, plus retirement, no military BS, and is home every night, as a GS. And gets a GS retirement at the end. Tons of dudes would jump all over that. OR, if that doesn't/can't work, we have contractors who fill said billets, but they are flying AF-owned jets. Is $214,000 per flight hour to rent ADAIR really the best, most efficient use of $7.5 billion over 10 years, with no equity in the aircraft to show for that spent money?
  12. Guys keep saying ARC can't fill slots...how can Draken et al fill their slots? If ARC/USAF needs to add more bonuses or work rules to the specific job to compete, then so be it. Or if that's too much trouble, make the pilot portion a contractor job. I just can't believe that we have to contract out so much of our military, especially the flying piece. We don't have the budget, manning, and equipment to train and fight, but from a different pot of money we can overpay companies to do what we can't. Think about that. We don't have the the strategic lift capability to fight the wars we've been entrenched in for 15+ years. When I was in the army, we paid a ton of money to a government-owned russian company to fly our helicopters in an antonov, alongside C17s and C5s, to training centers and to Iraq and Afghanistan. We didn't have the C17/C5 ability to fly our own strat air missions. And red air seems, of all things to contract out, like something that can easily be kept in house. Instead, we are sending billions of dollars to for-profit contractors, who own the old outdated metal being used to train us. Is our inflexibility and incompetence in our acquisition process to blame? Is it the way those GS13 jobs are designed and the strings that are attached that make them unappealing? Why would someone choose to fly for Draken when they could have the same pay/QOL as a GSXX, if appropriate rules/bonuses existed, in newer ADAIR purpose built planes, or at least more modern fighters owned by the US. I assume the LM T-50A TX competitor could easily get a radar/mission equipment put in it. The FA50 version has it. I assume the boeing TX could as well. Regardless of what metal is used for adair/red air, I just can't see why it needs to be a contractor getting almost a billion a year, when a lot of that money could be used to buy our own equipment and pay for GS/contractor jobs in house.
  13. In this proposed scenario, USAF buys/owns the fleet. An AF civilian job is created to fly them. Or a guard/reserve unit mans it. We had Dept of the Army Civilians (GS13s) instructing in apaches, kiowas, black hawks, and chinooks in army pilot training, mixed with active duty guys. We had mostly contractors instructing in our TH67s. Most of the DACs/contractors were retired army pilots. This scenario seems like a perfect opportunity for a similar GS13 gig, with a small AF contingent. Or, contractors could still fly the jets, which could still be owned by the AF. The draken pilots have to come from somewhere during this shortage. It’s all guys retiring/leaving active duty who don’t want to do the airline gig. If there are dudes who want to do that job for a contractor, I would think the same guys would take a GS13 gig, with a potential bonus to make the numbers work for similar pay/benefits to what contractors are offering to do the same ADAIR job.
  14. With the amount the DoD will be spending on ADAIR contracts (stated as $7.5 billion for a 10 year period), a whole lot of T-50As or Boeing TXs could be bought and used as red air. Let's assume 35,000 hours flown at the 10 year, $7.5 billion budget. That comes to ~$214k per flight hour total cost. I don't know how much a TX or T-50A costs, but let's assume $30mil each. With 12 bases and an assumed 8 jets each, that's 96 airframes needed. For simplicity, lets say 100 jets are needed (I can't imagine these companies will have more than that at each base...probably less). Acquisition cost = $3.0 billion for a new fleet of 100 USAF owned ADAIR planes at an assumed $30m apiece, that have a lot more capability than the old L39, F5, and mirages that the ADAIR contractors have. That leaves a $4.5 billion 10 year operating budget for an estimated 35,000 hours, which comes to $128,500 per flight hour operating cost. If you want to raise the assumed acquisition cost to $40mil a copy for arguments sake, there's still $100,000 per flight hour left in the budget. At $60 mil a copy, $42,000 a flight hour remains for the budget. And if the USAF bought them, we'd still have the airframes for another several decades, and not have to renew another more expensive contract a decade from now, as acquisition costs would be nil. While I'm not an expert AF bean counter, I don't see how the USAF justifies not buying aggressor jets outright with a budget like that, especially with the TX contract coming soon. It seems like it's a much wiser use of my tax dollars than paying a contractor billions of dollars to fly older, less capable aircraft, at over $214,000 per red air flight hour we'd be getting from the contracts. No idea if my assumptions are accurate. Feel free to blast away.
  15. Told them I didn’t want to be an army officer and helicopter pilot anymore, and a fighter squadron wanted to hire me, and I wanted to continue my military career in the ANG. They said they wouldn’t endorse me getting out early bc the army would have no return on their investment since they paid for my college and flight school. That was during the surge, as well, and we weren’t exactly fat on manning at the time.
×