What's wrong with the Air Force?

[pawnman]

4 hours ago, Right Seat Driver said:

Hah, I am sure DFAS could handle that.

We pay doctors and dentists much more than their capt/maj brethren.  So there is precedent for people with extraordinary skills in high demand on the outside.

[nsplayr]

5 hours ago, 1111 said:

P.S. can you also ask when they are going to raise OUR flight pay? My $650/mth should be north $1K.

Amen. The +6 year ACIP was raised from $400 to $650 in 1990, and remained static since then. $650 in 1990 dollars would be $1,216 in today's dollars. Congress, through inaction, has cut the purchasing power of that incentive pay by almost half since General Goldfein was the Captain Goldfein they spoke about during the hearing.

5 hours ago, 1111 said:

honest question, do you read that as Fingers believing that most pilots can make it up the chain higher than a tactical track that tops out at O5?

If they offered a technical track that enabled more flying and less BS that topped out at non-command O5, who would not take that?

Unless such a system was terminal O4, maybe O5 for very shiny tactical pennies, I don't know many dudes who would choose the leadership track just for the shot to command squadrons at the same rank as their technical-track brethren.

Edited June 8, 2017 by nsplayr

[Bergman]

8 minutes ago, nsplayr said:

If they offered a technical track that enabled more flying and less BS that topped out at non-command O5, who would not take that?

Ha!  They already have it...its called the ANG!

[HU&W]

Simple.  Tie flight pay to hours and sorties.  $20 ACIP per flight hour or $75 per sortie, whichever is greater for the month.  

[nsplayr]

5 minutes ago, HU&W said:

Simple.  Tie flight pay to hours and sorties.  $20 ACIP per flight hour or $75 per sortie, whichever is greater for the month.  

I love it. It would make deployments much more lucrative too, I'd have had months of > $2,500 ACIP under your system.

Downside would be that tracking month-to-month would be a nightmare. A possible solution would be an annual ACIP check coinciding with your birthday-timed review of your annual flight records. Verify your hours/sorties, collect your large check, head to Vegas for a birthday weekend of hookers and blow, what could go wrong? 

[HU&W]

5 minutes ago, nsplayr said:

I love it. It would make deployments much more lucrative too, I'd have had months of > $2,500 ACIP under your system.

Downside would be that tracking month-to-month would be a nightmare. A possible solution would be an annual ACIP check coinciding with your birthday-timed review of your annual flight records. Verify your hours/sorties, collect your large check, head to Vegas for a birthday weekend of hookers and blow, what could go wrong? 

Just base it on flight records; it could be easily automated.   As I think about it more, probably need some kind of multiplier system.  Eg 3x for combat time, 2x for combat support, 2x for IP, .5x for CP, and .2x for SP.  Or something thereabouts.  

It would do amazing things for retention, and definitely for getting people doing the critical skill they're getting paid extra for.

[dream big]

21 minutes ago, Bergman said:

Ha!  They already have it...its called the ANG!

Exactly, I've been bringing this up for months any time this discussion comes up.  Same job, same beans, same freaking deployments, still serving the country and achieving national security objectives.  When the shooting starts you activate the units.  

Problem is...looks like they are having parallel similar retention issues.  

[Guest]

One of the things that bothered me the most in this video was Sen Cotton praising Goldfein for reducing queep, hiring civilians into support roles, and empowering commanders.  THIS HAS NOT HAPPENED.  Talking about what you plan to do, and actually doing it, are two very different things.  Gen Goldfein has publicly advocated for all these, but hasn't done anything.

[FlyinGrunt]

All those jokes about "AC pay" and "IP pay" . . . why not make those a thing?  Again, would target exactly the folks you're looking to retain, and would prob add up to the increased ACIP we're looking for.

[FourFans]

4 hours ago, nsplayr said:

If they offered a technical track that enabled more flying and less BS that topped out at non-command O5, who would not take that?

They'd have to make entry into that track very competitive event with an interview required, mission flying eval, instructor capability eval, and a significant bro check.  They'd have to make the selection process on par with that used for WIC applicants.

Put one bad apple in that basket and you ruin the whole thing.

[Duck]

The whole technical only track scares me. It's already bad enough with the "careerists" who run the organization into the ground. The one saving grace for me has been the occasional Sq/Cc or WG/CC who was still a CGO operator at heart. As a result those were the best units, with the highest morale and the best retention. I've seen change of commands where the whole squadron went upside down seemingly overnight.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

[tac airlifter]

11 hours ago, gearpig said:

4:20 - "Service before Self"

Very carefully phrased, but the translation is: You should be compelled to serve in spite of a lack of mission focus, declining job satisfaction, increased workloads, and decreasing quality of life.

It's time to remove "service before self" as a core value.  In principal I agree with the intent, however in practice this catch phrase is used as a cudgel to beat complex personnel circumstances into submission with implied victim shaming and callous disregard for morale.  I've never known a commander to say "service before self" to the right person for the right reason.  

Like the other core values, I like the philosophical basis and general direction but the folks who attempt operationalizing the message always seem to be hypocrites.  Why is that?

2 hours ago, FourFans130 said:

They'd have to make entry into that track very competitive event with an interview required, mission flying eval, instructor capability eval, and a significant bro check.  They'd have to make the selection process on par with that used for WIC applicants.

Put one bad apple in that basket and you ruin the whole thing.

Great point, totally agree.

the sad reality is many of the senior O-4 fliers who say they "just want to fly" are lazy.  Sure there are good ones who stay hungry for tactical excellence, continue to study, read AARs, tweak training scenarios, and are one step ahead of real world contingencies.  I like to think I was one of this type (before I was ostracized to staff).  But human nature being what it is, there needs to be a check in the system like you describe above.  We don't want the equivalent of tenured professors laying around the SQ.

[pawnman]

8 hours ago, HU&W said:

Simple.  Tie flight pay to hours and sorties.  $20 ACIP per flight hour or $75 per sortie, whichever is greater for the month.  

I'd be taking a pretty good hit, and I'm considered an "earner" compared to many attached flyers.

[YoungnDumb]

One idea drawn up by a buddy of mine as sort of a way to bridge the leadership track vs tactical track was to create a promotion system for O-4+ that was more of a checklist.  For example In order to make O-4 you would have to accomplish certain things like Flt/CC or equivalent, PME (ya SOS is mandatory just using it for arguments sake), and a litany of other things.  O-5 would be similar but maybe require IDE and a Joint tour or whatever.  TIG/TIS numbers would still apply so you didn't have an O-5 with only 10 years in.  This would then allow people to fly for as long as they wanted but still allow them to progress up the ranks and allow them to do other jobs but on their timeline.  Example, young Capt decides he wants to fly for his whole career, after say 12 years he decides he to finish whatever he needed to make O-4, makes O-4 and does a staff tour then heads back to the jet, retires as an O-4.  Another example, guy decides he wants to make command after being in the jet for ~6 years, starts working on knocking out the requirements to make O-4, makes O-4, starts working on requirements to O-5, etc. He's still a flier but he also knowingly is accepting/volunteering for more staff tours and such.

Edited June 8, 2017 by YoungnDumb

[Trogdor]

2 hours ago, tac airlifter said:

 

the sad reality is many of the senior O-4 fliers who say they "just want to fly" are lazy.  Sure there are good ones who stay hungry for tactical excellence, continue to study, read AARs, tweak training scenarios, and are one step ahead of real world contingencies.  I like to think I was one of this type (before I was ostracized to staff).  But human nature being what it is, there needs to be a check in the system like you describe above.  We don't want the equivalent of tenured professors laying around the SQ.

So, its about the money or not?  Consequently, it doesn't surprise me that the Generals can't ever get a solid plan for the way forward.  We talk about queep and that we only want to fly, but you find guys that are actively making that choice and they are shit on. 

So, slightly disagree... I think you find the lazy ones at all ranks O-5 and below.  While some are inherently lazy (I tend to believe it is a very small percentage in our career field and we all know who it is), I think it is the function of the system the Air Force has created.  Hard work is relatively unappreciated unless you are a shiny penny, especially once you are senior captain.  Whether you had aspirations for command or not, everyone realizes at some point you are another cog in the machine (if not on command track).  That's when you realize that you are doing this work for that dream to fly planes, then you realize you aren't really flying planes anymore.  Then you realize there are jobs where I fly only... maybe get paid less but most likely for more money.  Then you ask yourself, why should I put in more than 40 hours a week, the AF wrote me off years ago except to be the paper pusher that gets to fly.  The ADO office usually balances this out... the ADO still striving picks up all the slack of the other ADO's making the 40 hour a week choice.

If you choose to go to staff, you might be able to make a difference... maybe... but you will do more paper pushing and less flying.  Are we going to crap on the guy in the squadron that wants to show up and just fly?  The fact he does ANYTHING in the squadron is more work than he would be doing if working for an airline..... The big leaders in the Air Force must acknowledge this fact if they are going to fix anything. 

So, agree that the above plan needs some kind of check... but in reality the flying only track could be fixed/controlled by good leadership at the squadron and group levels. 

Edited June 8, 2017 by Trogdor

[di1630]

All those jokes about "AC pay" and "IP pay" . . . why not make those a thing?  Again, would target exactly the folks you're looking to retain, and would prob add up to the increased ACIP we're looking for.

I'm on exchange with an Air Force that does something similar by giving extra pay based on quals even ground duties. The problem is that the system gets corrupted by friends pushing friends for upgrades, people wanting jobs / quals simply for the pay. Sounded good to me in theory until I saw it in practice.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

[RTB]

5 hours ago, Duck said:

The whole technical only track scares me. It's already bad enough with the "careerists" who run the organization into the ground. The one saving grace for me has been the occasional Sq/Cc or WG/CC who was still a CGO operator at heart. As a result those were the best units, with the highest morale and the best retention. I've seen change of commands where the whole squadron went upside down seemingly overnight.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

Agree completely. 

[SurelySerious]

I'm on exchange with an Air Force that does something similar by giving extra pay based on quals even ground duties. The problem is that the system gets corrupted by friends pushing friends for upgrades, people wanting jobs / quals simply for the pay. Sounded good to me in theory until I saw it in practice.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

Interesting observation; with the proliferation in some communities of upgrading people because "it's their turn" or "they need it for the board," I can absolutely see that as a furthering of qualification inflation.

[matmacwc]

12 hours ago, HU&W said:

Simple.  Tie flight pay to hours and sorties.  $20 ACIP per flight hour or $75 per sortie, whichever is greater for the month.  

Absolutely not, that would be a cut in ANG fighter pay and a very small raise in AD fighter pay of CMR pilots, the heavy guys would rake it in.

Edited June 8, 2017 by matmacwc

[FourFans]

Interesting observation; with the proliferation in some communities of upgrading people because "it's their turn" or "they need it for the board," I can absolutely see that as a furthering of qualification inflation.

Indeed. If there's one fix that needs to happen tomorrow, it's keeping some pilots at FP, AC, wingman, or 2 FLUG because sometime...just sometimes...they will never be ready for more than those levels, and upgrading them because "it's their turn" is straight dangerous.


Sent from my iPad using Baseops Network Forums

[busdriver]

13 hours ago, Trogdor said:

why should I put in more than 40 hours a week, the AF wrote me off years ago except to be the paper pusher that gets to fly........

If you choose to go to staff, you might be able to make a difference... maybe... but you will do more paper pushing and less flying. 

I've been out of the shiny penny club for awhile now.  I only went to staff because I was literally the only person in the Air Force who could fill that billet, at that time.  I escaped and I work well over 40 hours a week, and the chance of me commanding a flying squadron is essentially zero.  I put in the time I do in the hope that I can make even a small difference to nudge my little corner of the AF in a better direction.  

Maybe I'm just too stupid to know better, maybe staff made me appreciate the small victories, I don't know.  I do know that perspectives change with time and experience, and I'll get to re-qual "soon," life is good.

[tac airlifter]

14 hours ago, Trogdor said:

So, its about the money or not?

So, slightly disagree... I think you find the lazy ones at all ranks O-5 and below.......why should I put in more than 40 hours a week

  Are we going to crap on the guy in the squadron that wants to show up and just fly?  

So, agree that the above plan needs some kind of check... but in reality the flying only track could be fixed/controlled by good leadership at the squadron and group levels. 

It took me a bit to digest your post, which I've truncated above, probably because I was imprecise in my original statement.  

To answer the bolded section directly, which applies to my post, I'll say: yes.  I'm going to shit on the guy in the SQ that wants to show up and just fly..... because in MY mission set, you can't be good if you just show up to fly.  TTPs, ours and enemy, change too fast.  Technology changes.  AORs change.  Users change.  If you aren't being assertive about keeping up, you're getting left behind which makes your presence on the crew a liability.  And all the extra study happens on the ground, in the SQ, not while flying.

When a dude says "I just want to fly" if he means 'I just want to do the flying mission' (which requires extra ground work) then let him!  Become an expert, we need it!  However, if he honestly means 'I just want to fly' and has no patience for the non-flight ground duties essential to refining flight skills (he's not showing up for a weekly tactics test or doesn't know the newest software, etc) then he's not the guy I want staying on the line for a career.  And there are lazy pilots masquerading as line dogs, who have lost the hunger to excel, and should be purged from units incompatible with their loss of drive.  Not a lot, but some, and my comments were directed only at them.

as to your opening remark about money, no, it's not about money to me.  I got paid enough as a major and loved being an EP & ADO, I didn't need more money to put in extra hours.  I loved it.  Still do.  Now I hate my life and job and wouldn't continue if they offered me quadruple pay.  But we're all different, and my answer is not indicative of a trend.

[flyusaf83]

On 6/7/2017 at 7:38 PM, HU&W said:

Simple.  Tie flight pay to hours and sorties.  $20 ACIP per flight hour or $75 per sortie, whichever is greater for the month.  

You really want aircrew to have to factor in personal finances when making the decision to take a questionable jet? ORM nightmare there.

[HU&W]

2 hours ago, flyusaf83 said:

You really want aircrew to have to factor in personal finances when making the decision to take a questionable jet? ORM nightmare there.

I stand corrected.  Good debrief.

[PlanePhlyer]

On 6/7/2017 at 9:38 PM, HU&W said:

Simple.  Tie flight pay to hours and sorties.  $20 ACIP per flight hour or $75 per sortie, whichever is greater for the month.  

Sounds like a plan.  I'll be happy to take my 42 T-38 sorties in April and convert that to ACIP.  According to my TX hazed, public math, that would get me $3,150.  I like the way you think!