HeyWatchThis
-
Posts
233 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Blogs
Downloads
Wiki
Posts posted by HeyWatchThis
-
-
Looks like AFRC just jumped on the OCP band wagon....we are ordering the 2 pieces to completely replace our tan flight suits...supposedly we are are eventually going to replace the green bags with these things as well...
Does anyone else feel a bit pissed (might be a strong word) about losing the bag and just blending in with everyone else? A part of me feels like this is a hidden big win for the shoes who hate the fact that aircrew get something they don't....
-
On 12/17/2017 at 10:37 AM, va121mir said:
From what I gathered out of the AFRC A3RB sharepoint is that now they are doing the TDART program which goes like this: OTS, IFS, UPT, IFF, B course, Land Survival, Water survival, then they give you ~140 days of orders (to get you PCS'd to the unit). After that they hire you on (overhire position) for 4 years as an ART. You start at a GS9 then hit GS11 after 300 hrs, and then GS13 after 1000 hrs. I'm not sure if they are counting all your flight hours or just mil. So the end result is you are full time for 6 years from the beginning of your formal training (OTS, UPT, IFS depending on where you start) but you get paid less than you would be if you were on orders... This program is voluntary according to the policy memo dated 1 dec 16. This seems to be an AFRC only thing. Not sure what the guard is doing.
Details are on the A3RB sharepoint under 340 FTG link.
Interesting...I was told that "forced ART" program died when they realized they couldn't legally force someone to stay in a civilian job....
To add to the confusion our unit has been cutting 7 month Prog tours (granted we are a heavy unit though)...
-
23 hours ago, Champ Kind said:
For you guys maxing our your TSP contributions are you also doing so with your Roth IRAs?
Meaning maxing the Roth/Traditional TSP and a spousal Roth?
-
On 12/29/2017 at 9:29 PM, FUSEPLUG said:
So are these taskings going to full-timers? Part-timers? Either?
Either as far as I know..... it hits the wing/squadron and they decide from there who fills it....
-
20 hours ago, SocialD said:
Not all that new, but like Evil said, it's not made it's way to Ops or MX yet. This is in the Guard...I've heard it's already made it to OPS in the AF Reserve.
Yup, and they think they have a pilot shortage problem now! Just wait until they start telling guys they're going to take a $100k paycut to go build powerpoint slides/fight off being cheifed at the Deid. I'm guessing we'd lose ~25% (minimum) of the squadron over night, if this shit started.
I can confirm it is happening in the reserves. Travis got 5 deployments and lost 6 dudes because of it who turned paperwork in...WP just got one as well....
Here's the even better thing about them...they are calling them "emergent" taskings which means they can drop them on wings/squadrons whenever they want.....Meaning the deployments don't even have to fall during the wing/squadrons deployment window....Makes life planning fantastic....Already heard multiple guys discussing dropping paperwork before hitting 20 yrs because of this....
-
1
-
-
16 hours ago, matmacwc said:
I've seen forced group mobilization (Bama ANG, but they earned F-35's out of it) but never individuals unless they ask. A big shooting match would probably change the entire dynamic.
3 hours ago, SocialD said:Well technically speaking, all our deployments, including TSPs, are group involuntary mobilizations (not just Bama). However, not every pilot is required to go, we just have to fill the trip, which could even come from outside help. The individual just gets to decide if they want to go voluntary or involuntary...which is like picking between the fat one or the the ugly one (wrt to benefits received).
Also, if you look outside of ops, there are actually quite a few individual involuntary mobilizations. We've recently had troops from Supply, Medical, CE and likely soon a Chief, get mobilized for 6 months to a year. On the plus side, they leave it up to the base to decide who goes from that section, and they're usually filled with a volunteer.
Is this something fairly new (individual involuntary mobilization?) for the guard/reserve? I thought the whole point of a mobilization was so it wasn't easy for AD to Chuck the grenade over the fence at the guard/reserve which is why they are "supposed" to mobilize squadrons/wings and not individuals. Its suppose to be a last option that is costly and weighed heavily...I've been wrong once before though...
-
10 hours ago, ThreeHoler said:
If you return to ETAR before midnight (same day) the you stay on ETAR per diem.
Technique: never file quick turns in DTS.We never use to file quick turns however our finance is trying to force us to because we have a GS06 running around claiming we are committing fraud by not claiming a quick turn location that we land at after crossing 2400 even though we return to Europe for crew rest that same day. The GS06 is basing her info supposedly from being told by some 3 letter (so, what a GS15 maybe??) at AFRC that has taken it upon herself to interpret the JTR paragraph as the next place we land or where we are at at 2400.
-
22 hours ago, ThreeHoler said:
It is where you are physically on a calendar day (after 2400). It has been that way for years.
Examples:
Leave US and land past midnight at Ramstein. You get 75% ETAR per diem for the first day and ETAR per diem the next day. You leave ETAR before midnight and land Khar the next day you get Khar per diem.Even if we return to ETAR the same day as Khar? It seems to be 50/50 on people I ask....Problem it is causing us is it just gives our TR's more ammo to not fly trips and stick with their airline trips because now we get to tell them they get Khar per-diem when they are staying in ETAR for the night.....
-
I posted a similar thread over on the general forum (see below) but in light of new info I wanted to post it here. We are being told that AFRC, and AFRC alone has interpreted the following JTR paragraph 0203 "Per diem allowance rates are based on the TDY location, stopover point, or other authorized official duty points, but not on lodging location. Ordinarily per diem is based on a travellers TDY location at 2400 hours (midnight)" as meaning that if we are on an out and back from Ramstein to say, Kandahar, if we cross midnight while enroute to Kandahar/Bagram, etc or while on the ground at Kandahar that we get Kandahar per diem even though we are returning to Ramstein for crew rest (Kandahar is $12.50/day vs Ramstein at ~$109/day so our guys are being forced to buy food at Ramstein pricing on Kandahar perdiem).
Are other reserve units doing this? It's causing some guys to get an increase in per-diem where they aren't supposed too (and are afraid its going to come back and bite them) and it's causing others to not get paid per-diem for locations where we are actually staying the night...
Is @Finance_Guy still on here?
)
-
To my knowledge that bonus list isn't the ONLY bonus docs are eligible for either. Board certified for example gets another bonus too I believe....
-
-
23 hours ago, ThreeHoler said:
Start by reading the JTR.
Trust me I have....been doing it for 2 days now.....this person has read paragraph 0203 that says "Per diem allowance rates are based on the TDY location, stopover point, or other authorized official duty points, but not on lodging location. Ordinarily per diem is based on a travellers TDY location at 2400 hours (midnight)." and taken it as law and it being the ONLY option for perdiem....
I've found the tables in Chapter 2 that further explain per diem being based on stop.over/tdy location....
At this point I'm trying to gather as much ammo for leadership as possible hence the thread post...
-
Quick question and I apologize if this had been covered before....
We are being told the "New" definition of a stop over point now forced you to get Per diem for where the jet is at midnight not where you crew rest...
In point we have a trip where we drop into Guam to pick up pax, etc (cross midnight while doing so) and them go on to Hawaii for crew rest. Our good idea fairy in the FM shop wants us to get Guam Per diem instead of Hawaii where we are crew resting...
Are we missing something here? Is this happening to other squadrons? To us it doesn't make any sense......we should be getting Per diem based on where we pay for a hotel, food, etc?
-
On 11/3/2017 at 4:19 PM, LookieRookie said:
Yea I'm talking about ARTs. The WG/CC just had to certify every year for the continued need for the Retention Incentive.
As for the new GS-2181-XX SSR, AFRC sent that to OPM early this year with AFRC/CCs signature so who knows where that is.
Well I guess we can hope that when the new pay tables release in Jan. we might get a bit of good news. I don't think we got the four year deal as it was explained to us that we were only getting this 25% for one year while they get the permanent raise pushed thru. Sadly for us we will lose ~7% because if the permanent raise is just simply pulling locality out of the 30% pilot increase our locality is only 17ish%......
-
46 minutes ago, SocialD said:
Lol, just because they cut the "slots," doesn't mean they're not short on manning. Now if they cut the aircraft/crew ratio, which I think the heavies did a few years back, then it make sense (kinda)...
They've been stringing people along since I can remember. Many took the bait, but it was easy to see through their bullshit. To their credit things have improved dramatically since 2011-2012ish. Back then they wanted me to go from a 10+ year Captain on ADOS orders to a GS-12 step 1 (take it or leave it)...for those that haven't look at the number, that's a pretty decent pay cut. Now they're bringing guys right off seasoning days (non-IP) into GS-13s spots.
Then they offered a tech bonus for all my friends...no wait, what we meant to say was, it's for IPs near 1500 hours. LOL!
I've also been hearing about a part timer bonus for a 3ish years now. But in all honesty, a 5k/yr bonus isn't going to do much to keep me around after 20, so it probably would be a waste of tax payer dollars. I can make more than that by picking up a single 3 day trip, in a year. I'll also lose more than that, per month that I'm on orders, to deploy yet again...to do nothing...
That must be guard because AFRC is still GS-12 or lower unless you are an IP
-
On 10/30/2017 at 5:31 PM, matmacwc said:
Holy balls, if you don't commission soon can you even get a "good" 20 years in? My ANG unit kicks out the ART's at 54.
And here we are extending guys 4 years to 58 or 60 or whatever oldest you can be is lol
-
Just now, LookieRookie said:
Why did they only do 1 year? Bomber guys do 4 years.
No clue.....I didn't know that was an option....this particular bonus is a retention bonus on the civilian side, not military if that makes a difference.... SUPPOSEDLY they are/were going to update our pay tables with OPM but it has been radio silence on that front for a year now...most have simply lost faith and the few of us that were holding out hoping someone would pull their head out of their ass and actually do SOMETHING decent have started researching airline options since Big Blue even on the AFRC side seems unable and/or refuses to genuinely attempt to close the pay gap...
To further stoke the fire I have heard both personnel and wing leadership mutter why we even have the bonus since nobody is staying anyway....to me that means you haven't offered ENOUGH, not go the opposite direction and think we should just cut the bonus out.....but sadly that mindset doesn't surprise me from a Big Blue perspective...
-
On 10/26/2017 at 6:42 AM, SocialD said:
Im not sure about others, but my squadron can't even keep our full time spots filled. No shortage of guys trying to show up off AD, just shortage of part timers willing to take AGR/Technician jobs. I can't imagine this will help much.
Same with ours so AFRC's brilliant solution was to cut all the open slots and voila! we no longer have any shortages (I wish I was kidding)......
That has now left us wondering if the 1 year 25% bonus they gave ARTs as a "stop gap" while they attempted to fix some of the pay discrepancies is going to disappear as well since you know, we don't have a "shortage" anymore....
-
On 10/13/2017 at 1:09 AM, MooseAg03 said:
Not sure about the AirBNB question, but there are several pilot crash pad choices here now. They are set up to provide lodging invoices, and yes you are entitled to $60/day if you choose to go off base. I was on base for 3 days and they put me in old ass lodging with a mini fridge and microwave so I checked out and went to a crash pad.
If you fly into OKC, I’d say people would be renting a car at that point. They used to have a shuttle from the Lawton airport to Altus, but I doubt that exists from OKC. If you’re off base, you need a car anyways, so I’m not following your logic.I thought they were putting "meals available" on Altus orders....So if you elect to go off base you still get the $60/day vs if you opt to stay on base you get the "meals available"rate which is what $20 or something?
-
Are you talking about the 5 yr USERRA clock?
-
On 5/28/2017 at 3:25 PM, gearpig said:
He must not have known that it was "wear whatever you want" day.
Sorry man but my standard issue Bellvilles were like wearing a brick strapped to a barge on each foot. I'll stick with my Rocky Sv2's that actually perform like a boot should....
This same guy also threw a fit over people not wearing issued sun glasses....
Needless to say the morale within the T1 squadron on both the studs and IPs was horrid under this guy.....
-
2
-
-
10 hours ago, Lstcause257 said:
If you are flying the need to be on the safe to fly list. There is rumor that a sq/cc failed a new IP on his very for having boots that were not on the safe to fly list.
Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkThat place is a bastion of outstanding leadership.. I was tehre in 13/14 (yep with Hastings as the wing king) and the T1 DO was doing boot checks at the step desk on studs/IP's and turning them back if they didn't have "flight approved" boots....
-
On 5/18/2017 at 6:44 AM, Homestar said:
That stupid online booking tool only exists to provide mandatory preferential treatment to hotel chains that have paid to play with DoD. The taxi lobby must also be strong in D.C. because I am now supposed to check that taking a cab 25 miles to the airport and 25 miles back to my house is cheaper than paying long term parking.
That was my biggest problem with it....we don't book ANYTHING thru DTS so to slip some weak ass "catch all" claiming the condos/houses aren't up to fire code is asinine.......
-
2
-
-
Look at the newest gem the AF is hinging on to force us into the roach motels (attached and copied below in case the attachment doesn't work):
So now we can't stay in Airbnb/crash pads because they weren't booked in DTS nor are they fire compliant. Who the $%*& is leading this push against us staying in decent places?
Anybody else getting this letter in an email accompanied with the statement that the Air Force has to reimburse you but you will now be punished by your commander if you elect to stay in these places?
MEMORANDUM FOR ALMAJCOM-FOA-DRU COMPTROLLERS
AFIMSC/RM
ALL WING AND SQUADRON COMPTROLLERS
FROM: SAF/FMFC (AFAFO)
SUBJECT: Lodging Reimbursement (Clarifying Guidance for AirBnB/Similar Lodging)
Recent discussions regarding methods used for obtaining or reserving specific type lodging have caused confusion regarding the payment of claims. Some Airmen have acquired lodging outside of JTR mandated means or deemed to be not “suitable commercial lodging”, resulting in the need for further policy clarification for proper payment. There are several JTR references pertaining to AirBnB or similar type lodging that travelers and travel program administrators should be aware of...below narrative is from
SAF/MRM and was coordinated with SAF/GCA and PDTATAC:
1. Online Booking Tool to Rent Private Residences for Short Term Lodging (Par. 4130-L): These accommodations are not commercial lodgings and travelers are not to use them (do not meet fire standards and are classified as “non-conventional lodging”). These are only authorized in the event of lodging shortages in a specific location.
2. Use of Defense Travel System (DTS) or Travel Management Company (TMC) (Pars. 4130-A4,A5); Fee Reimbursement (Par. 2830-G): DoD travelers are required to make commercial lodging arrangements through DTS/TMC unless exceptions apply. If a traveler does not have an exception and fails to use DTS/TMC, the traveler is authorized the actual and necessary costs of lodging but is personally responsible for any excess costs such as service fees, booking fees, etc.
3. Suitable Commercial Lodging (Pars. 4155-A, 4250-B): Travelers are responsible for ensuring lodging is safe, secure and within reasonable proximity to the TDY location. According to General Services Agency (GSA) guidance, expenses are payable (actual or limited to proper locality or flat rate) even if traveler failed to acquire suitable commercial lodging.
Bottom line, a traveler’s failure to follow JTR guidance that requires use of DTS/TMC or suitable commercial lodging is not a reason to deny reimbursement. Appropriate disciplinary action by Commanders is expected for traveler’s failure to follow the regulatory guidance. Request widest dissemination to allow Airmen to make proper decisions IAW JTR while obtaining lodging. If a traveler was previously denied payment, they should file a supplemental travel claim via AFFSC. Depending on assignment level, questions should be directed to local Financial Services Office, AFIMSC Det, HQ AFIMSC or SAF/FMFC (AFAFO).
Eric I. Cuebas
Director, Air Force Accounting &
Finance Office
-
1
-
ARC seasoning day orders drastically cut?
in Air National Guard / Air Force Reserves
Posted
That's what is confusing me....we (an AFRC unit) were told that this idea died on the planning table because they realized they couldn't force someone to stay in a civilian job. I'm not sure if some wings are making it a handshake requirement or whatever but to my knowledge the original proposal at the headquarter level that had UPT hopefuls signing a contract saying they would be ARTs for 6 years after prog went away when the legalities of that demand were examined....