brabus Posted March 23, 2019 Share Posted March 23, 2019 With "standard locality" I'd have to be a step 9 to break even with Maj AGR, even with the 25% bonus. You must be figuring in a hell of a locality pay (which I'm not saying isn't possible, but by definition location dependent). And that doesn't include all the ridiculous asspain that goes along with being a technician that doesn't exist as an AGR. So I'd say you need to be a step 10 to start getting ahead of a Maj AGR...how many O-4s on here who are 13 step 10s? Bottom line, moving to AGR is the right move...the better move is laughing your way to your next fill-in-the-blank airline trip. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LookieRookie Posted March 23, 2019 Share Posted March 23, 2019 1 hour ago, brabus said: With "standard locality" I'd have to be a step 9 to break even with Maj AGR, even with the 25% bonus. You must be figuring in a hell of a locality pay (which I'm not saying isn't possible, but by definition location dependent). And that doesn't include all the ridiculous asspain that goes along with being a technician that doesn't exist as an AGR. So I'd say you need to be a step 10 to start getting ahead of a Maj AGR...how many O-4s on here who are 13 step 10s? Bottom line, moving to AGR is the right move...the better move is laughing your way to your next fill-in-the-blank airline trip. With the new SSR pilots get 25%(or whatever the multiplier is) + locality and then the 25% bonus is separate. So the people who were in high locality areas aren't being shafted anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ViperStud Posted March 23, 2019 Share Posted March 23, 2019 Time is the single most important variable to most of us young-ish types. We just got a nice jump with locality and retention bonus on the tech side...but still have 22 open tech jobs and AGRs filling as soon as they open. I’m “ahead” dollar-for-dollar as an O-5 AGR on the bonus, but the real thing I care about is that every day is a point toward 7300. If I could make another 25k annually as a tech, I wouldn’t do it. There’s no end to the tech game and the intangibles, especially medical if something goes wrong, are significant Not a whole lot of dudes under 50 want to keep flying for Uncle Sam until they’re almost 60. We want to close out our 20 and move on to a better QOL and put the “What’s wrong with the AF” stuff in the rear-view mirror. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guardian Posted March 24, 2019 Share Posted March 24, 2019 3 years ago when NGB moved from 25k bonus to 35k bonus. Just before the raise came out NGB A3 was discussing it. Their take on Guard retention was that there wasn’t a problem. (Which I guess I can understand, because of everyone leaving active duty for guard or reserves). But they were actively not only trying to get rid of the tier 2 15k bonus but they were actively trying to get rid of the tier 1 bonus. So I can believe that not much has changed. NGB only has a 35k bonus because active duty does and there is a lot of pressure to keep it. They don’t realize that if they got rid of it that guard pilots would up and leave for part time positions or nothing at all. It simply isn’t worth it without the bonus and really not even then. Most people I know are still contemplating leaving who are on the bonus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seriously Posted March 24, 2019 Share Posted March 24, 2019 On 3/21/2019 at 8:31 AM, Klepto said: I guess desperate times call for... increasing UPT throughput to 1500+ and funding diversity measures to access untapped recruiting pools. Don’t worry folks. Pilot shortage will be solved by 2023. You are expendable once again. Now move along. The O-6 formerly in charge of the solving the crisis at the Pentagon is quoted as saying, "it's a production problem, not a retention problem." This was about a year ago.. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sprkt69 Posted March 24, 2019 Share Posted March 24, 2019 1 hour ago, Seriously said: The O-6 formerly in charge of the solving the crisis at the Pentagon is quoted as saying, "it's a production problem, not a retention problem." This was about a year ago.. An O-8 just briefed us that “we will produce our way out of the problem.” He also deflected questions about retention. So the AF has that going for it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 24, 2019 Share Posted March 24, 2019 An O-8 just briefed us that “we will produce our way out of the problem.” He also deflected questions about retention. So the AF has that going for it.He’s right. The Air Force has shown that retention is beyond it’s capabilities. BRS means you can walk after your UPT commitment with something. They aren’t willing to/can’t offer higher bonuses.Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sprkt69 Posted March 24, 2019 Share Posted March 24, 2019 He said they attempted, and the other services (namely Army) shot the bonus amount down ($70k) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danger41 Posted March 24, 2019 Share Posted March 24, 2019 Why would that matter? An F-22 Pilot is more valuable (money invested already/percentage of the force) in terms of retention than an Army pilot. Tactically, the Apache guy is worth his weight in gold in his role but the Raptor guy is a much rarer commodity and represents a much bigger loss when he isn’t retained. 1 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Best-22 Posted March 24, 2019 Share Posted March 24, 2019 1 hour ago, Danger41 said: Why would that matter? An F-22 Pilot is more valuable (money invested already/percentage of the force) in terms of retention than an Army pilot. Tactically, the Apache guy is worth his weight in gold in his role but the Raptor guy is a much rarer commodity and represents a much bigger loss when he isn’t retained. How would you support this position to a third party who thinks we are biased because we’re in the Air Force? Pure numbers based on flying hour cost, or by saying their skill set is too hard to replace? I dont necessarily disagree just trying to check my own biases. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Majestik Møøse Posted March 24, 2019 Share Posted March 24, 2019 6 minutes ago, Best-22 said: How would you support this position to a third party who thinks we are biased because we’re in the Air Force? Pure numbers based on flying hour cost, or by saying their skill set is too hard to replace? I dont necessarily disagree just trying to check my own biases. The Army thinks that pilots are more expendable than the Air Force does, right or wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SFG Posted March 24, 2019 Share Posted March 24, 2019 (edited) 29 minutes ago, Best-22 said: How would you support this position to a third party who thinks we are biased because we’re in the Air Force? Pure numbers based on flying hour cost, or by saying their skill set is too hard to replace? I dont necessarily disagree just trying to check my own biases. The third party, RAND, already supports his position. Edited March 24, 2019 by Klepto =) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danger41 Posted March 24, 2019 Share Posted March 24, 2019 1 hour ago, Best-22 said: How would you support this position to a third party who thinks we are biased because we’re in the Air Force? Pure numbers based on flying hour cost, or by saying their skill set is too hard to replace? I dont necessarily disagree just trying to check my own biases. Valid question and I would point to the ammount of Apaches (or whatever helo you’re looking at) and compare that to the number of Raptors. It’s about a 7:1 ratio. Therefore, you lose a pilot to separation, it hurts the AF 7 times more. I know that’s way over simplified but it illustrates the point. If you want to have a biased, emotional (but correct) argument then ask the Army how their most basic doctrine works if they don’t have air superiority. And then ask them how well their ops have been since April 1953 when they haven’t had an attack from the air strike their forces. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jice Posted March 24, 2019 Share Posted March 24, 2019 Re: production vs retention. We must think we’ve really found out how to replace experience with something else. I hope we don’t find ourselves looking back and trying to figure out why the job became more dangerous in training. Worse yet, I hope we don’t find ourselves with any reason to wonder about the value of experience, in hindsight, after a full up global conflict. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThreeHoler Posted March 24, 2019 Share Posted March 24, 2019 Why would that matter? An F-22 Pilot is more valuable (money invested already/percentage of the force) in terms of retention than an Army pilot. Tactically, the Apache guy is worth his weight in gold in his role but the Raptor guy is a much rarer commodity and represents a much bigger loss when he isn’t retained.Because Joint is spelled A-R-M-Y. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sprkt69 Posted March 25, 2019 Share Posted March 25, 2019 1 hour ago, jice said: Re: production vs retention. We must think we’ve really found out how to replace experience with something else. I hope we don’t find ourselves looking back and trying to figure out why the job became more dangerous in training. Worse yet, I hope we don’t find ourselves with any reason to wonder about the value of experience, in hindsight, after a full up global conflict. VR. That what is replacing experience. That and the “we will accept all risks” 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sprkt69 Posted March 25, 2019 Share Posted March 25, 2019 53 minutes ago, ThreeHoler said: Because Joint is spelled A-R-M-Y. USAF pilot bonuses also effect the other services as they have to match, sort of. And the Army could care less about their pilot retention. They will “still be the Army without pilots” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guardian Posted March 25, 2019 Share Posted March 25, 2019 I love to know the best way to fix a bucket with many holes in it is to pour more water in. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 25, 2019 Share Posted March 25, 2019 I love to know the best way to fix a bucket with many holes in it is to pour more water in. The Air Force can’t plug the holes. They’ll attempt to expand production, and when that doesn’t solve the problem, maybe they’ll be able to get congressional authorization to plug the holes (stop loss).Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FUSEPLUG Posted March 25, 2019 Share Posted March 25, 2019 3 minutes ago, ihtfp06 said: The Air Force can’t plug the holes. They’ll attempt to expand production, and when that doesn’t solve the problem, maybe they’ll be able to get congressional authorization to plug the holes (stop loss). Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Not one STS? You’re shitting me.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guardian Posted March 25, 2019 Share Posted March 25, 2019 They tried to plug Tami-21’s hole Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raimius Posted March 25, 2019 Share Posted March 25, 2019 18 minutes ago, ihtfp06 said: The Air Force can’t plug the holes. 11 minutes ago, FUSEPLUG said: Not one STS? You’re shitting me.... Did he need an STS, or was he making multiple observations? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThreeHoler Posted March 25, 2019 Share Posted March 25, 2019 Not one STS? You’re shitting me....There probably is some shitting after all that hole plugging. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dapper Dan Man Posted March 25, 2019 Share Posted March 25, 2019 An O-8 just briefed us that “we will produce our way out of the problem.”This seems to be the AF’s official position on the pilot shortage. I have never understood it. Guardian nailed it with “best way to fill a bucket with holes is to pour more water in.”Looking at this from a money standpoint, I don’t see how the AF gets away with it. They’re going to spend millions over 2-3 years to make a single rookie pilot, but they can’t spend more than 35K a year to retain an experienced one.If I was in the CSAF’s shoes, I would march straight to the hill and demand a revision to the law to let me pay my people more. “I’m going to dial down production, and use the extra resources to retain. This is a money allocation problem, not an ‘I need more money problem.’ It makes no sense to spend 50 times the money to make a product than you could spend to retain one with 10 times as much experience.”If that could be realized, a six figure bonus would be reasonable. Make that an option, I bet you’ll see a lot more folks consider staying in.Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SFG Posted March 25, 2019 Share Posted March 25, 2019 Chief Wright posted this quote on his FB and now I understand the AF’s pilot shortage strategy! “Success is the ability to go from failure to failure without losing your enthusiasm.” 1 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now