Jump to content
Guest JArcher00

Aviation Continuation Pay (ACP - The Bonus)

Recommended Posts

"Air Force enlisted pilot implementation initiatives

The committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services not later than March 4, 2019, on the plan to implement the enlisted pilot aircrew requirements of Section 1052 of the FY17 NDAA for the MQ-9 enterprise of the Active, Guard, and Reserve components of the Air Force. Furthermore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to submit a report to the congressional defense committees not later than April 1, 2019, on the costs, benefits, and feasibility of authorizing enlisted Airmen or Warrant Officers as pilots, navigators, or weapon systems operators on all Air Force aircraft or rotorcraft platforms. The report should also assess and explain any policy or guidance impediments that would preclude enlisted Airmen or Warrant Officers from serving as pilots, navigators, or weapon systems operators."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because any enlisted member with the chops to do those jobs should go to OTS and get the higher pay they deserve.

::headdesk:: 

  • Like 4
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s all part of Goldfein’s master plan. He’s already got all the officers jumping ship for the Legacies/Majors/LCCs. Now he wants to provide the regionals with former enlisted pilots so every airline will be forced to give him a seat on their Board of Directors!

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they have degrees. His scheme wont survive 1st contact when enlistments are up and the AF has shit on them.  They'll take their very valuable skill and get real paid.  The Es that go pilot will be smart enough to get the degree while they can. The pay jump for those guys is even more.  AF better have a supp flight pay to make them par or else.

He must be thinking that keeping Es would be easier than Os.  He'll be wrong.

Out

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Correct. He's banking on the notion that the Es are smart enough to fly the airplanes but dumb enough to not be able or capable to get an online (or hell even brick and mortar) 4-year degree, thence making them non-competitive for major airline work. An absolutely checkers move and mentality on the part of senior management. You can't make this shit up. In all reality the AF is so insufferably ethnocentric that they'll end up shelving the idea anyways for a completely different and biased reason. I guess the enemy of my enemy is my friend. The clownshow continues.

 

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Klepto said:

"Air Force enlisted pilot implementation initiatives

The committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services not later than March 4, 2019, on the plan to implement the enlisted pilot aircrew requirements of Section 1052 of the FY17 NDAA for the MQ-9 enterprise of the Active, Guard, and Reserve components of the Air Force. Furthermore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to submit a report to the congressional defense committees not later than April 1, 2019, on the costs, benefits, and feasibility of authorizing enlisted Airmen or Warrant Officers as pilots, navigators, or weapon systems operators on all Air Force aircraft or rotorcraft platforms. The report should also assess and explain any policy or guidance impediments that would preclude enlisted Airmen or Warrant Officers from serving as pilots, navigators, or weapon systems operators."

Maybe I'm missing something, but this appears to be congress' checkers move, not AF leadership'.  Yet.  I'd imagine that congressional staffers hear and discuss the same batch of bright ideas that we churn through, so this is just congress asking "hey, what about this one?", to which the AF as duty experts can weigh in and shed light on why it's not a wise move.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, hindsight2020 said:

In all reality the AF is so insufferably ethnocentric that they'll end up shelving the idea anyways for a completely different and biased reason. 

I don’t understand what this means, could you explain?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, tac airlifter said:

I don’t understand what this means, could you explain?

I should have put ethnocentric on quotes, as I'm not using the term literally but figuratively. I meant to say that the air Force is obsessed with one drop rules and degrees of separation in everything they do, regardless of fiscal realities or combat readiness. 11f centrisms in pilot training pipelines being the historical perfect example of this obsession with elitism. Enlisted flyers or the warrant discussion would be another one. 

So then, even though the reason the idea is stupid is because an enlisted flyer would have a bigger economic incentive to jump ship with his training than a comissioned officer, the reason they'll end up shelving it will have little to nothing to do with this reality. But dead is dead so what does it matter anyways. That was my point.

Edited by hindsight2020
Grammerz
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Big AF does not want enlisted pilots because of one thing: airline wage gap. I’ve been to several HAF briefings where they said exactly that...no E pilots because they know retention would be even worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/24/2018 at 1:42 PM, ThreeHoler said:

Big AF does not want enlisted pilots because of one thing: airline wage gap. I’ve been to several HAF briefings where they said exactly that...no E pilots because they know retention would be even worse.

 

On 6/24/2018 at 1:43 PM, ThreeHoler said:

But who knows what Congress is thinking because they’re probably not.

The AF knows it’s about money.  Every pilot at HAF has read the airline pay charts out of morbid curiosity and knows how much money is out there to be had.  But the story they’ve sold to Congress (with our help) is that it isn’t about the money, it’s about additional duties. So Congress (and Enlisted dreamers) think “if money’s not the problem, and pilots just want to fly with no officery  stuff, let’s bring black WOs and The Flying Sergeants.”

Now the AF is chasing it’s own lies and using excuses like “we don’t have the data on how many guys are going to the airlines after they separate” or “the previous guys in charge underestimated airline hiring” to cover their asses. Which in itself is contradictory, of course.

Edit: I’m not fixing it.

Edited by Majestik Møøse

Share this post


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

 

The AF knows it’s about money.  Every pilot at HAF has read the airline pay charts out of morbid curiosity and knows how much money is out there to be had.  But the story they’ve sold to Congress (with our help) is that it isn’t about the money, it’s about additional duties. So Congress (and Enlisted dreamers) think “if money’s not the problem, and pilots just want to fly with no officery  stuff, let’s bring black WOs and The Flying Sergeants.”

Please. Let’s not play the race card.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Majestik Møøse said:

 

The AF knows it’s about money.  Every pilot at HAF has read the airline pay charts out of morbid curiosity and knows how much money is out there to be had.  But the story they’ve sold to Congress (with our help) is that it isn’t about the money, it’s about additional duties. So Congress (and Enlisted dreamers) think “if money’s not the problem, and pilots just want to fly with no officery  stuff, let’s bring black WOs and The Flying Sergeants.”

Now the AF is chasing it’s own lies and using excuses like “we don’t have the data on how many guys are going to the airlines after they separate” or “the previous guys in charge underestimated airline hiring” to cover their asses. Which in itself is contradictory, of course.

It's our own fault.  When they first started studying the whole retention problem, everyone in the trenches said "it's not about the money".  End result?  No real increases to the bonuses, because we've already told CSAF "it's not about the money".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's our own fault.  When they first started studying the whole retention problem, everyone in the trenches said "it's not about the money".  End result?  No real increases to the bonuses, because we've already told CSAF "it's not about the money".

Not entirely our fault. A bunch of the people they chose for that initial focus group were younger captains who still hadn’t pulled their heads from their asses. If they had actually asked people closer to ADSC expiration, I bet the answer would have been a lot different.
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not entirely our fault. A bunch of the people they chose for that initial focus group were younger captains who still hadn’t pulled their heads from their asses. If they had actually asked people closer to ADSC expiration, I bet the answer would have been a lot different.

 

I assume you’re talking about the group of pilots that met with Senators Cotton and King last year. If you’re not, I apologize and take the rest for what it’s worth.

 

There’s a lot of misinformation going around about that group, what they did and didn’t say, and what they were told going into the meeting.

 

My buddy was in the group, and I was in DC that week so I went with him to a meet and greet where the SAF/LL dude met with them to go over expectations.

 

They were never told they had to say X or couldn’t say Y. They WERE told that going in with guns on the money issue would not play well, specifically with senator Cotton, who had made it clear he thought that the 20K bonus was plenty large enough, and that people should want to serve out of pure patriotism. Spending the meeting trying to convince him otherwise was not going to be a good use of time.

 

They were told about initiatives that HAF was working on to improve QOL in case they wanted to talk about those issues.

 

My understanding is that some of the folks went with a hybrid approach, talking about how low QOL + the airline pay/hiring frenzy, made it difficult to choose to stay.

 

They seemed like a good group of guys and I’m sure they said what they thought they should to improve things. I wouldn’t crap all over them because they didn’t go in demanding more money. It wasn’t going to be an effective message for that audience.

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, daynightindicator said:

They were never told they had to say X or couldn’t say Y. They WERE told that going in with guns on the money issue would not play well, specifically with senator Cotton, who had made it clear he thought that the 20K bonus was plenty large enough, and that people should want to serve out of pure patriotism. Spending the meeting trying to convince him otherwise was not going to be a good use of time.

. . .

They seemed like a good group of guys and I’m sure they said what they thought they should to improve things. I wouldn’t crap all over them because they didn’t go in demanding more money. It wasn’t going to be an effective message for that audience.

 

Friend of patient: "What is it doc?"

Doc: "It's cancer."

Friend of patient: "Oh crap. Well we can't tell him that."

Doc: "What? Why not?"

Friend of patient: "Well you can say whatever you want, but that won't play well. He has made it clear that he doesn't think it is cancer and trying to convince him otherwise is not going to be a good use of time. It won't be an effective message for this audience."

Doc: "Uhm. It's cancer."

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has anyone on active duty had luck waiving the bonus ADSC in order to retire? I know it was easier a couple years ago when the force management programs we're taking place, but am looking for more recent stories of either approval or disapproval.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Fifty-six & Two said:

Has anyone on active duty had luck waiving the bonus ADSC in order to retire? I know it was easier a couple years ago when the force management programs we're taking place, but am looking for more recent stories of either approval or disapproval.

Kind of defeats the purpose of the ACP ADSC, so (assuming no other larger circumstances), I don't see why the AF would allow it.

As to your specific question, I know someone who tried doing this in 2012, and instead of being allowed to retire, he was given a 365.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, daynightindicator said:

I assume you’re talking about the group of pilots that met with Senators Cotton and King last year. If you’re not, I apologize and take the rest for what it’s worth.

They were never told they had to say X or couldn’t say Y. They WERE told that going in with guns on the money issue would not play well, specifically with senator Cotton, who had made it clear he thought that the 20K bonus was plenty large enough, and that people should want to serve out of pure patriotism. Spending the meeting trying to convince him otherwise was not going to be a good use of time.

Because it's never a good use of time to express the truth. /sarc

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Patriotism is what gets you to serve a 10-year ADSC when you are young and single.  Money is what helps keep you in past your commitment once you have a family.

All the General’s I’ve been exposed to seemed to think that no amount of money would affect people’s decision to stay.  I think they have it backwards. The people who are going to stay regardless don’t care about the money. For plenty of folks on the fence money is a huge factor in their decision  

I’ve talked to plenty of guys on a bro level who will readily admit that a $50-60K annual bump in pay (without stupid long ADSCs attached to it) post ADSC would likely have gotten them to stay in.  It’s not that the AF ever had to match airline pay, they just needed to provide a decent increase to make pilots continue to put of with the BS and lower QoL inherent in military service.  Hell, even just making the $35K annual professional pay would likely get a few guys to serve an extra year or two. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here’s my 2 cents... during exit surveys and during talks with the CSAF (saw this with my very own eyes), pilots who get out/want to get out state that extra pay wouldn’t have changed their mind and that it’s about QoL. 

With that said I’m not sure if money not being a factor really is completely true. First the exit interview I saw back in 2016 asked if an extra $10k/yr would have changed your mind on a scale of 1-10 ie 35k/yr. They never asked if a $50k/yr or 100k/yr bonus would have changed their mind. But even if they asked the question I believe the data would be skewed as i believe it’s human nature especially for most pilots to say this is the decision I made and I’m not gonna change my mind based on a survey question. They say to themselves I invested time, money, and energy prepping for interviews, getting my ATP, etc and I wouldn’t have changed my mind for anything in the world. This is their new goal and path and nothing’s gonna change my mind. Just human nature.  

IMO people see the bonuses offered a year or two a head of time and start making a decision to pursue the airline option and by the time the bonus comes out they are pretty well invested in their new path. So to break the cycle they need to put out a substantial bonus to increase retention and WAIT 3 years. But senators and USAF leadership also have made up their mind based on poorly made surveys that money won’t help and just like the pilots who get out and say it’s not about the money they are firm in their convictions.

The other issue I see is that in the heavy community QoL equals a slower ops tempo. Correct me if I’m wrong but I don’t see the CSAF specifically mentioned to Congress/Senate that we must reduce ops tempo. 

So if extra money and lower ops tempo are off the table. What’s left qeep? I can’t see retention increasing until airlines slow down hiring. But even if we have a recession, mandatory retirements will be happening.

So all the USAF has left is increasing pilot production, try to recall to AD, stop loss (hopefully off the table), pray for a massive recession and reduce qeep. 

As more and more people get out, if I were them I’d try a $70/yr bonus and see what happens before it’s too late... if it’s not too late already. 

Edited by Lifer
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Lifer said:

Here’s my 2 cents... during exit surveys and during talks with the CSAF (saw this with my very own eyes), pilots who get out/want to get out state that extra pay wouldn’t have changed their mind and that it’s about QoL. 

With that said I’m not sure if money not being a factor really is completely true. First the exit interview I saw back in 2016 asked if an extra $10k/yr would have changed your mind on a scale of 1-10 ie 35k/yr. They never asked if a $50k/yr or 100k/yr bonus would have changed their mind. But even if they asked the question I believe the data would be skewed as i believe it’s human nature especially for most pilots to say this is the decision I made and I’m not gonna change my mind based on a survey question. They say to themselves I invested time, money, and energy prepping for interviews, getting my ATP, etc and I wouldn’t have changed my mind for anything in the world. This is their new goal and path and nothing’s gonna change my mind. Just human nature.  

IMO people see the bonuses offered a year or two a head of time and start making a decision to pursue the airline option and by the time the bonus comes out they are pretty well invested in their new path. So to break the cycle they need to put out a substantial bonus to increase retention. But senators and USAF leadership also have made up their mind based on poorly made surveys that money won’t help and just like the pilots who get out and say it’s not about the money they are firm in their convictions.

The other issue I see is that in the heavy community QoL equals a slower ops tempo. Correct me if I’m wrong but I don’t see the CSAF specifically mentioned to Congress/Senate that we must reduce ops tempo. 

So if extra money and lower ops tempo are off the table. What’s left qeep? I can’t see retention increasing until airlines slow down hiring. But even if we have a recession, mandatory retirements will be happening.

So all the USAF has left is increasing pilot production, try to recall to AD, stop loss (hopefully off the table), pray for a massive recession and reduce qeep. 

As more and more people get out, if I were them I’d try a $70/yr bonus and see what happens before it’s too late... if it’s not too late already. 

Most comprehensive, thoughtful, and truly insightful post I have seen here in a long time.  If the leaders behind the glass doors truly internalize these few paragraphs...

Edited by General Chang

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, General Chang said:

Most comprehensive, thoughtful, and truly insightful post I have seen here in a long time.  If the leaders behind the glass doors truly internalize these few paragraphs...

you serious? all those things have been discussed ad nauseam here for years...

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



×