Aviation Continuation Pay (ACP - The Bonus)

[General Chang]

Rusty,

What about that analysis re: the Air Force's concerns do you disagree with? It seems like you are in agreement with the position.

Ironic that personnel geeks don't understand people at all.

Mr. Noonin,

Personnelists do understand people, which is why cuts are not happening as they should be. Not sure how long that can hold off, however, with massive sequester cuts looming. 15-18 years will be the sweet spot (as Rusty alluded to, a relatively "cheap" $100K to get out of the contract) to save a quick load of cash.

Pilots, do not for one minute think that I nor anyone in the decision-making process do not appreciate your hard work- I am constantly in awe of our aircrew and their sacrifices, and I am proud of every one of you. However, there are frustrations and then there are numbers. I look at the numbers. If something's not working, yes, throw different numbers at the problem and fix it. That doesn't mean you are not appreciated by your fellow servicemen and women.

[Ram]

We have to keep some folks through 20 (hence costing more money) for two primary reasons:

1. We actually need a few O-4/O-5 types between 15-20 years (again, mostly at the staff level, not in the cockpit, ergo we need people to take the bonus now to lock them in)

2. If we start cutting people like we should between 16-18 years in order to save money, BIg Blue feels younger pilots may start to get concerned and worry the Air Force is disingenuous re: the 20 year retirement system. Hence, they could be much more skeptical about the bonus, and take rates would fall. So Big Blue feels it has to be very careful and selective about when we cut officers between 16-18 years (doesn't happen very often).

Copy shot. All this looks legit. You're right...Big Blue needs to be VERY careful when cutting these guys at the 16-18 year point, as us younger pups are watching. While the cuts last time didn't really concern the 11F community, you can be CERTAIN that the 11F guys were watching. That, plus the VSP debacle, was a HUGE negative influence on retention.

So, up to this point, I was tracking. Then I read this:

Honestly, in my opinion, 15-18 year cuts should be on the table for the sake of saving our Air Force. We have to cut cost wherever possible, and senior Majors/junior Lt Cols are costing us a fortune. I agree with "addict" and "56-&-2": it doesn't make sense to let "the glut" retire at 20. It makes no fiscal sense at all. We need to cut.

Had we enacted the "no bonus" plan this year, starting in 2014, Step 2 could have used CONSISTENT force shaping cuts from 15-18 years every year so that officers don't get pissed off due to being "weened onto" the program (of course "eliminated officers" would be pissed the first couple of years, but the bad feelings would taper quickly). Potentially being cut late in one's career would become part of the personnel culture, and as a result, officers would strive for greater excellence in their careers in order to not be "caught" in that bottom 10-20%. If you don't have your record "in order" at 15-18 years, and you get cut, blame only yourself (the pattern will be there- again, after the first few years).

Just go out, be the best (leader, pilot, officer, all of those), get your stuff done (yes, PME and degree), work your tail off, and you'll be fine. Easy peasy.

YGBSM.

It's increasingly obvious that the USAF cares more about the numbers than what really matters:

COMBAT CAPABILITY.

It's already getting worse because of what happened in the last 2 years of O-4 boards: AADs were critical to a DP/Maj select, and the USAF cared more about AAD & SOS DG than it cared about a W-prefix when it came to school selection. The writing is on the wall, and I know dudes all over the CAF who were watching.

So riddle me this:

ARE WE MORE COMBAT READY NOW THAN WE WERE 5 YEARS AGO?

Start the RIFs on the 16-18 year dudes because they don't "publicly declare their value to the Air Force" (which everyone should read as "do AAD, PME, exec"), and you'll reap what you sow. Here's the result:

11Fs WITH GREAT SURFs WHO CAN'T FIGHT THEIR WAY OUT OF THE WET PAPER BAG THAT WAS THE LAST DECADE'S THREAT.

If this is what the USAF wants, fine. Again, they're going to reap what they sow. I, for one (actually, for the majority), am PRAYING we don't find ourselves in a major theater conflict with one of our NEAR PEER adversaries in the upcoming years.

"But how did we lose 80% of package AAYA today, fellow generals? We're the USAF!"

"It's simple, sir, wrapping our jets in useless AADs and quoting PME readings simply didn't keep our jets from blowing up."

"IMPOSSIBLE! A1 told me our pilot manning was right and that we're the most educated USAF in the world!"

Keep the faith.

Loyalty is a 2-way street, GC. If you're anywhere near a HAF/MAJCOM A1 shop, I'm very very worried.

[theat6bisasham]

This dude is exactly the reason we are all ######ed. Keep checking the boxes and get the retirement is all I keep saying to myself every single day I get up. The ######ing AF forgot to tell me 15 years ago that they were going to flip a ######ing 180 and start throwing us all out at 15-18, or I would have starting working my way up the corporate ladder. Congress CLEARLY stated if you made it to major and got twice passed over you were supposed to be continued to 20, and then suddenly BAM some weenies decide to go against that.

And i'm confused as ###### as to who the hell hasn't checked the easy blocks - what fricken major out there doesn't have their masters and PME? I can count 1/40 that doesn't do it. So this whole 10% crap doesn't make sense....senior leaders keep hiding behind that BS of check the blocks and you'll be fine - that's crap and you know it. EVERYONE checks the blocks just like all E's get 5's...the system is broken. Unless i had a patch...then things would be different wouldn't they :)

Edited June 29, 2013 by theat6bisasham

[Rusty Pipes]

Honestly, in my opinion, 15-18 year cuts should be on the table for the sake of saving our Air Force. We have to cut cost wherever possible, and senior Majors/junior Lt Cols are costing us a fortune. I agree with "addict" and "56-&-2": it doesn't make sense to let "the glut" retire at 20. It makes no fiscal sense at all. We need to cut.

It is this mentality that shows the crew force that people like you are completely clueless about how to actually lead and take care of their people... seeing them as nothing more than just a number and that their service means shit. Big Blue does not give a shit about you and your family... we are reminded of that daily.

I noticed you completely ignored the previous post asking you to look at the numbers from the major Airlines as I'm sure the rest of A1 is doing and provide stats of your own to refute them. Good move... that head in the sand attitude should serve the Air Force well in the next few years to come. Don't worry though... I'm sure someone like you will suggest we throw money at the problem. Your claim that throwing money at the problem via a bonus has historically worked and A1 types feel comfortable with that. Tell me something... what were the options 5 yrs ago for a 33 yr old pilot Major who just hit his ADSC?

[Fifty-six & Two]

Honestly, in my opinion, 15-18 year cuts should be on the table for the sake of saving our Air Force. We have to cut cost wherever possible, and senior Majors/junior Lt Cols are costing us a fortune. I agree with "addict" and "56-&-2": it doesn't make sense to let "the glut" retire at 20. It makes no fiscal sense at all. We need to cut.

Not the idea I was proposing at all. I'm more in line with letting those individuals retire with 15 years of service. If by your numbers the AF "only" saves $480,000 per person, that's still half a mil closer than we were in the first place. On the flip side, I get your points, absolutely. If we RIF people in those year groups, then we save over a mil due to not having to pay retirement costs. I get it, but I don't agree with it.

Edited June 29, 2013 by Fifty-six & Two

[addict]

Reduce the pilot ADSC so your non-t-crossers can leave earlier. Fewer Lt's taking master's classes will immediately improve morale.

Keep your older 20+ year people in longer flying - it's a cheaper retirement for the tax payer and experience in all of those jobs doesn't disappear.

Edited June 29, 2013 by addict

[theat6bisasham]

Of course with 15 year retirement, the next thing i'm complaining about is that i'm on the bonus :) Lol, let the complaining never end!

[busdriver]

GC,

Per your numbers would the AF be able to save enough money with an early retirement option for those passed over to O-5 or would it require too many cuts to keep the force structure at the "right" levels?

[Herk Driver]

GC, All of this while the AF line swine have been cut year after year and the number of GO billets stays about the same as is has been for the last 15-20 years. Recent changes not withstanding.

Remind me what the retirement is for a GO that gets to the 40 year point. IIRC, there was a change in 2007 that actually allows an O-10 to make more in retirement than they did while on AD. A quick google search revealed this. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/military/story/2012-01-26/military-officers-pensions/52939598/1

So, how is it that the high time O-4s and O-5s are the problem? The people making the decisions on ACP and AF personnel policy are soon to be the recipients of this windfall, right? Not saying that the decisions are driven by anything other than what is best for the AF, but maybe what is best for DOD is for this change in retirement which nearly, or in some cases more than doubled retirement pay for the GOs to be rescinded and we move back to a corporate structure that does not sacrifice the least among us for the higher ups.

Just my $.02.

[General Chang]

GC,

Per your numbers would the AF be able to save enough money with an early retirement option for those passed over to O-5 or would it require too many cuts to keep the force structure at the "right" levels?

The problem is the right mix, if AF implements- offer the retirement, too few people take it, then what? Too many people take it, you limit the program, then AF has REALLY pissed people off, a la VSP several years ago, and morale goes into the crapper.

Reduce the pilot ADSC so your non-t-crossers can leave earlier. Fewer Lt's taking master's classes will immediately improve morale.

Keep your older 20+ year people in longer flying - it's a cheaper retirement for the tax payer and experience in all of those jobs doesn't disappear.

Addict,

I think you're on to something here. The problem is we're only a couple of years past the ten-year ADSC bonus classes; we don't have enough data points to plot trends. I suspect this may be as good an answer as any, IF there is no mass exodus of younger guys at the ADSC, which is what I have been stating. However, if I am wrong and many of you are right, moving to the 8-year ADSC could be the death blow to multiple class years of pilots, which is not good.

Probably the best way to proceed on this line of thinking is to take ONE class year and alter their ADSCs to 8 years (say, those whose ADSC's are up in FY16; make them FY14, so we have two classes simultaneously coming due). Then, track the take rates for the two classes seperately, and analyze the trends. If too many "former FY16" guys jump ship in FY14, the Air Force knows it has a serious situation on its hands, and it has only sacrificed one class year. Hmmmm.....interesting.....

Edited June 29, 2013 by General Chang

[BFM this]

The problem is the right mix, if AF implements- offer the retirement, too few people take it, then what? Too many people take it, you limit the program, then AF has REALLY pissed people off, a la VSP several years ago, and morale goes into the crapper.

Aaahhhh, the AF did not "limit" VSP. It completely cut out entire year groups that had been published as eligible. If they had just stuck with some form of limit, even if only 10% of the eligibles had been let through the sluice, that would have been different.

"The truth changed" line, didn't hunt.

Edited June 29, 2013 by BFM this

[General Chang]

GC, All of this while the AF line swine have been cut year after year and the number of GO billets stays about the same as is has been for the last 15-20 years. Recent changes not withstanding.

Remind me what the retirement is for a GO that gets to the 40 year point. IIRC, there was a change in 2007 that actually allows an O-10 to make more in retirement than they did while on AD. A quick google search revealed this. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/military/story/2012-01-26/military-officers-pensions/52939598/1

So, how is it that the high time O-4s and O-5s are the problem? The people making the decisions on ACP and AF personnel policy are soon to be the recipients of this windfall, right? Not saying that the decisions are driven by anything other than what is best for the AF, but maybe what is best for DOD is for this change in retirement which nearly, or in some cases more than doubled retirement pay for the GOs to be rescinded and we move back to a corporate structure that does not sacrifice the least among us for the higher ups.

Just my $.02.

Love this, agree with this, absolutely spot on.

GO pay should never be allowed to balloon like it does. Congress has to fix that one.

Also, correct about GO billets- 17 down so far, plus a couple of AF GOs in joint billets....watch that number continue to plunge over the next few years.

O-4s and O-5s aren't the only problem, they are the problem with the cheapest solution.

Retirement boards for Colonels as well? Watch and see...

Aaahhhh, the AF did not "limit" VSP. It completely cut out entire year groups that had been published as eligible. If they had just stuck with some form of limit, even if only 10% of the eligibles had been let through the sluice, that would have been different.

"The truth changed" line, didn't hunt.

Yes, cannot argue that- good point. As I previously stated, big-time screw-up on A1's part.

Edited June 29, 2013 by General Chang

[General Chang]

It is this mentality that shows the crew force that people like you are completely clueless about how to actually lead and take care of their people... seeing them as nothing more than just a number and that their service means shit. Big Blue does not give a shit about you and your family... we are reminded of that daily.

I noticed you completely ignored the previous post asking you to look at the numbers from the major Airlines as I'm sure the rest of A1 is doing and provide stats of your own to refute them. Good move... that head in the sand attitude should serve the Air Force well in the next few years to come. Don't worry though... I'm sure someone like you will suggest we throw money at the problem. Your claim that throwing money at the problem via a bonus has historically worked and A1 types feel comfortable with that. Tell me something... what were the options 5 yrs ago for a 33 yr old pilot Major who just hit his ADSC?

My friend, there are GOs that look at more than the numbers. Then there are staffs that look at just the numbers. It's up to the CSAF to look at the whole enchilada. If I were to look at more than the numbers, I'm doing a serious disservice to the Air Force. You cannot have emotion enter BOTH sides of the equation, or the CSAF does not have the correct sight picture with which to make long-term decisions.

Personally, I feel that sufficient numbers of people would have stayed this year with just an -11F bonus. That did not happen. I would bet my career that next year's -11F retention numbers for 2002/2003 will exceed ALL expectations after this year's (very late) bonus raise. Yes, a few will still get out, but $100K+ per year pay until retirement, free medical for the entire family, guaranteed retirement at O-5 of $52K+ per year and climbing, AND $225K signing bonus with $112.5K up front? Oh man, what a pile of gold! I suspect, by your emotional reactions to this thread since you found out you get $0 bonus, that you would be the very first one in line to sign up, if you were an -11F at the 11-12 year point.

[Skitzo]

I don't think it's the same GC. The last VSP was released with no regard to what AFSCs were eligible. I believe people were pissed at that scenario because for an institution that holds integrity as one of its core value and preaches it every day of the week it was guilty of a force separation process that the masses assess as lacking in integrity.

There is also a real problem with regard to feedback in this organization. People so afraid of a guy with eagles on his collar that they will feed and brief inaccurate bull rather than confront the problem outright.

Even if the a1 responsible for the last vsp fiasco would have attempted to get the pulse of the people they all probably would have lied because they mistrust the institution...

That's where we could use some help... Mistrust.

[General Chang]

Even if the a1 responsible for the last vsp fiasco would have attempted to get the pulse of the people they all probably would have lied because they mistrust the institution...

That's where we could use some help... Mistrust.

Absolutely agree. Coming out, saying "Guys, we screwed up, I'm sorry" would have been at least a ground-rule double. Getting the process right in the first place would have been the homerun.

[Danny Noonin]

Absolutely agree. Coming out, saying "Guys, we screwed up, I'm sorry" would have been at least a ground-rule double. Getting the process right in the first place would have been the homerun.

But yet you think it's a good idea to show people the door at 18 years. How can you not see how that will go down as being a disaster in the long run?

[Skitzo]

I think what we need to see in order to fix the issue is something beyond the traditional separation pay program. By the regs it says that twice deferred o4s should only be not continued for extreme circumstances.

If the severance pay was calculated based on a good faith estimate of future earnings I think we would be making a positive step.

I have 9 years in and if the Air Force gives me a pink slip at the current separation pay rate then fine. But if I am at 16 years in and twice passed over to o5 and unless I have a DUI then it is a different story.

We have no problem with enticing people to leave. Heck just the thought of going to cannon AFB has enticed a shit ton of u28 folks to drop their papers...most all of them at that 11 year point.

If you get to 16 and the Air Force needs to get rid of you that badly a multiplier should be added to the formula representative of sunk costs.

If the Air Force would have separated the 157 a couple years ago and handed them double their separation pay you would have at least preserved the thought that at least if big blue has to screw you through ineptitude they will at least treat you better than a game changing scenario like the fall of communism.

Again general it's up to you and your comrades to decide whether or not excellence in all we do is a recruiting brainwash or truly the hallmark of our organization.

Truly excellent organizations don't cut people at 16 years but when they do they do it with more class than we have.

[addict]

...guaranteed retirement at O-5...

Say what?

[Prozac]

Talking about numbers: How do we know the numbers we're looking at are what we should be looking at? WRT the glut of 11Ms, I wonder how it looks when you consider all the guys that a typical AMC Wing takes "out of hide" to man the WG staff? Add that to the number of dudes that are filling MC-12 positions, CAOC tours, at PME, Upgrade, etc., etc. The guys that are left are what you should really be looking at when it comes to manning. I fail to see how any AD Mobility Sq can be considered "healthy" when you look at who's really left in the squadron. Maybe it'll change as we draw down Afghanistan. Or maybe we'll just allow the manning to attrit so the same dudes can continue to carry the load.

[General Chang]

Talking about numbers: How do we know the numbers we're looking at are what we should be looking at? WRT the glut of 11Ms, I wonder how it looks when you consider all the guys that a typical AMC Wing takes "out of hide" to man the WG staff? Add that to the number of dudes that are filling MC-12 positions, CAOC tours, at PME, Upgrade, etc., etc. The guys that are left are what you should really be looking at when it comes to manning. I fail to see how any AD Mobility Sq can be considered "healthy" when you look at who's really left in the squadron. Maybe it'll change as we draw down Afghanistan. Or maybe we'll just allow the manning to attrit so the same dudes can continue to carry the load.

Wings are assigned people based on UMD AFSCs. If a Wing pulls up a guy without a slot, they must be attached to the Wing, but they are still flying with the squadron. As a result, the squadron is still getting full use of the pilot in the aircraft. Hence, there is no overage (and most Wings have way more -11Ms than UMD billets). Again, manning is not an issue- your C-17 squadrons have more than enough pilots to do the mission you should be doing.

[Jaded]

I would bet my career that next year's -11F retention numbers for 2002/2003 will exceed ALL expectations after this year's (very late) bonus raise.

Quoted to reference after next year's numbers come out.

... guaranteed retirement at O-5 ...

What are you talking about? The bonus you sign doesn't even guarantee that you'll get to serve to 20. The Air Force could kick you out at 12 years and make you pay back $87.5k of that $112.5k bonus check you got up front.

[GBock]

If a Wing pulls up a guy without a slot, they must be attached to the Wing, but they are still flying with the squadron. As a result, the squadron is still getting full use of the pilot in the aircraft.

LOL

[General Chang]

Quoted to reference after next year's numbers come out.

What are you talking about? The bonus you sign doesn't even guarantee that you'll get to serve to 20. The Air Force could kick you out at 12 years and make you pay back $87.5k of that $112.5k bonus check you got up front.

Guaranteed for 80+% (75% in the zone, 5+% BPZ)

[Skitzo]

Wings are assigned people based on UMD AFSCs. If a Wing pulls up a guy without a slot, they must be attached to the Wing, but they are still flying with the squadron. As a result, the squadron is still getting full use of the pilot in the aircraft. Hence, there is no overage (and most Wings have way more -11Ms than UMD billets). Again, manning is not an issue- your C-17 squadrons have more than enough pilots to do the mission you should be doing.

What isn't represented by this scenario is people "with duties at". I've spent the last two years in this nebulous scenario. My flying squadron commander is my commander but who I work for and am rated on by is not dependent on the flying squadron.

There is a definite distinction between attached and duties at...

[Champ Kind]

If a Wing pulls up a guy without a slot, they must be attached to the Wing, but they are still flying with the squadron. As a result, the squadron is still getting full use of the pilot in the aircraft.

Aaaaand what was left of your credibility is now completely shot.

Since we are talking numbers.... How about the on loan group exec that flew 30 hours in six months while other IPs were flying 3-4 times per week?

You really think the flying sq is getting a good return on that IP billet off the UMD.

You are so out of touch it isn't even funny.

Edited June 30, 2013 by Champ Kind