Aviation Continuation Pay (ACP - The Bonus)

[TnkrToad]

2 hours ago, Tulsa said:

I'd also change the ADSC for UPT back to 6 years, maybe 8 years if we also move to a 4-5 year PCS cycle. 

You could also incentivize the bonus to specific missions vice AFSC wide (ie. UPT, RPA, PIT), since you will have more frequent turnover and earlier departures from AD.  While the turnover of this proposed system may be more frequent, giving your folks more choice and control in their life should help improve service morale to something north of pretty darn good. 

What could possibly go wrong . . . 

- 6 or 8 year commitment would make it substantially more appealing to get out at earliest possible date than the current 10 yr, due to the added seniority/additional pay this would allow for on the outside

- Even less experience/corporate knowledge in squadrons due to earlier separations

- Less squadron experience still due to higher AETC requirements (more turnover = more pilots needed per year = more AETC IPs needed to train them)

- Even less incentive for folks to attend WIC (WIC ADSC overlaps with SUPT ADSC now. Force people to extend their latest ADSC to go to WIC, and watch applications drop like a rock)

- Even less money to pay bonuses/fund QoL initiatives/buy new planes, because that cash is being spent on putting more folks through SUPT

- Best part, even worse decisions from HHQ staffs, because even fewer pilots with requisite rank/experience to fend off bad ideas

Given that all the above would make it even harder to fill COCOM requirements (BTW, the warfighting is the reason the Air Force exists), I don't see how cutting the ADSC commitment--especially down to 6 years--would be a good idea. 

TT

[guineapigfury]

If you want to see how 6 year commitments for pilots will work out, give it 2 years.  Thats when 18Xers start hitting the end of their 6 year URT ADSCs in large numbers.

Edited May 8, 2016 by guineapigfury

[Duck]

And here I thought the Air Force existed as some kind of strange social experiment. Warfighting is what it's purpose was meant to be? Incredible! I would have never guessed!!!

[Karl Hungus]

How much taxpayer money did we pay RAND to do this, when any staffer- where the real hard work of Air Power happens!- could spend a day or two skimming a decade's worth of posts on this board and AirlinePilotCentral and come to the same conclusion?  Laughable. 

The COAs are a stretch at best.  Even RAND admits that.  Proficiency advancing prior-121 pilots through UPT?  Insert story of former regional guy who failed out of T-6s here.  Not to mention, you're going to give them preferential treatment on OTS boards and force ARC units to do the same?  Good luck!  Forcing ARC units to do LFEs/deployments during winter months when airlines are less busy, and stop having UTAs on the first weekend of the month?  LOL.  

Fix QoL/work rules and you won't have the mass exodus of talent.  You wouldn't even have to pay pilots (much) more- just provide QoL/work rules close to on par with a combination of the civil sector and the ARC.  Doing so would require some real leadership and some painful acknowledgements on the AF's part that they've ed up.  Instead, our management comes up with 13 year ADSCs.  That'll fix it!

[brabus]

Fix QoL/work rules and you won't have the mass exodus of talent

Shack. It's not about money for a lot of people, it's about the horrendous level of bullshit/terrible family QoL that makes guys run.  I know too many dudes who "would never fly for the airlines," and we're not driven there by the money, but ultimately by how the Air Force had mismanaged the shit out of their "work life," which directly impacted their "family life" in a negative way.  It shouldn't be hard to kill bullshit deployments (especially 365s), it shouldn't be hard to knock off the queep/taskers that have zero utility to anyone, and it shouldn't be difficult to see that taking care of people on a personal level is extremely important.  Keep people happy and they won't leave...it's simple.

[guineapigfury]

I think these studies and surveys are sadly necessary since the higher-ups seem to be impervious to bad news delivered in any other format.  Perhaps this is laying the groundwork for making pilot compensation competitive with airline compensation as the only feasible COA for pilot retention.

[SurelySerious]

I think these studies and surveys are sadly necessary since the higher-ups seem to be impervious to bad news delivered in any other format.  Perhaps this is laying the groundwork for making pilot compensation competitive with airline compensation as the only feasible COA for pilot retention.

I'd rather have them match the lack of outside-of-flying qweep and get paid the same.

[NKAWTG]

We paid Rand a bunch of money for this line

 

Given current airline and Air Force pay, pilots make more money over a career if they

separate from the military at the first available opportunity (near the eleventh year of service),

get hired by a major airline, and fly for the ARC.

 

The difference in lifetime earnings is literally in the millions for those who get out early vs staying in.  Big Blue has to compete on QoL because they will never make up the difference from a financial aspect. Even if they adjusted flight pay and the bonus for inflation, it couldn't overcome the opportunity cost of an earlier seniority number.

    

[Champ Kind]

I'm with you guys, but seriously, what are you realistically expecting to change?  It didn't seem like too long ago when the Chief of effing Staff directed people to stop doing dumb things that are wastes of time.  What happened there?  Not much change to speak of in my neck of the woods.  That message got diluted, at best, as it trickled through the staffs and to the O-6 and below management crowd.  I say "at best" because I've mostly seen it flat-out disregarded, only to have management scoff when someone in their organization is brazen enough to say "aren't we supposed to stop doing dumb things?"  

So if CSAF said to stop doing it, and it's still going on, do you honestly think the queep factor is going to improve?

Edited May 8, 2016 by Champ Kind

[SurelySerious]

I'm with you guys, but seriously, what are you realistically expecting to change?  It didn't seem like too long ago when the Chief of effing Staff directed people to stop doing dumb things that are wastes of time.  What happened there?  Not much change to speak of in my neck of the woods.  That message got diluted, at best, as it trickled through the staffs and to the O-6 and below management crowd.  I say "at best" because I've mostly seen it flat-out disregarded, only to have management scoff when someone in their organization is brazen enough to say "aren't we supposed to stop doing dumb things?"  

So if CSAF said to stop doing it, and it's still going on, do you honestly think the queep factor is going to improve?

Frankly, no; I guess my point is money beyond what I'm getting isn't a good incentive, from my POV. It's not millions of extra dollars that sounds cool about airlines, it's not qweeping out when you're off the flying clock. Mission enjoyment outweighs it still for my case. Clearly not for many.

[jazzdude]

I'm with you guys, but seriously, what are you realistically expecting to change?  It didn't seem like too long ago when the Chief of effing Staff directed people to stop doing dumb things that are wastes of time.  What happened there?  Not much change to speak of in my neck of the woods.  That message got diluted, at best, as it trickled through the staffs and to the O-6 and below management crowd.  I say "at best" because I've mostly seen it flat-out disregarded, only to have management scoff when someone in their organization is brazen enough to say "aren't we supposed to stop doing dumb things?"  

So if CSAF said to stop doing it, and it's still going on, do you honestly think the queep factor is going to improve?

Realistically, nothing is going to change until people start dying. Unfortunately, I think it's going to get worse until it gets better. Commanders that aren't following guidance from higher should be relieved. Until this happens, there is no incentive for them to change their ways or fix problems.

It's not a pay problem, it's a quality of life problem. I don't think it is solely an ops tempo problem, but rather going on pointless deployments, coming home and doing busy work that has no real contribution to the mission.

What's realistically going to happen? Probably stop loss, recalls to active duty, and no reductions in queep and no improvement in quality of life because they don't have to, they have a captive workforce. This let's them kick the can down the road another few years and make it someone else's problem, and the cycle repeats until we have a catastrophic failure within the air force, whether it is retention/manning or losing a war.

What is scary is how much of the military, especially in the officer corps, has family ties to the military. The military makes up such a small portion of our population already. What happens when separating officers leave with a bitter taste of military life and recommends their kids and their friends' kids take a pass on the military?

[Duck]

Two things.

1) The Air Force wants more people deployed, that is the only way they can tap into that gloriously endless pile of OCO money. That's why you are going on that bullshit 365 doing something you could have done at home on staff somewhere. Fvck you and your QOL. We need the money and you are expendable, replaceable and still have a commitment.

2) Show me someone who joined the military to be rich and I will show you someone who is really $hitty at math. Not saying that it isn't a well paid job, but most of us type A, go-getters can make money on the outside. Higher QOL=better retention, easier recruiting and $$$$ savings on personnel acquisition costs. At this point either our O-6 and above senior "leadership" is either inept or incompetent. I put my money on the latter.

[Gazmo]

The other piece of the puzzle is how we intergrate ARC into all this while keeping an ARC career attractive. Let's face it, the ARC has saved the day on multiple occasions over the past 15 years while doing it at 1/3 the cost with a fraction of the full time manning of an active duty unit. There are no DSG ARC bonuses and we literally have people in the O-3/O-4 range leaving for non-flying positions because they're done being abused. Lt Col's are getting to 20 and pushing the button instead of staying until 28. It was different back in the day when OIF/OEF were going strong and civilian employers were understanding we were at war, but this ISIS crap is no where to be found on the news and employers have no idea why the DoD still demands some ARC aircrew to be in the AOR as much as we are. How will this new retirement system effect the ARC? Will we still have a points system? What's the incentive for a guy to come off AD with 11-12 years of service and join the ARC if it's not going to have a points based retirement system?

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

[HossHarris]

Gen Welsh was at Tyndall last week chatting with the pilots, among other things.  I heard a lot of ideas and options to make commitments and contractual obligations longer .... Up to 15-20 years post upt. I did not hear anything about making things more desirable, or less painful, so that people would want to stay longer. 

 

 

Edited May 11, 2016 by HossHarris

[Gazmo]

Gen Welsh was at Tyndall last week chatting with the pilots, among other things.  I heard a lot of ideas and options to make commitments and contractual obligations longer .... Up to 15-20 years post upt. I did not hear anything about making things more desirable, or less painful, so that people would want to stay longer. 

 

 

Hmmmm...yeah... that'll work. Although, if you think about it, they could promise the world to young, dumb, niave fighter-pilot wannabees that the AF is the best thing since sliced bread and sucker them into a 15-20 year commitment. They won't know any better. It takes a good 8-10 years to become a cynical and jaded FGO and by then, it's too late.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

[Sprkt69]

On May 8, 2016 at 10:16 PM, Karl Hungus said:

How much taxpayer money did we pay RAND to do this, when any staffer- where the real hard work of Air Power happens!- could spend a day or two skimming a decade's worth of posts on this board and AirlinePilotCentral and come to the same conclusion?  Laughable. 

The COAs are a stretch at best.  Even RAND admits that.  Proficiency advancing prior-121 pilots through UPT?  Insert story of former regional guy who failed out of T-6s here.  Not to mention, you're going to give them preferential treatment on OTS boards and force ARC units to do the same?  Good luck!  Forcing ARC units to do LFEs/deployments during winter months when airlines are less busy, and stop having UTAs on the first weekend of the month?  LOL.  

Fix QoL/work rules and you won't have the mass exodus of talent.  You wouldn't even have to pay pilots (much) more- just provide QoL/work rules close to on par with a combination of the civil sector and the ARC.  Doing so would require some real leadership and some painful acknowledgements on the AF's part that they've ed up.  Instead, our management comes up with 13 year ADSCs.  That'll fix it!

 

As a taxpayer, we definitely did not get our money's worth out of RAND.

[MooseAg03]

There are quite a few academy grads that I've run into in RPAs who went 18X specifically for the shorter commitment. I think that says something.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Guest]

There are quite a few academy grads that I've run into in RPAs who went 18X specifically for the shorter commitment. I think that says something.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

As a former URT instructor, I'm inclined to disagree. The vast majority of Academy grads to come through the program were either medically disqualified from flying, or bottom of their class.

[MooseAg03]

As a former URT instructor, I'm inclined to disagree. The vast majority of Academy grads to come through the program were either medically disqualified from flying, or bottom of their class.

They could be bottom of the class, I never asked. The commitment difference did come up though. Wonder what would happen if it was 15+ years.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Guest]

They could be bottom of the class, I never asked. The commitment difference did come up though. Wonder what would happen if it was 15+ years.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Agreed, 15+ years would be insane. Though I'd rather be a shoe with a 5 yr commitment than an 18X with a 6 yr. As things currently stand, an 18X would still need to get their commercial license (200 hours real flying) to be employable outside big blue.

[MooseAg03]

Agreed, 15+ years would be insane. Though I'd rather be a shoe with a 5 yr commitment than an 18X with a 6 yr. As things currently stand, an 18X would still need to get their commercial license (200 hours real flying) to be employable outside big blue.

True. I'm questioning my life choices and wondering why I didn't choose Acquisitions or Contracting.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Guest]

True. I'm questioning my life choices and wondering why I didn't choose Acquisitions or Contracting.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm wondering why I didn't choose UCLA

[ClearedHot]

On 5/7/2016 at 10:17 AM, icohftb said:

Any significant changes to take rates? 

Bump.

 

[Right Seat Driver]

8 hours ago, ClearedHot said:

Bump.

 

Looked today and couldn't find the most recent take rates.  Anyone else have the same issue?

[Duck]

There's no problem here... Move along move along...