Jump to content
Baseops Forums
Toro

Aviation Continuation Pay (ACP - The Bonus)

Recommended Posts

Guest
Even more specifically the day you hit the flight line in UPT.  I thought I was screwed out of a month but it isn’t the day you started UPT.

That’s incorrect, mine is the day I started phase 1.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ihtfp06 said:


That’s incorrect, mine is the day I started phase 1.

2

Mine is my first day of academics at Pensacola.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Runr6730 said:

Just took a survey posted to a MAF Facebook group by someone who’s supposedly in the aircrew crisis task force. According to the survey, the proposed “fly-only” criteria are as follows:

1) Eligible for 10-13 year Majors, requires a commitment to 20 years 

2) Receive current aviation bonus

3) Limited length (ineligible for 365s) and type of deployments (flying-related only)

4) Eligible for specific flying-related jobs (Stan/Eval, training, etc) at all levels

5) Extended time on-station to 4-5 years

6) Eligible for advanced aviation courses (WIC, AIS, TPS, etc)

7) IDE/SDE optional and by correspondence only

8) Ineligible for promotion above O-5 and only compete for promotion against other fly-only officers, with promotion based on sustained superior performance as an aviator

9) Pilots can return to the traditional track NLT 13 years TIS

I may be missing a few smaller things, but those were the main points. 

Took the survey today.

1) They're targeting the wrong year group. They should be trying to convince mid to senior Capts that they want to stay past commitment, not change the minds of those with a foot out the door.

2) Current aviation bonus is too low.

3) "Tactical" and flying deployments.  This means you're still up for that 179 to the CAOC.

4) Flying related jobs at all levels....including staff.  They'll get around this by keeping you attached somewhere that you'll maybe fly once per quarter.

5) 4-5 years isn't long enough.  If you want a 13 year Major, let him pick a base of choice and stay there until 20.  That's homesteading.

6 & 7) Good

8) "Fly only" in zone to Lt Col would be 16 years which by my calculations is 2 years behind everyone else.  Why penalize the guy who wants to fly by making him promote later?  I only looked at the DOR chart for about a minute, so I might be wrong here.

9) Pilots who return to traditional track are still locked in for 20 years.  

Some good ideas here, but the biggest issue is that these "guarantees" are still dependent on big blue keeping its word.  We all know where that leads.

Edited by MooseAg03
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MooseAg03 said:

Some good ideas here, but the biggest issue is that these "guarantees" are still dependent on big blue keeping its word.  We all know where that leads.

What the AF needs is a good Tommy Callahan Fancy Guarantee.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Took the survey today.
1) They're targeting the wrong year group. They should be trying to convince mid to senior Capts that they want to stay past commitment, not change the minds of those with a foot out the door.
2) Current aviation bonus is too low.
3) "Tactical" and flying deployments.  This means you're still up for that 179 to the CAOC.
4) Flying related jobs at all levels....including staff.  They'll get around this by keeping you attached somewhere that you'll maybe fly once per quarter.
5) 4-5 years isn't long enough.  If you want a 13 year Major, let him pick a base of choice and stay there until 20.  That's homesteading.
6 & 7) Good
8) "Fly only" in zone to Lt Col would be 16 years which by my calculations is 2 years behind everyone else.  Why penalize the guy who wants to fly by making him promote later?  I only looked at the DOR chart for about a minute, so I might be wrong here.
9) Pilots who return to traditional track are still locked in for 20 years.  
Some good ideas here, but the biggest issue is that these "guarantees" are still dependent on big blue keeping its word.  We all know where that leads.

Took the survey too and actually replied almost verbatim to your points above. I also think that the fly track should be 100% on time promotion to Lt Col.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm already out, so I don't have any skin in the game, but I'm wondering if people really believe that you should promote to Lieutenant Colonel doing nothing but flying. I mean, you get a raise based on years in service, it's how the pay tables are built. But if all you're really doing is flying, it doesn't seem to make sense to make someone a lieutenant-colonel for something that a captain, or in special situations maybe a major, is needed to do.

Now if the strategy is "the Air Force is stuck between a rock and a hard place and we want to take full advantage of the situation," then bravo. But do people honestly believe that it's fair, or even logical, to make someone who does nothing but fly and maybe manage one of the simple flying programs a lieutenant colonel?

Change it to Major and I'm 100% in agreement. Increase the incentive bonus for crusty old majors to financially compensate them, cool. But giving the rank seems to me to only make rank less meaningful. Am I wrong?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They are saying fly only guys will fill flying related jobs all the way to the staff level - training, Stan/Eval, flight safety, etc. I would expect a wing chief of Stan/eval to be a Lt Col whether he is fly only or not. If I were on that track and became a gray-beard tactical expert high time evaluator, I would also expect to compete for on time promotion to Lt Col, instead of being penalized for 2 years. If you’re choosing the fly only track to avoid greater responsibility then I agree you shouldn’t be handed Lt Col. I just want my increased responsibility to be related to the mission, not planning change of command or other queep.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stan Evil and Chief of safety are used as holding grounds for future CC’s on active duty, doubt a flying only dude would get it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

But giving the rank seems to me to only make rank less meaningful. Am I wrong?

Agree. My response was that I don’t mind not making Lt Col but I need pay to more or less keep up with the time in service and experience. But I also said the bonus would need to double. I’m well past V-1 on that kind of decision as well so it’s only academic really. 

Edited by Homestar
Changed major to Lt Col

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's really no benefit to Big Blue promoting you to Lt Col in this instance.  You're already locked in for 20 and you're not going to be a CC, so why would they voluntarily give you more money?  This just sounds like classic AF carrot dangling. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who can't see the AF getting an ADSC for "flight only track" then dropping them as an O-4  right before they become protected for retirement?  Sounds EXACTLY like what the bean counters would do.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

I'm already out, so I don't have any skin in the game, but I'm wondering if people really believe that you should promote to Lieutenant Colonel doing nothing but flying. I mean, you get a raise based on years in service, it's how the pay tables are built. But if all you're really doing is flying, it doesn't seem to make sense to make someone a lieutenant-colonel for something that a captain, or in special situations maybe a major, is needed to do.

Now if the strategy is "the Air Force is stuck between a rock and a hard place and we want to take full advantage of the situation," then bravo. But do people honestly believe that it's fair, or even logical, to make someone who does nothing but fly and maybe manage one of the simple flying programs a lieutenant colonel?

Change it to Major and I'm 100% in agreement. Increase the incentive bonus for crusty old majors to financially compensate them, cool. But giving the rank seems to me to only make rank less meaningful. Am I wrong?

I don’t care about the rank, I care about the pay.  Make me a Capt to 20 for all I care, and let me just fly the line.  

But you better give me a fat bonus.  Much more than the beans they’re currently offering.

  • Like 4
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The ADSC is the sticking point for me.  Why sign up for 9+ more years when I know that non vols me to Minot, Cannon or Altus.  You can homestead, but only at the bases we choose.  Like it has been mentioned, the devil is in the details, but location, location, and location are top three most important features of the assignment system, and this plan gives you a crap shoot when it comes to basing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

I'm already out, so I don't have any skin in the game, but I'm wondering if people really believe that you should promote to Lieutenant Colonel doing nothing but flying. I mean, you get a raise based on years in service, it's how the pay tables are built. But if all you're really doing is flying, it doesn't seem to make sense to make someone a lieutenant-colonel for something that a captain, or in special situations maybe a major, is needed to do.

Now if the strategy is "the Air Force is stuck between a rock and a hard place and we want to take full advantage of the situation," then bravo. But do people honestly believe that it's fair, or even logical, to make someone who does nothing but fly and maybe manage one of the simple flying programs a lieutenant colonel?

Change it to Major and I'm 100% in agreement. Increase the incentive bonus for crusty old majors to financially compensate them, cool. But giving the rank seems to me to only make rank less meaningful. Am I wrong?

Why promote a Lt to Capt to do the same job? I had wings as a 1st Lt, so we're all good right? We all know that enlisted can fly airplanes (no sarcasm), but this is a different flavor of the same argument which suggests that enlisted pilots are a solution to our manning crisis - why pay someone less to do the same job? Does being a General in today's Air Force mean all that much to you now that we all understand the HPO system and the behind-the-scenes of how one makes it to that level in our organization? I would argue that rank has already diminished in importance because it isn't doled out in an egalitarian fashion in our organization, and if you walk around any flying squadron (at least in the fighter world), you'll see that general attitude. People's quals make a bigger difference than the color rank they've stitched on their shoulders. That's one side of the coin.

On the other hand, you could argue that rank is a reflection of someone's responsibility (in many cases it is). So someone who has likely achieved every qualification the Air Force has to offer, and has spent a career doing the actual dirty work of the Air Force, not being a "leader" or signing OPRs, or getting selected for some special "development" program, is likely a better candidate to wear higher rank than someone who reads "books" by "authors".

I could also make the argument that because the retirement of a Lt Col is worth about a 1/2 million more than that of a Maj, they deserve to be promoted to that level as well. Especially considering that the cumulative risk a career flyer has assumed is much greater than someone who pinned on wings, flew for one or two assignments, and then spent the next 12 years in "school". That person has served our country to a greater extent than a school-weenie, and should be compensated appropriately. Here's an idea: get rid of flight pay and increase my pay scale so I'm compensated at a greater rate than other AFSCs who don't accept the same risk I do. That compensates me now, and in retirement.

4 hours ago, BADFNZ said:

There's really no benefit to Big Blue promoting you to Lt Col in this instance.  You're already locked in for 20 and you're not going to be a CC, so why would they voluntarily give you more money?  This just sounds like classic AF carrot dangling. 

Raimius' post below is exactly why Lt Col is a necessity.

3 hours ago, raimius said:

Who can't see the AF getting an ADSC for "flight only track" then dropping them as an O-4  right before they become protected for retirement?  Sounds EXACTLY like what the bean counters would do.

 

Edited by ViperMan
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 million bucks for 8 years. 500k up front. They need to start there for a realistic bonus. Only offer it for the next 10 years until they get out of this mess

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lots of money, and rank based on qualifications? Lt=wingman or copilot, Capt=flight lead or AC, Major=instructor. Lt Cols are the bosses, everyone gets pay raises based on TIG. Sounds good to me. DOPMA may get in the way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lots of money, and rank based on qualifications? Lt=wingman or copilot, Capt=flight lead or AC, Major=instructor. Lt Cols are the bosses, everyone gets pay raises based on TIG. Sounds good to me. DOPMA may get in the way.


The Canucks do 2Lt in or awaiting training and promote to 1Lt with training complete (UPT equivalent). You get back pay if “later” to 1Lt than “scheduled.” Pin on Capt after completing aircraft specific training. Again back pay if later than the normal timeline to Capt.

Never pin on Maj...unless you want the leadership track. But a Capt in years and years of active flight pay makes more than a Maj or possibly even a Lt Col in the staff/leadership job who has not kept earning increases in flight pay because he hasn’t been flying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a experience with an Air Force that has 2 tracks.

Track 1 - academy, no limit

Track 2 - think OTS, Lt Col max with slow promotions.

End result: a bunch of Senior Captains who are awesome pilots, terrific leaders, great bros with tons of experience.....,

.......being led around by Lt Cols (same age/time in) who spent most of their time in schools, playing officer politics to get promoted and shining their asses that suck at tactics but are in charge.

The USAF would end up the same.



  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, ViperMan said:

I could also make the argument that because the retirement of a Lt Col is worth about a 1/2 million more than that of a Maj, they deserve to be promoted to that level as well.

Wait--what??  Where are you getting these numbers?  Show me the retirement math for a 20-yr Major vs a 20-yr Lt Col living until 85...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wait--what??  Where are you getting these numbers?  Show me the retirement math for a 20-yr Major vs a 20-yr Lt Col living until 85...

Today the diff between a maj and ltc retiring at 20 years is ~$6k before taxes. Over 40 years that’s $240kish....hardly half mil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, di1630 said:


Today the diff between a maj and ltc retiring at 20 years is ~$6k before taxes. Over 40 years that’s $240kish....hardly half mil

Time value of money bro.  At 7% interest compounded annually, that extra 6k per year earns you more than a million dollars over 40 years.  Assuming one is disciplined enough to invest, the difference between an O-4 and O-5 retirement is a huge deal.

DA5D8DA7-377A-4C11-94C4-09F15456C25A.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, WheelzUp said:

Time value of money bro.  At 7% interest compounded annually, that extra 6k per year earns you more than a million dollars over 40 years.  Assuming one is disciplined enough to invest, the difference between an O-4 and O-5 retirement is a huge deal.

DA5D8DA7-377A-4C11-94C4-09F15456C25A.png

I think this is still only part of the picture. The Net Present Value function gives a very different picture for your decision making.  The NPV of the $1.37M in your example 40 years from now at 7% interest, compounded monthly could be achieved with an initial one time deposit of $84,082.  

There's many ways to calculate and a lot of factors to consider, but I recommend keeping the NPV function in a variety of financial calculations.  It's available in Excel or from various sites online.  

Cheers.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, MTC said:

I think this is still only part of the picture. The Net Present Value function gives a very different picture for your decision making.  The NPV of the $1.37M in your example 40 years from now at 7% interest, compounded monthly could be achieved with an initial one time deposit of $84,082.  

There's many ways to calculate and a lot of factors to consider, but I recommend keeping the NPV function in a variety of financial calculations.  It's available in Excel or from various sites online.  

Cheers.

This. Sorry Wheels up, but 1M at 42.69 years into the future isn’t the same as 1M now. NPV is real difference. 

Think I’m full of shit?  How about lending me 500K now with the understanding that I’ll give you a cool mil in 42.69 years?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...