Pancake

My PRF strat was "top 5% of CGOs," whatever that's code for. My point is that even top performers have to distinguish themselves amongst other top performers. That isn't done by performing "just a little bit higher" than your peers. Promotion and IDE selection is about knowing what your boss values and committing to that path. A personal relationship with your boss is the most important factor in opening opportunities and earning high stratifications on your OPR and PRF. Hard work/top performance is a given. However, the boss is going to push folks for opportunities that reflect his/her leadership style, strengths, and interests. Without those opportunities (be it exec, proj-o, WIC, or ALFA complete), earning a high strat is impossible because you've done nothing (in your boss's eyes) to distinguish yourself amongst your peers. It comes down to trust and Confirmation Bias (they did what I did, I got promoted, so I should promote them). That accounts for the, "How on earth did that guy get school," and "I can't believe that guy didn't get school," which seemed very prevalent when my year group's major board was released. Generally, the people who get school deserve it, but a lot of really strong swimmers miss out because of timing, relationships (or lack of), and being a big fish in a pool of really big fish. If I could do it again: don't waste your time being like the boss, be someone who the boss wants to be like. Discover what's important to your boss and excel at it to the point that they admire you. If that's SOS DG, then yeah, SOS DG is important. If it's Exec or mountain biking with the boss on the weekends, well, you know what you have to do... I always thought "go golfing with the boss" was cliche. Turns out it actually makes a big difference in who gets mentored for command and awarded the appropriate opportunities.

High correlation of SOS DG and IDE selects? Can you show me the numbers? Personally, I think most of you are posting what you'd like to believe, not reality. I was the only DG (and Top Contributor) in my SOS flight... No school. My wing had a guy that was the number one SOS grad in his entire class... No school. Just about every pilot in my community was SOS DG, but only a small percentage were IDE selects. In my SOS class, I'd say at least two-thirds of the DGs were pilots, mostly 11Fs. The problem lies in the reality that fighter pilots can't be the only people that get the limited number of in-res IDE slots. The Air Force wants/needs diverse AFSC representation at ACSC, etc... So, while SOS DG may be a big deal in your community and earns you the coveted "My #1 of 69 CGOs" strat, DG is meaningless in a community where everyone is an SOS DG. Like my commander said to me before leaving for SOS, "if you don't get DG, don't come back." It was expected that you'd be a DG out of SOS in my community. Oddly enough, the #1 strat that year was not a DG. He got in-res ACSC... More proof that strat is the only thing that matters.

You're mistaken. The Air Force values one thing and one thing only: Strat. Your commander may value SOS DG, but the Air Force only cares about that first bullet on you OPR.

A-10s are multi-role too, you know. We carry AIM-9s! I know where you're going with your comment, but entertaining a multi-role label on the F-22 is strictly a marketing gimmick by leadership to justify the A-10 as a single-role airplane. BTW, who has more A/A victories, the A-10 or the F-22? Yeah, I know, helos don't count. I saw the unclass version. Badass, man... T-38s for all my friends! The AF will take delivery of a new dedicated CAS platform when the Army screams to DoD that AF CAS is inadequate, just like post-Vietnam. The end of OIF/OEF, and the pivot to the Pacific offers a CAS "peace dividend" that leadership wants to take advantage of. In other words, they don't think we'll need a dedicated CAS platform for any foreseeable conflict. This is probably true, but the same thing was said after the fall of USSR, and how many land wars have we been in since? Leadership can show us whatever numbers it takes to convince us this is a crisis. Instead, let's look at what's actually been cut. Flying hours? Temporarily, then turned back on when money was suddenly found. The Thunderbirds? Not in any way a calculated move to make a very visible, but generally meaningless budget cut. Oh, and they're flying again. Landscaping? Again very calculated, visible, and meaningless. WIC classes? Not sure how they made that decision, but it's a shame the T-birds fly while our best young IPs not only sit out WIC and don't get the training and earned opportunity, but absorb the hit that absence will leave on their PRF. TDYs? Red Flag? Did anyone miss out on pre-deployment spin-up? I'm Guard now, so maybe I'm insulated, but I just don't see any meaningful cuts. Obviously, that will change as fleets are cut, but it looks as if the leadership is attempting to cut systems they have wanted to cut for years, and this budget "crisis" along with our general pull-back has finally given them the ammo to convince Congress these jets have got to go! IMO, the AF shouldn't care about the airplanes themselves, but should care about the personnel and support resources needed to make these jets (A-10) effective on the battlefield. I said it in a previous post, but a fifth-gen data link and associated sensors not only makes a platform more effective, but eliminates the need for other platforms, and that's how the AF justifies the high price tag of the new tech... Ultimately, it'll be cheaper to buy an F-35 than to maintain the 3-4 other airplanes that older equipment (like the A-10) needs to operate in a contested environment. We're not just going to cut the A-10, B-1, and KC-10. My guess is that AWACS, JSTARS, and platforms of their ilk are next, especially as new tech eliminates the need for their services. And the real savings will be when we cut the corresponding number of people required to support all of those support airframes. Joint doctrine has made CAS a primary competency. We took just about everything we learned from Vietnam and doing CAS with A-1s/A-4s/F-100s/F-4s/OV-10s and poured that knowledge, combined with likely central European scenarios, into the A-10 and subsequently 3-09.3. Vietnam was 50 years ago. The AF isn't 70 yet. How far back do I need to go? You're right, the Army doesn't get to demand the A-10. And really, it's not the Army who asks for the A-10, it's the BALO or JTAC filling out the ASR. I have seen many, many ASRs requesting "long loiter, 30 mm, TGP, Rx." And the MAP Cell meets those requests to the max extent. Never have I heard a MAP planner say,"They'll take what we give them and they'll like it." In all seriousness, the Army asks for capability. When the AF can't meet that capability, we'll see a dedicated CAS replacement. Which, with the acquisition process we have, will come on line 10-15 years after the conflict that generated the request is over... No F-16, F-35 or F-22 (cough) is going to strafe armor, moving targets, troops in ridge lines with <1000' ceilings. Precision munitions have limitations. AC-130 has limitations. Faster airplanes have turn radius and target ID (more importantly, friendly ID) limitations. You can't weaponeer everything with GPS coords and laser codes. So, unless the F-35 has directed EMP capability or some seriously intense combat lasers, I don't see how the AF is going to meet Army CAS requirements in anything but another OEF-style conflict without a dedicated CAS platform and core/corps experience. Now let's talk high intensity conflict. Do you really think the AF is going to assign F-35s and B-2s (after the B-1s are gone) to do CAS? Maybe the plan is to rely on Navy and Marine Corps Hornets to provide CAS... I don't know. A cut of 130,000 Army troops seems to make CAS an even higher priority in my mind. We absolutely cannot afford to lose an American soldier (in terms of numbers) when their value is increased by a smaller denominator! The A-10 cut boils down to DoD doesn't foresee another ground war in the next decade. Hence the cut in ground troops, a non-nuclear bomber, older airlift, etc... I trust what the leadership is doing, although I don't particularly like how it's being sold, and there will be some pretty dire consequences if they're wrong. However, history suggests we will either have another dedicated CAS platform, or we'll pay for repeating 50-year-old mistakes.

You're right. But wars definitely hinge on capabilities. How would WWII have ended without dedicated long-range bombers? Would Vietnam have been different with a dedicated CAS airplane with more capability than the A-1? What would armor BDA from the Gulf War been without the A-10? How would the Cold War ended without the F-15, nuke aircraft carriers, and ICBMs. My point is, our edge in the world isn't that we have just have cool airplanes, it's that we have very skilled mission-specific operators, enabled by excellent mission-specific airplanes, that everyone else in the world rivals. We lose that edge when we're all flying multi-role fighters. So yeah, the absence of the A-10 specifically doesn't mean anything. It's the absence of a dedicated, capable, CAS fighter, and the expertise its pilot cohort brings to the fight, that can change the entire outcome of a war. Same applies to a dedicated A/A fighter, long-range bombers, etc... Otherwise, why not just have 1 fighter that's responsible for every mission? Or 1 helo that fulfills both the role of the Blackhawk and Apache? Or 1 transport that covers C-5 and C-130 duties? Or 1 trainer that covers T-6, T-1, T-38 and C-12 syllabi? Or how about just 1 all-role airplane? See my point? Funny thing is that amongst all this insistence that we can't fund mission-specific airplanes, there's no talk about cutting F-22s, C-17s, B-2s, and the like. That's why I don't buy the idea that the end of the A-10 will be the end of the dedicated CAS fighter. Again, IMO, this "can't fund mission-specific airplanes" argument is the line the leadership needs to use today to get a replacement tomorrow. The leadership sees a horizon with little immediate need for a dedicated CAS platform, but if they're even casual observers of military history and lessons-learned, they can't deny that mission-specific airplanes and their communities are essential to maintaining our relevance as a force, especially in relation to our sister services (i.e... CAS and transport). I personally think this is all posturing to get a fifth-gen CAS replacement in the next decade (and "stealth" is generally only one fifth-gen characteristic, the big one being battlespace interoperability). One more thing... History has also shown that when the AF doesn't meet the Army's needs, it gets its ass kicked by DoD and Congress. If the Army insists on having a dedicated CAS airplane, whether today or tomorrow, the AF will have one. So unless the Army says "we're good," we (the AF) are not good. Something tells me the Army wants a dedicated CAS airplane...

I'm not sure if you're being serious... And I think it's "Libya." Unless you meant to use an "a" in place of that "y." In that case, no I did not.

Yeah, that was one dude on one project. It's prolific and a symptom of our organizational mental sickness (OCD)! But where did I suggest "problem solved?" I'm not saying finding "lost" money is the answer to deficits, but there is so much waste, irrelevant, and legacy money out there that with my mainstream AF major view of how this organization is funded, I'm sure we can make some significant cuts and be a more capable and efficient force than we are now, specifically as new platforms become drastically more capable in missions/systems that previously required multiple platforms. The wild card is the "bridge." The power of bureaucracy and empire building/protection is still very entrenched... hence the need to manufacture a crisis (BTW, Organizational Change 101) Actually, I think Gen Welsh is handling this fiscal environment with deliberate precision on coming out of this without sacrificing capability over a 10-20 year timeline. It won't happen on his watch, but that's why you build legacies/staffs who will continue your work. Gen Welsh doesn't need to convince pilots about fundamental org change. He needs to convince Congress, the sister services, and the tax payers. "Crisis" is just about the only way to get their attention. If we get into a ground war without A-10s or a dedicated replacement and lots of friendlies die, then this approach to rebuilding the AF fails. If this approach succeeds, Gen Welsh (future CoS Gen Goldfein?) will be lauded as one of the greatest CoS in AF history. But that's why those guys get paid the big bucks... to make the really, really tough decisions. And the A-10 is only a small piece of what's on the table to get cut. It just seems to be the one thing garnering all the attention. So, how about that new Cessna attack jet? Sure beats the light attack aircraft, if you ask me!

Here's a little flame bait... You can shoot down every MiG the Soviets employ, but if you return to base and the lead Soviet tank commander is eating breakfast in your snack bar, Jack, you've lost the war — Anonymous A-10 Pilot, USAF So yeah, the whole Air Force machine boils down to supporting the friendlies on the ground by killing the proverbial enemy tank commanders. Ha Ha!

We don't have the money? Because leadership says so? My buddy at WPAFB recently had leadership give him $750K of money they "just found" to work on a cancelled project! You don't see any politicking here? Cutting the Thunderbirds and Blue Angles, and implementing tiered readiness (only to turn flying hours back on when we scare Congress into giving us more money) is the best we can do to thwart this budget "crisis?" IMO, this whole budget thing is just another manufactured crisis that we've all wisely swallowed (sts), hook, line and sinker (to create this "sky is falling" mentality, essentially a perpetual crisis). Do we need to curb reckless spending, a broken acquisition system, and restructure the force? Absolutely! But we have money for things we need as long as we stop spending money on things we don't need/don't contribute to equipping, training, and fighting. What doesn't make sense to me is the idea many share on this board that the F-35 and KC-46 are the last two airplanes we'll ever buy. The Air Force will continue to develop and acquire new platforms, despite today's budget woes. If you consider the backlash the AF received in Iraq for "not doing their part," how valuable CAS is to promoting the AF's relevance, and the best way to solicit congressional funding (by creating another "crisis" with a service-wide absence of a dedicated CAS platform) for future projects, all of this appears to me as Politicking 101. Sure, the A-10 may be cut in in the next couple of years, probably in the name of F-35/KC-46. But I think it's naive to believe the AF doesn't have tertiary plans for a dedicated CAS airplane that can integrate/contribute in modern/future battlespace. As an A-10 guy, I don't want to see the jet go. I love it and its mission(s), helping the guys on the ground, and want to fly it until I quit the AF. But if cutting the A-10 now leads to a modern dedicated CAS platform, I am for that (despite the expense of no 30mm and loss of organic CAS expertise) versus flying the A-10 for another 15 years with nothing on the horizon to replace it. Sort of a "Peace Dividend." The current environment doesn't allow bridging, and with the war weariness of this country, military planners and leaders are literally betting their careers/reputations/potentially the lives of 19 year-old "Joes" that we won't fight a ground war for the next 5-10 years, which allows them to justify sacrificing the A-10 now. Leadership will sell the elimination of the A-10 however they need to. I don't believe for a second that Welsh and Goldfein think there's no need for a dedicated CAS airplane. However, getting rid of the A-10 might be what they need to do today in order to get a better A-10 replacement tomorrow (not literally "tomorrow," because as we all know, there is no money...*sarcasm*).

Talk about ignoring context and the rest of the paragraph! Geez, man... Strategic bolding, though. Good job! So you're saying that improved data link, stealth (F-22/F-35/B-2), improved passive sensing and radars, other stuff that we won't talk about here don't eliminate the need for a lot of that 1980s technology (AWACS, SEAD/DEAD, JSTARS, etc...) for AF assets of all types and missions? Then what's the point of spending all the $$ on new tech? Why not keep keep all the Eagles, Hogs, Block 30 Vipers and bring back the Phantoms and Aardvarks? We need to justify the existence of all those 707 airframes! The Air Force is trying to fundamentally change the way we fight wars through technology. Remember reading about computers that were the size of your living room but had less power than a calculator, and how you have more processing power in your iPhone than what we had to put dudes on the moon? If 5th Gen fighter systems can eliminate the need for a swath of support assets, to include the associated personnel, I think we can maintain (or expand) our capability at a lower long-term cost with a smaller footprint. But you're right, we should keep doing things the same old way... I better get back to the vault!

Touche, man. You got me. When I stop flying at the rate I fly and lose the ability to earn a 20-year AD retirement, I'll believe we're out of money.

That's better. Thanks. I'm not so sure about the money argument. If money really was a problem, we'd continue the tiered readiness, have cut programs already, closed facilities, cut services,etc... This whole budget mess is about leveraging. No matter how much $$ DoD gets, all services are going to get a cut. The real challenge is convincing Congress how much of a cut we should get, driven by need. I think all DoD agrees the F-35 isn't going to fill the gap (sts) left by the Hog going away. The absence seems to be a glaring need that attracts DoD $$. The alternative is pouring more money into the A-10 at the detriment of future CAS capability. I believe the second alternative of abandoning a CAS platform is considered intolerable by the USA and USMC. As far as Fifth Gen, some stealth would be useful in a denied environment. At least a smaller radar cross section than the A-10. Speed, better G, better ECM, better data link capability (ability to talk to F-22 and F-35), appropriate busses for future weapons, etc... Then consider that passive a passive detection network that identifies and counters contemporary and emerging threats (think tactical SA-teens/twenties), identifies movers, collects ECM data, etc., eliminates the need for AWACS, JSTARS, and likely a bunch of stuff that I'm not even aware of. These are a just a few things that the 35 year-old platform lacks in what the AF leadership considers the future AOB/GOB. In regards to $$, what saves more, eliminating the A-10 and dealing with the repercussions of degraded CAS among the sister services, or getting a new CAS platform that eliminates the need for a host of support aircraft (E-3, E-8, HARMs, A/A cap, MQ-1/MQ-9, etc...)? Now factor in the reduction in associated reduced personnel costs... The AF is aware of its customers' needs. Heck, we did convoys in Iraq to justify our existence (stupid). I'm pretty sure the AF leadership realizes if we fail to provide A-10 level CAS, we're damaging our relevance. The AF is notorious radically responding to these budget "crises" in order to achieve their true objectives. We may not see a dedicated CAS platform in the inventory for a few years, but I suspect something is on the way/in development. This Cessna thing, which again, I heard about in 2009, might be it, especially if the cost is low and acquisition process is simplified. We didn't need smartphones until Apple told us we did. They created demand. By mothballing the A-10, the AF is creating demand for a Fifth-Gen CAS platform to replace the current 35 year-old jet. Simply saying the A-10 is old doesn't drive need. Forcing the issue by getting rid of the plane does, however. The money is out there. We will eventually buy new jets beyond F-35 and KC-46. The Air Force leadership might actually be thinking 15-20 years ahead of themselves by driving the need for a new CAS jet now, rather than continuing to fly the Hog for another 15 years. Or they might be really short-sighted idiots... BTW... This sums up just about every BO.net discussion. Thanks for keeping it real.

Wow. Insightful response. My bad. This is BO.net. Continue bitching...

Is it possible that by quickly mothballing the A-10 the Air Force is intentionally creating a capability gap to drive the purchase of a Fifth-Gen designated CAS airplane? In 2009 a buddy of mine was at Oshkosh and heard a Cessna higher-up talking to AF officials about building a new CAS jet. Well, this is that airplane. Congress would never pay for another new platform with the F-22 and F-35 debacles, and the outstanding performance of the A-10 as a CAS platform (no apparent "need" for a new jet). However, with all services screaming for a designated CAS airplane, and the desire of the Air Force to be all Fifth-Gen, this new Cessna jet is positioned very well to have a future. If all of this is intentional, it's genius negotiating strategy with Congress and the other services, assuming we don't have another ground war in the next 5 or so years.

Don't be a cop. If you want to be a pilot, SF is a total waste of time. Do something that relates to flying or combat. Air Traffic Control, JTAC, maintenance, weather, airfield management, enlisted aircrew, for example, will both contribute to your airmanship, and have marketable applications in the private world. No offense to law enforcement, but you can always be a cop. IMO, it's better to go in "open general" than guaranteed cop. I can't tell you how many airmen have said to me, "My boss wouldn't let me go to the Air Force Academy," or "I couldn't apply because I was deployed." These are total BS excuses for people who are more comfortable earning $25,000 a year living in the airman dorms, than doing something totally awesome with their lives. YOUR BOSS CAN'T STOP YOU FROM APPLYING, EVEN IF YOU ARE DEPLOYED! So, if you want to be a cop, be a cop. Your AFSC doesn't matter when applying to USAFA, deployed or not. Think about it, though, enlisting gives you an incredible opportunity to learn a marketable technical skill. Don't waste that opportunity. SAT/ACT requirements for getting into USAFA Prep are much lower than USAFA, as you take the SAT several times during your Preppie year. USAFA airmen slots regularly go unfilled for lack of applicants. It's pretty easy to get in to USAFA as an airman, as proven by my example. The airman-to-ROTC program is the real golden ticket. Last post on this topic. Good luck.

Since you can't receive PMs... I grew up wanting to go to USAFA and become a fighter pilot and eventually an airline pilot. After graduating from high school with a low GPA (too busy non-revving around the country on Dad's benefits to go to school), direct entry into USAFA wasn't possible, so I enlisted in the active duty (AD) Air Force as a security policeman. About a year after entering AD, I applied for and was accepted to the USAFA Prep School, eventually graduating from USAFA in 2001 and earning a fighter from UPT. After nearly 14 years, I left AD for the Guard and am still flying fighters on AGR status waiting to get a call from a major airline. So here's my two cents... 1. Maintain control of your life. Goals change, other opportunities come up, you learn things about your self you don't know now, etc... The AD UPT commitment is an entirely different 10 years than the ANG commitment. Just realize that once you commit to becoming an AD pilot, it's a 14-17 year proposition from where you are now. I HOPE you're a different person at 30 than you are now. My guess is your goals will be different too. Commit to becoming a pilot, but make sure you know the commitment requirements of each path. 2. Don't let "prestige" (it doesn't exist) drive your efforts. You'll become cynical. Take the most efficient route to achieving your goals. While I've had incredible experiences on AD, if I could do it again, I wouldn't go to USAFA (and won't recommend it to my kids). Instead, I would enlist in the ANG doing a job that aligns with my selected university major, then approach Ops about UPT boards approaching my junior year. OR, go ROTC at a nationally recognized school with a major that coincides with what I loved doing as a kid. Lots of good advice above, but I most agree with HU&W's post directly above mine. After doing grad school at Arizona (Tucson) I can't agree more with going to a great school with a great football team (the Wildcats were ranked at the time). Don't forget, this whole process SHOULD be fun. If it's not, you're doing it wrong.

Darth, is that you?!? Also enjoying a cold beverage. To those downrange, to the Black Eagles, to the Panthers, to the Dragons! Attack!

3

Dan, Are 80/20 loans still available in this market? I find it humorous that my bank is willing to loan me $50K for a new car (3.9% APR), but not $32K for an 80/20 (at a higher APR than the car). Thanks, Bryan

Ate there yesterday. The cashier told me they've been so busy since the incident that they ran out of food by 5 p.m. Thursday. Yesterday it was a 20 minute wait just to order (inside). Line for the drive-through was backed up through the El Con Mall parking lot to Broadway.

I'm separating next month... Yep, they move you to either your home of record or commissioning source, whichever is further. If you want to move somewhere further, you make up the difference. My separation orders say "Authorized all PCS Entitlements," or something to that effect.

It's called "learning." This same instructional technique is used at UPT. Earning your wings doesn't inaugurate you as a competent pilot-lots of learning yet to be done. Sounds like Flyboy instructs while practicing good CRM by not allowing a dangerous situation to develop. If he has the authority to take the jet, then he can do whatever he wants. I doubt the NFP ever takes the jet from Flyboy because the NFP never has a "Where the hell are you going?!?" moment. I see it all the time here at the FTU. Some FTU students (re: rated pilots) think they're past those useful techniques (NMAILMAN, WHOLDS, backing up the Vis St-In with the ILS/TACAN, etc) taught at UPT and end up getting lost (trying to land at KTUS instead of KDMA) or nearly doing something dangerous. While I can't take the jet from the student, it is humbling/embarrassing (re: they learn) to receive basic airmanship direction while airborne. Point made. Flailing + Learning = Airmanship.

Rainman, your professional success was very influential in my search for a career outside of airline flying. I was looking for a job similar to how you describe yours. So, with my USAFA diploma, MBA (sorry, U of AZ is the best program I do while teaching at the FTU), MA in International Relations (albeit, an online degree from Norwich), and ATP, I spent a year applying online, attending job fairs, and talking to recruiters for jobs that sound either similar to yours or entail a leadership development program (re: GE's JOLP). Short of earning an MBA at HBS or Wharton, attending WIC and retiring as an O-6, I think I've prepared well for leaving Active Duty. So, here's what I found: 1. Degrees mean nothing without experience. "You have an MBA? That's nice, but have you ever interned, done finance, used this-or-that analysis tool, or worked at a for-profit business?" I challenge anyone to "translate" those OPR bullets and proj-o experiences into something legitimately relevant to what you'll be expected to do in a $100-$120K entry position. Woe to the guy that "translates" well but can't actually do the job. 2. You are expected to work 60 hours a week (unless you work government contracts) . You are employed to make money for the shareholders. You will commute. You will take work home with you. You will travel (something I want to do). You will be away from your family (something I don't want to do). You will "PCS" (something I'm tired of doing). 3. Guard/Reserve flying is really not practical/compatible with anything besides airline pilot. Companies are very military friendly. Some companies, like Raytheon, even continue to pay your salary while you're deployed! But they also expect you to be at work. While I know a few that manage non-flying careers with Guard flying, it's tough. Either work or flying (or both) will suffer. Accenture and a few other DC-area firms seem cool with letting you off from work to fly, but I think a lot of that is having an understanding/cool boss. 4. The non-flying careers that are realistically attainable don't pass the "make me want to get out of bed" test. I would love to be a lawyer. However, at 35 with a young family, I'm not going to stop earning a livable income for three years in order to attend law school, then try to find a six-figure job where I'm not working 60 hours a week. However, after retiring from the ANG/AFRC, a part-time law program is compatible with an airline career. 5. All good jobs require networking. If networking isn't possible, then you need luck. There are thousands of equally qualified people all competing for the good jobs. IMO, "fighter pilot" is a conversation piece, not a golden ticket to six-figure employment. 6. Don't spin your wheels during the job hunt-find traction. Just as successful companies do, align your talents, skills, and core competencies with corporate objectives. Professional flying is, IMO, the "best fit" of my skills and business objectives of a corporation. 7. Luck and timing are everything. Being at the "right" career fair, sitting next to the "right" connection on an 2-hour flight, etc... is all luck. On the airline side of that coin, I know that the post-9/11 furloughs killed a lot of airline careers. Hopefully this predicted hiring wave will yield better luck. I'm surprised by all the airline skeptics. There are career opportunities for Air Force pilots besides airline flying, but I think some of the accounts given on this board are very unique. The reality is, to earn a comparable living outside of flying you have to learn a new skill, take an entry-level job (pay cut), or be prepared to work very hard doing something more related to your current additional duty than flying airplanes. Rainman, please tell us what you actually do for a living and how you got there.

No. I don't know you got out. Why should I know that? My decision matrix is set-I'm out next month. And I'm not a young pup. And I'm not naive. Yeah, holding a reserve line sucks-watched my dad do it for a few years. Got it. But regardless of whatever airline you're at, I suspect that when hiring kicks in, you'll be very satisfied with your decision to punch as your seniority number quickly rises. I'm fully aware, as should any "young pup" that's done their research, that life can be tough with a relatively low seniority number. I'm not worried about today or even ten years from now. I'm looking forward to life at 50, when my kids are in high school/college and I'm able to hold a pretty good line. My estimation is that those able to get hired in the next few years will have a pretty satisfying airline career. Let's hope I'm right. Deep breath... Yawn... how many "Dude, relax" colloquialisms can we use in one thread? Very few guys recommend an airline career to the "young pups?" Seriously? Where do you work? Every active pilot I know at a major is very positive about their career.

I agree. I agree. Airline executives will (should) always look for ways to legally minimize costs and maximize profits. It's their moral obligation to shareholders to generate free cash flow. I agree. Show me one single unionized industry that doesn't have labor/management "fights." I'd like to know how you quantify that management is "winning," however. Getting hired at a major isn't about ATP, company mins, etc... Either you have them or you don't. Like all jobs, getting on at a major is about making connections and having people advocate for you (some people's rationale for doing the FW/CC Exec gig). Otherwise, you're just a resume in a stack of thousands. Why don't you join me at the career fair in Vegas 1 Aug? Fed Ex, Delta, you name it, recruiting teams will all be there. In case you don't know, meeting recruiters is how you get a job at GE, Amazon, Accenture, whereever... Why should it be different for a highly sought after pilot job at a major airline? Delta 777 CAs were making $300/hour (2001 dollars, more spending power than today) on 9/10/01. Today they make $235/hour (about $250K per year). I'm aware the industry is in decline in that regard (I wonder how financially lucrative "medical doctor" will be in a few years). Tell me where I can make that while working a maximum of 100 hours per month. Sure, you're gone from home a few days a week, but show me an equivalent salaried job that *works* only 100 hours per month, doesn't travel, and is home every night at 5 to coach football. I'm going after the airline gig not for money, but for the lifestyle. I'd rather be there to coach 2 days a week than never! Sure, I could make more money... if I sold my life and family to some salaried corporate job... And don't get me going on "starting your own business." Numbers are numbers. I haven't sugar coated or cherry-picked any of them. Heck, I may never fly for a major, but I think the risk of not getting hired is much smaller than the chance of landing an awesome, relatively stable career at this point in the history of the industry. BTW, based on the discussion within this forum, do I understand it correctly that only airline pilots lose jobs if the economy tanks or oil skyrockets or terrorists fly planes into buildings? Yeah, other sector junior/not top-producing employees lose their jobs too ("Work harder, work faster!"). I guess the only "right" answer is to stay in the Air Force as long as possible, then maybe a land a sim operator or commissary bagger job...