Jump to content

Aviation Continuation Pay (ACP - The Bonus)


Toro

Recommended Posts

It blows my fückin mind that some reserve squadron actually hired that shithead. But when did he lose his mind and go beyond full AF retard? I don't even know where to begin to find an answer to that.

I know a few commanders who were "total bros" when they were captains and majors, then went full crazy when given command. And I know more than a few captains who are great dudes, but I worry about what they will be like as commanders.

Leadership is hard, if it weren't for the fact I have virtually zero chance of command, I'd be worried about myself being in power as well. Unfortunately the pilot world doesn't rate and promote based on leadership abilities and experience. Since there are too many officers and not enough leadership positions, we use program management and education as discriminators.

But what most of us want, a return to a flying focus, doesn't enhance leadership ability either. I think there is a huge credibility boost a squadron commander gains from being proficient in the jet, but at the group and above level I don't think flying ability helps any more than being an exec or getting DG at SOS.

I don't know the right answer, but there is a reason civilian corporations hire CEOs and presidents from outside the company. Ford doesn't need the best design engineer or riveter at the helm. Leadership is a skill unto itself, and it cannot be nurtured or measured through other actions and skills.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But what most of us want, a return to a flying focus, doesn't enhance leadership ability either

I get the gist of your point, but disagree flying doesn't at minimum enhance and grow one's leadership capability.  There's a lot of leadership skills required in aviation - maybe some communities/areas more than others, but overall there is leadership required and increasing ability to lead is generally required as one's experience and position in their community increases.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know the right answer, but there is a reason civilian corporations hire CEOs and presidents from outside the company. Ford doesn't need the best design engineer or riveter at the helm. Leadership is a skill unto itself, and it cannot be nurtured or measured through other actions and skills.

I fundamentally disagree. A CEO can move from industry to industry because large portions of what big corporations do is independent of their field. It's not that a CEO possesses some sort of magical universal leadership skill.  It's that they have a deep, highly transferable skill set in corporate management and happen to be good leaders to boot. They may not be the best riveter, but he/she better damn well know what riveters do, how to get that riveter paid, attract and train other good riveters, and manage the supply chain to provide them with rivets. Leadership without action or other skills means you are at best qualified to be the Vice President of your local Toast Masters Club.

I would also say that flying... particularly in combat as part of a team... is better leadership development than most things. There is, however, a separate issue of learning to navigate the Air Force bureaucracy. Unfortunately, that's a fundamental skill required for serving effectively at higher ranks. Don't conflate leadership and rank.

I do agree with you that there is a point where flying talent matters less, but I think the line should be higher than you put it. Through the Wing/CC, leaders need to be reasonably proficient and at least solidly above average as aircrew (pilots, navs, whatever). I have no desire to pretend to be the leader of a unit I can't take into combat... period. " Good luck, boys! I signed your high-risk ORM and I'll write some mean Single Mission Air Medals for you if... er... when you get back!" said Robin Olds never.

But starting at the DO-level, I see how quickly everything else drowns out flying and how after a few years, our "leaders" just aren't proficient enough to do it any more. They make the reasonable and responsible decision to let go of flying except during training lines with high illumination and an instructor at the controls. It is not their fault. It is how we've chosen to make things work.  It is, however, bullshit.

"You don't need to be a good pilot to be a good leader," is a lie a shitty pilot once told to keep their career on track. Unfortunately, someone who didn't understand the difference between "leader" and "administrative wonk" believed them. Now, we've forgotten what we've lost.

We will remember someday.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I fundamentally disagree.
I think we agree more than you think
A CEO can move from industry to industry because large portions of what big corporations do is independent of their field. It's not that a CEO possesses some sort of magical universal leadership skill.  It's that they have a deep, highly transferable skill set in corporate management and happen to be good leaders to boot.
What would you say the highly transferable skill set is?
They may not be the best riveter, but he/she better damn well know what riveters do, how to get that riveter paid, attract and train other good riveters, and manage the supply chain to provide them with rivets.
You think the CEO deals with payroll and recruiting of unskilled labor?
Leadership without action or other skills means you are at best qualified to be the Vice President of your local Toast Masters Club.

I would also say that flying... particularly in combat as part of a team... is better leadership development than most things.

I'll bite. How does a combat sortie in a fighting falcon impart organizational leadership skills?
There is, however, a separate issue of learning to navigate the Air Force bureaucracy. Unfortunately, that's a fundamental skill required for serving effectively at higher ranks. Don't conflate leadership and rank.

I do agree with you that there is a point where flying talent matters less, but I think the line should be higher than you put it. Through the Wing/CC, leaders need to be reasonably proficient and at least solidly above average as aircrew (pilots, navs, whatever). I have no desire to pretend to be the leader of a unit I can't take into combat... period. " Good luck, boys! I signed your high-risk ORM and I'll write some mean Single Mission Air Medals for you if... er... when you get back!" said Robin Olds never

Wing commanders aren't really the ones tagged to be in the lead aircraft of a 50-ship bomber formation. That's the sq/cc job, right?

But starting at the DO-level, I see how quickly everything else drowns out flying and how after a few years, our "leaders" just aren't proficient enough to do it any more. They make the reasonable and responsible decision to let go of flying except during training lines with high illumination and an instructor at the controls. It is not their fault. It is how we've chosen to make things work.  It is, however, bullshit.

"You don't need to be a good pilot to be a good leader," is a lie a shitty pilot once told to keep their career on track. Unfortunately, someone who didn't understand the difference between "leader" and "administrative wonk" believed them.

Are you implying that one cannot be a good leader without being a good pilot? That leaves quite a few career fields out of luck
Now, we've forgotten what we've lost.

We will remember someday.

I have seen very little connection between leadership and flying. Admiration, respect, sure. But running an organization of hundreds is not in the same realm... At least that's what I think

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The ability to make decisions under pressure is vitally important for a leader. Aviation highly refines that skill. "Management" doesn't, necessarily.

Certain career fields must have home grown leaders. Firemen, cops, soldiers, pilots, doctors, etc look around a room and see themselves as the top dogs. They will never really respect a leader from another career field, or even one from their own group that is subpar. This is just the way things work. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What would you say the highly transferable skill set is?

Corporate governance... HR, supply chain management, finance, securities law, recruiting, project management... we're talking about some highly talented people that do more than yell, "Go team!" all day.

You think the CEO deals with payroll and recruiting of unskilled labor?

Yes, I do. I think making payroll and recruiting labor are very much on the mind of many, many CEOs.

Are you implying that one cannot be a good leader without being a good pilot? That leaves quite a few career fields out of luck

Presumably we're talking about leading flying organizations, so yes. Stay on topic.

Wing commanders aren't really the ones tagged to be in the lead aircraft of a 50-ship bomber formation. That's the sq/cc job, right?

No, it isn't. Most SQ/CC's couldn't do that reasonably. That's the problem I'm trying to point out. I think that a SQ/CC should be capable of that, and a Group/CC or Wing/CC should be capable of at least flying in that bomber formation.

I'll bite. How does a combat sortie in a fighting falcon impart organizational leadership skills?

I have seen very little connection between leadership and flying. Admiration, respect, sure. But running an organization of hundreds is not in the same realm... At least that's what I think

When we're talking about a flying unit, they're not distinct, either. Yes, there are plenty of skills required to run a large organization that are distinct from flying, but I'm happy to expect both out of real leaders. Excellence in all we do, right? When all you've got to choose from is a crappy pilot whose a good organizational manager, and a great pilot who can't keep a project on track, by all means, choose the organizational manager to command.  Just know that you're picking between the lesser of evils, not striving to build a robust fighting force. The goal should always be to find someone talented enough to do both. That's a leader.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I'll bite. How does a combat sortie in a fighting falcon impart organizational leadership skills?

So you think the guy who is the mission commander for a 100 aircraft, led the planning and/or the actual mission execution isn't utilizing multiple types of leadership skills?  This is MDS agnostic, but being a mission commander (100 was a large example, but the point still stands for the guy running 20-30 assets) in training and combat is a huge leadership role and by far shadows a lot of other "leadership" roles out there.  Budha made great points above.

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

You don't have to be a superb pilot to be a great leader. How many people bitch on here about leadership because they aren't great pilots? I haven't seen it yet. You just need to be competent in the jet.

One of my observances in *some* fighter communities is that you pretty much have to be a WIC grad to be on the cc track these days...and you get put on the WIC track as a wingman or young flight lead (not always but a late trend I've seen) = we are choosing our future leaders when they are young captains with 300 hours and then grooming them big blue style with school and other BS.

Most of the great leaders I wanted to follow were awesome pilots. They were looked down upon by the "official" sq leadership but they were truly informal leaders.

Most of them are out now, never made CC. Rarely were they WIC grads (some were), school selects or any other USAF metric measured superstar. Just proficient guys in the jet who hated BS, didn't play the USAF game and therefore didn't get ahead.

(I do not want this to sound like WIC bashing, lots of great dudes sorely needed are WIC grads. I'm knocking the current trend I see with WIC being a new container to fill in the way to CC)

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Back on topic. Updated take rates 31 Aug

51.5% overall

 

While this FY's overall take rate remains low, what seems even more significant is the low early take rate thus far of just 22.5%.

- Last year, 283 pilots out of 743 eligible signed up early for the bonus, for a total early take rate of 38.1% of eligibles. Only 100 more FY15 eligibles have signed up this FY, so almost three quarters of this FY's bonus takers were folks who signed up for the bonus last year

- Thus far this FY, only 168 pilots out of 746 FY16 initial eligibles (22.5%) have signed up for the bonus. If next year follows this year's trend, where the majority of takers sign up early, we could be looking at an overall take rate of 30-40% next year. Welcome back to the late '90s

Bottom line, unless a whole heckuva a lot of folks have been waiting 'til the last month to sign up, next year is shaping up to be pretty ugly for bonus take rates. I hope I'm wrong.

TT 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With 1st year pay at most of the legacy airlines up around $70-80 an hour with a bump up to $110+ your second year to just fly airplanes 75 hours a month, who would risk record acceleration up the seniority list for $25k a year to do year long staff tours in the desert?

There's just something to be said about getting paid good money to just fly airplanes and be off 16 days a month.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd like to see the breakout by airframe.  I'd bet you have RQ-4 take rates pulling up the average.  I don't know any of my peers in MQ-9s who plan on taking the devil's money.  I'm also curious how they factor in separations to these numbers.  If dudes are pulling chocks the day their UPT expires, do they end up in that denominator?  Are the only counting 11Us as RPA guys?   As someone stuck in this RPA bullshit, i'm inclined to regard any "good news" about the RPA community as either propaganda or outright lies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why?

Low take rates would be bad news for everyone:

- Let's say we go back to the late 90s/very early 2000s. Take rates went as low as 28% and as high as 42% (averaged 33%) between FY97 and FY01

-- Today's senior leaders were those who took the bonus and/or stayed in past 20yr retirement eligibility during that time of increased airline hiring  

-- It took 9/11 and the '07-'08 financial crisis to get the take rates back to the mid-60s, where it remained from FY03 to FY13

- If you haven't liked the Air Force's leadership decisions over the past decade, when we've had pretty healthy retention of quality individuals to fill command and staff billets, then I doubt you'll like when we pick our commanders and their staffs based solely on "last man standing"

      Perhaps in the long run, the shock of bleeding talent will force Big Blue to adjust it policies in such a way that adequate numbers of quality individuals will want to stay in and keep the service moving forward. Tim Kane's Bleeding Talent (as just one example) was published in 2012, which means he identified and started writing about the problem well before that, and JQP's blog has been going for a little while now . . . but I've seen little movement thus far toward addressing fundamental problems that drive folks out of the service. As I've said in a different thread on this forum, senior Air Force (and more broadly senior military) leaders aren't the only issue; they can only do so much to unscrew what our senior civilian leaders have done to discourage mil service. 

      Bottom line: low retention rates now + slow/ignorant AF bureaucracy + even more ignorant civilian leadership - another major crisis (9/11 style attack or financial downturn) = significant Air Force leadership & culture problems for the foreseeable future

On a more optimistic note, if take rates next year are high (or at least indicate a significant improvement), that would be a sign the Air Force is doing something right, and is taking meaningful steps to address fundamental concerns within the force.

TT

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Bottom line: low retention rates now + slow/ignorant AF bureaucracy + even more ignorant civilian leadership - another major crisis (9/11 style attack or financial downturn) = significant Air Force leadership & culture problems for the foreseeable future

All the more reason to leave, right?  I think people that take exception to the AF's "significant leadership & culture problems" should be more concerned about an active duty exit strategy than they are about the bonus take-rate and the potential fallout from that.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

All the more reason to leave, right?  I think people that take exception to the AF's "significant leadership & culture problems" should be more concerned about an active duty exit strategy than they are about the bonus take-rate and the potential fallout from that.

I'm 99.69% sure I'm separating ASAP, but I want the USAF to get better for the sake of my friends who are dumb/motivated/patriotic/stubborn enough to stay.  I just don't think it will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All the more reason to leave, right?  I think people that take exception to the AF's "significant leadership & culture problems" should be more concerned about an active duty exit strategy than they are about the bonus take-rate and the potential fallout from that.

I think you and I are in violent agreement, but we have different audiences in mind.

- For those individuals on this forum who are (or will soon be) making the decision whether not to punch, of course they can read from this discussion that the near-term outlook is not great in the Air Force and make plans accordingly. It's a great time to forego the bonus in favor of greener pastures in the civil sector. If you want to get out, go for it. More power to ya'

- For those on this forum who, for whatever reason (they're senior leaders, Lts a decade away from bonus eligibility, or just morbidly curious) care about the long-term future of the Air Force, I like to think I'm providing a degree of value-added insight. I haven't seen anyone else discussing what seems to me to be a very low early bonus take rate on this forum, even though I think it's significant. I'd love to hear how the Air Force is doing with keeping people past 20--a metric which I think bears directly on the discussion of ACP bonuses--but either nobody on this forum knows, or if they do they're not talking

There have been folks on this forum who were/are/claim to be associated with rated force management and/or senior AF leaders. As such individuals contemplate this year's take rate, I hope they'll consider the low early bonus take rate (and I suspect low retention of aviators past 20 yrs) as a "canary in the coal mine" and use this data (along with other relevant data points) to adjust future years' rated management programs to make them effective. If our senior leaders fail to do what they can, within the scope of their respective authority, responsibility and human endurance, to address problems within the rated force  . . . then go back to bullet point one--it's a great time to get out. I, for one, hope for the good of the Air Force and our nation that--between better bonus options, more sane personnel policies, reversing social engineering efforts, etc.--more quality folks will decide to remain on AD. 

TT

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 I care.  A lot.  My commitment takes me to almost 16 years and as much as the AF sucks sometimes, I still love what I do and plan to stay in.  The low bonus take rate is (or should be) seriously concerning to the guys that decide to for whatever reason to stay in.  I'm in a fairly small community and in the last 18 months we've had a serious attrition rate of senior instructor O-3/4/5 types getting out from VSP/retirement/TERA/commitment up and sick of the AF reasons.  My airframe is hurting, badly, on instructors right now.  I can't go out and create a high time O-3/4 combat experienced instructor pilot out of thin air, that shit takes time as you well know.  I've been in a sq that lost an airplane during a mishap; lack of proficiency and low experience were big factors in the crash.  I have no desire to ever repeat that; the AF needs quality guys to stay in and carry the torch.  If the low bonus take rates and the airline hiring thread are any indicators, the Air Force's rated officer problem has just begun and things are gonna get worse before they get better.  That means it's a problem for guys like me who stay in and thus why I care.  The AF needs to recognize that it has some serious internal problems and get on positive vector (I believe Gen Welsh is sincerely trying) quick or we're in for some really hard times in the not too distant future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 get on positive vector (I believe Gen Welsh is sincerely trying) quick

I just don't buy it.  I was a Welsh fan boy when it was first announced he was going to become CSAF.  Some of that may have been that he couldn't have been any worse than Schwartz.  He's had three years.  We are beyond "trying".  I do think he was our best chance to make things better, but it has become clear that the toxicity and disfunction in this institution is so deeply-rooted that one person, charismatic, combat-proven, and charismatic as he may be, cannot overcome the bureaucracy.  

That has been the biggest eye opener for me recently:  not that things are so jacked up at the squadron/group/wing, but that the manning and intellectual paralysis spreads all the way through the NAFs, MAJCOM, HAF, and beyond.  I truly don't know how things can get better.

  • Upvote 2
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...