Jump to content

What's wrong with the Air Force?


Catbox

Recommended Posts

We're not saying likely, but answering, "What should be done?"

Also Cannon specifically ain't closing...AFSOC pumped so much money into MILCON it would be irresponsible to close it now. Lots of improvements on base and some in town which are nicer than before, but since the location isn't changing my recommendation is some kind of incentive pay scheme to try to keep people from punching when those orders drop.

Same can be said of at least half a dozen other garden spots although I fully agree that if the taxpayers haven't recently sunk millions into undesirable bases, they should be closed. BRAC is needed and I'm pretty sure wanted by Big Blue management in order to pay for fleet recap and other priorities.

Edited by nsplayr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I take issue with any argument that says the AF can't afford something. Bullshit. The Air Force will prioritize bleeding edge technology fighters over everything else. If solving personnel issues means one less F-35, they'll take the jet every time. 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, cantfly said:

Have you guys lost your damn minds? You all know the AF is NEVER going to offer incentive pay to live in a less than desirable area. There is an all out assault on BAH already. The AF can't afford it in general. If the officers were to receive incentive pay then the E's would as well. 

I would rather push to shut down the bases out in the middle of nowhere, than receive incentive pay. Correlating people leaving the AF after being stationed at one of these bases would provide more ammunition than anything else.

Word is that Creech AIP is getting turned back on per last years CPIP.

Never say never.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, nsplayr said:

Also Cannon specifically ain't closing...AFSOC pumped so much money into MILCON it would be irresponsible to close it now. Lots of improvements on base and some in town which are nicer than before,

Dude, that has not been a player in any previous closing decisions.  In fact, as pointed out in previous threads (too lazy to search) signed MILCON projects proceed even AFTER closing decisions.  Reference the brand new commissary and hospital that were opened on Chanute  right before they shuttered the place.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BFM this said:

Dude, that has not been a player in any previous closing decisions.  In fact, as pointed out in previous threads (too lazy to search) signed MILCON projects proceed even AFTER closing decisions.  Reference the brand new commissary and hospital that were opened on Chanute  right before they shuttered the place.

MILCON and BRAC are funny things.  A lot of times they will get pushed through regardless of what the service wants.  Both are fully in Congress's wheelhouse.  MILCON is line-item approved by Congress, so there's no way that senator from Illinois is going to let a MILCON get turned off if it's directly benefiting his constituents in the very near future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting discussion on locations of AFBs and incentives, etc.  The Air Force has been trying to close locations since the last round of BRAC in 2005 (Article).  In fact, Cannon AFB was on the closure list in 2005.  The NM governor and associated politicians wrangled for its survival (Article).  Same for several other garden spots.

Implying the AF is responsible for the locations of its bases misses the point of why there are so many bases and why some of them are in such crapholes.  To a limited extent, spreading your forces out is a good idea militarily...during the Cold War, it wouldn't have been a great idea to have all your bases in LA and NYC.  Not only could you take them out with one strike, but you'd also take millions of people out with them.  Maybe that idea still holds today, but I'd say that argument has lost weight over time.

A more compelling arguments on why bases in crappy locations exist is the relative power of particular Congressmen and Senators.  As the case of Cannon showed, powerful politicians exert influence by way of funding over the location of military bases.  Grand Forks, that completely lacked a mission for several years, is another example.  Politicians from these lousy areas leverage their votes or influence on committees to protect these cash cows for their constituents.

A related political concern is the proximity of flying ops to population centers.  Bases that were originally way out of town now find themselves surrounded by suburbs.  Upper middle class suburbanites start complaining when F-15s are doing touch and gos all day over their house, regardless of the fact the runway was there long before they were.  Additionally flight operations require clear zones at the end of the runways, which take up valuable real estate local developers would love to get their hands on.

All of that makes the case for Big Blue coming up with more creative ways to offset the morale lost by putting young Airmen of any type in these lousy areas.  Not sure if it's still the case, but for a long time space guys at Cavalier got remote credit and benefits for that assignment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we all understand the facets of the Cold War which drove some basing decisions. However, a company has to be willing to restructure and close down stores or locations in order to be more competitive and to save costs. The AF direct competitor is the airlines. Macy's as an example don't usually close stores in highly populated cities unless the store is not profitable. Unfortunately, they are closing about 68 stores this year. Macy's is currently having to compete against Amazon. They say Amazon is killing malls in general across America. Just like the airlines are killing the AF. 

Look at your bases and restructure period. You won't have to pay a dime in incentives. Besides, if you pay out incentives and people still get out of the AF after being stationed at one of these locations would derail the program. Last thing you want is John McCain bitching about incentives like a spilled glass of metamucil. He lost his marbles over BAH. I can already see the program being abused.

We all know Uncle Sam doesn't want anything to cost Big Blue a dime. If I'm going to step in front of a GO and say I would like more homesteading options for aviators and for you to restructure a base from each MAJCOM on a 4 year basis would be more reasonable. Sir/maam, this won't cost you a dime, but save money and pilots in the long run. His/her ears might perk up. 

When you talk about costing the AF more money not dealing with iron on the ramp, golf courses, or pools you are going to lose.

Maybe after your commitment ends, you are authorized to submit a "Wish List" of places the AF cannot send you period. And the AF must give you one of your top 3 assignment preferences. The list must be honored by AFPC. Almost like having seniority in the airlines. I came up with this idea because the problem is the high time guys leaving after their commitment is up. Not saying this idea won't screw over the younger guys. But it would be a far better incentive to me.

 

Edited by cantfly
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Homestar said:

Stopping the PCS madness is a great idea. 5 years should be the standard. All a typical pilot needs till he goes to ACSC are jobs at/below the Wing level anyway. All that can be done in one place. If you want to move after 5 years but before 10 look for a job in a squadron somewhere else and get hired there. Let Sq/CCs hire their squadrons. I'm sure there are tons of problems with this idea. 

Somebody old tell us why this didn't work in the 90's, I know we have tried it and it was a disaster.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

Another special pay for shitholes for 0 to 3 years, bonus for staying beyond three years.  

Bottom 1/3rd requested bases get a base pay bonus of 10%.  Sign up for a 5 year hitch at Turdshit AFB and get years 4 & 5 with a bonus + 10% base pay.  Make the bonus appreciable, at least 6 o 12k per year, with increasing pay for tenure at Base X.

Coming at it from a perspective of someone with rug rats, steer money to these bases for great housing-facilities-schools (On base DODS or contract schools if the local schools are abortions or grants for local school improvements if it could be done legally).

Not saying this from hate but there could be other incentives to encourage movement at appropriate times rather than stagnation at garden spots.  You could require the desirable spots to fill X % of 365s first with some caveats to ensure they get sometime in the sun or beach before a 365 to somewhere not so nice.

Less desirable bases would then have at least one attractive amenity (or several if you implement that plus a bonus pay).

I agree that incentive pay would fix the issue for some folks (like with those whose personal desires align with the assignment, such as having rug rats).

Using myself as a data point, however, I can tell you that right now I make right around a $100K/yr, and there are contractors that the AF pays ~$180K/yr - to do a similar job at Holloman. If that extra $80K (~10x the bonus amount you suggest) was offered to me as "Holloman incentive", it still would not be enough for me to move there. So I get that I'm a data point of one, but I'm telling you that the AF could double the money, and it wouldn't affect my calculus. IMO, to a great, MANY people, it's all about location, location, location, and with the way BAH, and COLA is designed, no one at any base should be hurting financially, so it's not like someone would really need that extra money. Just my 2 cents.

I think the AF does have to get creative when it comes to solving their problems, re: your X% of 365s suggestion. On that note, specifically, however, I think 179s/365s need to be drastically reduced, and beyond that, the AF needs to keep a long-term (i.e. career-long, 20+ year) list of those who have done such tours - and ensure everyone who hasn't done one, stays closer to the top than ANYONE who hasn't - including HPOs. A lack of transparency and fairness when it comes to 179s/365s is a major factor I think leads people to bail.

20 hours ago, nsplayr said:

Excellent that the article's main point wasn't just to slow the roll on PCSing, but that the incurred service commitment for a mandatory PCS was the issue. 100% agree...when faced with A) accept PCS and add to my overall ADSC or B) punch, I took the red pill.

To solve the problem of massing folks in desirable locations, you do what every other large organization on earth does: leverage incentives. Pay more for less favorable locations. Offer career benefits for accepting tours in less favorable locations. Also you probably just accept that quality at those less favorable locations is going to inevitably be lower due to the trend of people with their heads screwed on straight will choose more favorable life conditions for their families.

On the career benefits side, I think there could be stuff done in that regard. Something like every 3 years you spend at Holloman (sorry to keep piling on), nets you 4 years of service (YOS) - meaning you get pay raises earlier, get more time subtracted off your commitments/ADSCs, AND get to retire early. Costly? You bet - but such places already are costly in terms of attrition. Soooooooo, costly is a given at this point. Two tours at Holloman? Cool, you get sanctuary at 16 YOS, and get to retire at 18 - with a 20 year retirement.

1 hour ago, cantfly said:

We all know Uncle Sam doesn't want anything to cost Big Blue a dime. If I'm going to step in front of a GO and say I would like more homesteading options for aviators and for you to restructure a base from each MAJCOM on a 4 year basis would be more reasonable. Sir/maam, this won't cost you a dime, but save money and pilots in the long run. His/her ears might perk up. 

When you talk about costing the AF more money not dealing with iron on the ramp, golf courses, or pools you are going to lose.

Maybe after your commitment ends, you are authorized to submit a "Wish List" of places the AF cannot send you period. And the AF must give you one of your top 3 assignment preferences. The list must be honored by AFPC. Almost like having seniority in the airlines. I came up with this idea because the problem is the high time guys leaving after their commitment is up. Not saying this idea won't screw over the younger guys. But it would be a far better incentive to me.

Yeah, I like it. Maybe give certain assignments/bases "point values." Lock up a Can-Kun tour, get 100 points; rock a non-vol AFPAK hands, clear 500; soak up Spang/Aviano, pay -200. Next assignment drop, whoever has the most points, gets first dibs. This flies directly in the face of how the AF stacks the deck, but it would solve LOTS of problems - I can almost guarantee it. Every point you get to the end of your career with, the AF pays out 1000-to-1.

Edited by ViperMan
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would worry about timing any sort of adverse location bonus to a specific amount of time.

That's way too easy of a "fix" for assignments to accomplish where they simply PCS two guys from two separate crap locations at the year X-1 day mark to the other guys crap location (and vice verse).

Then they get to pretend the PCS cost nothing and that they "saved the service money" in not paying out a bonus.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Lawman said:

I would worry about timing any sort of adverse location bonus to a specific amount of time.

That's way too easy of a "fix" for assignments to accomplish where they simply PCS two guys from two separate crap locations at the year X-1 day mark to the other guys crap location (and vice verse).

Then they get to pretend the PCS cost nothing and that they "saved the service money" in not paying out a bonus.

Valid. Which is why any such system should be implemented on a "continuous" vs "discrete" basis. A day at a time would likely solve the issue: 3 days in Holloman, 4 days-of-service (*DOS) - new acronym, first coined right here. Then, at worst, dudes get screwed out of one days' time. At its core, this is the exact same issue, and root cause (IMO), that led to the design of the 179.

Edited by ViperMan
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, matmacwc said:

Somebody old tell us why this didn't work in the 90's, I know we have tried it and it was a disaster.

You rang?

Homesteading is great for some who get their base of preference.  Not so much for the Minot/Cannon/etc folks.  If you want to move those folks, where do you put them?

Same for overseas return folks.  Where do you put them?

What do you do with joint-spouse folks?  Special needs?  Pretty soon the pipeline gets clogged up beyond recognition.

And for the current up or out construct, how do you show career progression for a dude who flies the line at Base X for 5 years?  Not defending or attacking the premise, just stating the institution's viewpoint of the issue. 

Lots of butthurt when the bright shinys got to have their cake and assignment too, but Joe Bag o' got the sticks followed by a remote.

 

Also, Congress drives the train for budget and MILCON.  They simply don't care about efficiency or QOL.  They care about votes and the what the various Committees of 50 or other vampires do for them.  Not about you who most likely isn't a resident, i.e., a voter of their anyway.  You'll be gone a few years and Joe Local will still be there expecting to make his money off Uncle Sam's troops.

You are a commodity.

Vote with your feet accordingly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, brickhistory said:

You rang?

Homesteading is great for some who get their base of preference.  Not so much for the Minot/Cannon/etc folks.  If you want to move those folks, where do you put them?

Same for overseas return folks.  Where do you put them?

What do you do with joint-spouse folks?  Special needs?  Pretty soon the pipeline gets clogged up beyond recognition.

And for the current up or out construct, how do you show career progression for a dude who flies the line at Base X for 5 years?  Not defending or attacking the premise, just stating the institution's viewpoint of the issue. 

Lots of butthurt when the bright shinys got to have their cake and assignment too, but Joe Bag o' got the sticks followed by a remote.

Also, Congress drives the train for budget and MILCON.  They simply don't care about efficiency or QOL.  They care about votes and the what the various Committees of 50 or other vampires do for them.  Not about you who most likely isn't a resident, i.e., a voter of their anyway.  You'll be gone a few years and Joe Local will still be there expecting to make his money off Uncle Sam's troops.

You are a commodity.

Vote with your feet accordingly.

That's what I see, too. Hill to Holloman? No fvcking way. You HAVE to close bases.

Yeah, that. Your choices are your only currency.

Edited by ViperMan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ViperMan said:

... it still would not be enough for me to move there...

I think the AF does have to get creative when it comes to solving their problems, re: your X% of 365s suggestion. On that note, specifically, however, I think 179s/365s need to be drastically reduced, and beyond that, the AF needs to keep a long-term (i.e. career-long, 20+ year) list of those who have done such tours - and ensure everyone who hasn't done one, stays closer to the top than ANYONE who hasn't - including HPOs. A lack of transparency and fairness when it comes to 179s/365s is a major factor I think leads people to bail.

Understood, I was at a Northern Tier base years ago and money would not be enough to go back there, a shit load of money maybe.  Ultimately it is time, you're never going to get more of that and I understand the low to negative desire to spend it at a base in the middle of BFE.

Concur - push back on the COCOMs on staff requirements and give credit where credit is due.  

On a related note to, an idea to reward 365s, a volunteer could be rewarded with a follow on already decided, ex:  365 to A-Stan with follow on to Hickam, 365 to the Died with follow on to Peterson, etc...

There would have to be a data driven argument to convince the AF of the upside for them versus the current method of 365 requirement matching, this should be a survey project for an AU student... 

Edited by Clark Griswold
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having firsthand experience with rural inbred vampires feeding off Uncle Sam's troops, and seeing the coming exodus tsunami firsthand as well, I ask if the Nation will soon be forced to choose between its federally funded rural welfare and the all-volunteer force.

NSplayer, you are committing the classic corporate finance error of throwing good money after bad sunk costs re: Cannon.  All that matters is future earnings, and we both know that the massive retraining bill caused by attrition quickly dwarfs the cost of building that capacity at other, nicer bases.

If the Nation wants to prevent the loss of the vast majority of combat airpower (meaning pilots and other aircrew) then they will pressure their Congresscritters to act.  If they value their welfare kickbacks, they can act accordingly . . . and face the consequences when the draft comes back.  Even stop-loss cannot work forever.

For those saying "that can never happen," go re-look at Fingers' breakdown of pilots produced vs. airline demands over the next decade.  He's not wrong.  I predict that attrition of 90% or more is totally possible over that time period - and where would that leave the Nation with no one to fly the jets?

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, ViperMan said:

 

I think the AF does have to get creative when it comes to solving their problems, re: your X% of 365s suggestion. On that note, specifically, however, I think 179s/365s need to be drastically reduced, and beyond that, the AF needs to keep a long-term (i.e. career-long, 20+ year) list of those who have done such tours - and ensure everyone who hasn't done one, stays closer to the top than ANYONE who hasn't - including HPOs. A lack of transparency and fairness when it comes to 179s/365s is a major factor I think leads people to bail.

 

I thought the 365 list was exactly this - based solely on short-tour return date, which starts with the date you entered the service until you get a short tour.  And it moves forward one day for every day you spend deployed.  Is that not how 365s are decided?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought the 365 list was exactly this - based solely on short-tour return date, which starts with the date you entered the service until you get a short tour.  And it moves forward one day for every day you spend deployed.  Is that not how 365s are decided?


Two words: DAV codes.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, pawnman said:

I thought the 365 list was exactly this - based solely on short-tour return date, which starts with the date you entered the service until you get a short tour.  And it moves forward one day for every day you spend deployed.  Is that not how 365s are decided?

When my porch dude told me I was top 10 before I separated a few years back, he was careful to note that over half of those dudes ahead of me could be protected at any given time: school, staff, PCS, aide-de-camp, etc. Keeping the Hippos moving frequently between those duties protects them. When they are vulnerable, a pepper-grinder deployment is often loaded even if several months out to keep said dude for even getting consideration for a BS 365.

The process is anything but objective. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, FlyinGrunt said:

NSplayer, you are committing the classic corporate finance error of throwing good money after bad sunk costs re: Cannon.  All that matters is future earnings, and we both know that the massive retraining bill caused by attrition quickly dwarfs the cost of building that capacity at other, nicer bases.

To be clear, I'm not personally advocating for keeping Cannon open due to the massive MILCON investments that have been made there in the last 5 years, I'm just saying that's the reality. 

Cannon is a massive vacuum on a relatively small command, strategically sucking good talent right out the door. Never too late to correct a bad mistake, but the Air Force and Congrrss more importantly are rarely if ever willing to offer a full mia culpa and spend the kind of $$ necessary to make things right.  

Personally I would love to see the 33rd SOS specifically relocated to the top couple of floors of Freedom Tower in NYC so they could rain reightous payback on some of the terrorists that would love to see another 9/11.

Hell, if they made a 4-year RPA tour in NYC come with complementary season tickets to the professional sports team of your choice (many to choose from), I'm sure you'd have a few more volunteers compared to being exiled in rural New Mexico.

Edited by nsplayr
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Weezer said:

As far as RPA bases, there's no reason not to have an RPA flying squadron at every base in the AF.

RPAs are great for terrorist. They have yet to be truly tested against a real adversary's military that can actually counter our punches. Operation Allied Force... cough..cough

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, tac airlifter said:

I keep hearing that.  So what? 

So what? I wasn't even a pilot when OAF kicked off in the late 90s. However, I was doing intel at a certain federal agency. Talk to an old intel troop with knowledge about the operation or go to a vault and garner some SA on the subject. Those guys were well trained and took down an F-117. It wasn't luck...

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...