Jump to content
Baseops Forums
Guest JArcher00

Aviation Continuation Pay (ACP - The Bonus)

Recommended Posts

If you would have told me as an 18 year old how bad the AF sucked, I would have just said to myself that you must have not been a very good pilot/officer and it won’t happen to me. Unfortunate but true.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Gazmo said:

This is all f#cked up. I am getting random backpaid LES's in the ANG for $5.33 per pay period (AFTP/RUTA). I went from $650 to $1,000 by jumping from 6+ to 10+ 1 Oct 2017. The funny part is I got $28 incentive pay ($840/30) on an AFTP that paid out a few weeks ago. $840 was the old 14 year incentive pay. I wouldn't hit the 14-year Aviation service pay until next fall and besides that, that $840 incentive pay doesn't even exist anymore. Until the new policy I was in the 6-year club getting $650 or $21.67 per pay period. If they're back pay me $5.33 per pay . Based on this change I should be getting $11.63 back pay for each AFTP/RUTA. Looks like I'm going to have to talk to my HARM and finance tomorrow.

 

 

 

 

I'm an ANG guy (on ADOS orders) and mine is still messed up too. I have been getting random LES's for $175, the 2 week difference between my old rate at $650 and new rate at $1000. They have given me a few of these checks, but skipped over the period of Oct 1-15 and the old rate still shows up on my standard LES.

Finance will not be able to fix it for you. If you look back a few pages, my finance put a ticket in for me and they were told by DFAS that the issue is being worked service-wide and to close the ticket. Finance doesn't have the ability/authority to pay you what you are owed in this situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/1/2018 at 11:40 AM, pilotguy said:

Date you started UPT

More specifically the date you started aviation service, so if you were a navigator for 8 years and then went to UPT, all that time counts.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/1/2018 at 3:28 PM, BONE WSO said:

I'm an ANG guy (on ADOS orders) and mine is still messed up too.

Deployed on title-10 and my flight pay is still fucked up!  But not to worry, they worked expeditiously to take back an overpayment due to their fuck up.  It's a good rehack of my distain for being full time.  

Edited by SocialD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 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. 

The devil would be in the details... 

- What is a “flying-related”deployment?  Is working at the Deid CAOC or the Al-Dhafra  safety office  “flying-related”?  Or are talking about actual flying deployments?

- What would the flying track 0-5 promotion rate be? Would passed over O-4s be guaranteed continuation?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 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. 

Also took it recently....seems like the only thing you’d gain is “flying related jobs/deployment” only and the ability to stiff arm school. You trade a 7-10 year commitment for it...like signing up for a UPT commitment all over again. As mentioned that seems way to subjective to me! Doubt the Sq/OG/Wg is going to care if you are “fly only” versus traditional when they need FGO bodies for their queep. No thanks, I’ll keep my ability to 7 day opt an air advisor role or crappy assignment and take my talent/training elsewhere when active duty stops making sense for me.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Scooter14 said:

More specifically the date you started aviation service, so if you were a navigator for 8 years and then went to UPT, all that time counts.  

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.
  • Upvote 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

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



×