hindsight2020
-
Posts
1,003 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
21
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Blogs
Downloads
Wiki
Posts posted by hindsight2020
-
-
1 hour ago, tac airlifter said:
I did indoc on personal leave, got a line number and waited a few months for SIMs before starting terminal. Not at Delta though, they're hard up about it.
A big draw to early CJO is that some people will be less competitive immediately before separation due to loss of currency 12 months earlier. The AF has been known to fuck people getting out by taking them off the line.
dayum, regAF is extra petty. If that's the level of toxicity I stand corrected then, that's a good caveat.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, jice said:
And oh by the way… they’ve also got a CJO for you 2 years prior to your separation date… so, yeah.
And? What I mean is, by that metric, Walmart has a CJO for me 2 years from separation date too, and I don't even have to apply for that one. It's not the draw you think it is.
Now, let me sit day one of indoc on personal leave, grab that line number and come back in 2 years, now you got my attention.
-
1
-
-
10 hours ago, Chida said:
In this case you will receive a regular retirement as an O-5 (plus the 1405 points you received as a DSG when you re-retire from the guard). At age 60 (or RRPA) you may apply for a reserve retirement as an O-6.
He's not asking about retirement orders, he's asking about what pay tables are used to calculate his high-36 for the active retirement. It's stipulated his active retirement order will say O-5, but that doesn't answer what the high-36 months for the active retirement are.To wit, I know plenty of O-5 bums/troughers who sloooowly piecemealed their way into 7305 AD points, separating out of Active duty many years before as O-4s. By your logic, their active retirements in AFRC would be calculated using 36 months of O-4 tables because that's the grade their active retirement order will have published. That is not correct.ETA: #oof. I stand corrected. According to section 1407, the provisions of retired pay high 36 month calculations of a Regular retirement and a non-Regular retirement are different. 10USC1407(c) and (d) respectively. You can count months in active duty status towards a non-regular retire high 36 calc, but you can't count months in non-active duty status for the regular retire high 36 calc.
Looks like it doesn't really pay to stay past 20 active in the ARC as a TR just to seek a higher grade month, if all it gets me is 500 bucks more....at age 60. womp womp. Learned something new today!
-
Again, if you pinned on in 2019 you already have TIG for O-5 for grey zone accrual considerations. active duty service in that grade is not required.
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, Guardian said:
If his retirement is a 20 year active duty retirement you have to do the time in your final grade on active orders.
I think we're conflating things. For the vanity shadow box yes. For the jelly of the month club? That is not how retired pay is calculated under the High-36 Plan for an active retirement. According to the DoD retirement page: Defined Benefit that equals 2.5% times the number of years of service times the average of the member’s highest 36 months of basic pay.
It makes no such stipulation that the member's qualifying "months of basic pay" occurred in active status. It's just that regAF folks consider that a given. But that isn't a given for Reservists who do attain Active Retirements.
To get the the piece of paper saying you're active retired in the grade of O-5, yes you'd have to get 3 years of AD as an O-5, otherwise the paper says O-4.
-
That doesn't seem right. Being on MPA shouldn't matter. Once he pinned on in 2019 that's valid TIG, regardless of status. He's got more than 3 years.
-
6 is standardish for afrc fighter or upt. Which is to say, 8 would be an outlier footprint for a heavy unit, even in afrc (and by extension, almost always tfi).
-
That's tame compared to Bent Spear '07 for that base. That place is...radioactive.
I'm here all week good night!!! *badum tsk* 😄
-
1
-
2
-
-
I had 6% with HSBC as recently as 2005, didn't last long. I'll take whatever I can get, but I don't expect these high yield saving accounts to persist for a decade or two, like I'd need to in order to amass the kind of retirement-expediting increases I'd need. But yes, been eyeballing Amex savings since I already use them as a primary grocery getter. Chase is doing nothing for my war chest right now.
-
Military "BOP" lol.
...and my exwife told me she loved me too. 😄
-
4
-
4
-
-
On 2/19/2023 at 10:02 AM, brabus said:
I certainly had a far better QOL as an AGR than on AD, but it’s still a full time mil job. My experience is as a fighter guy, maybe it’s different in other communities.
It is different. 11Fs have the highest participation/readiness yearly commitments out there, by far. It's a lot of tasks to stay proficient on (11F DSG participation requirements) and still handle the squadron qweep (full timer 11F). Other AFSC don't have the same burden. As such, no one size fits all.
Also forget AGRs, they're not statistically representative of [officer pilot] full timer life, ARTs are. I've worked with heavy AFSC ARTs, those guys are homesteading more than your DSGs, though there is no reason an 11F ART would be principally encumbered by operation deny Xmas TSPs. A cursory understanding of 10 USC 10216 (1)(c) and (3) makes that patently clear. They're not AGRs; they're not meant to [generally] deploy. A lot of people don't understand title V.
ART is not all concessions like it's always portrayed, and I say that as an AGR mind you. The problem for ARTs in the 11F variant isn't statutory, it's always been medical. An ART can make it to 57-[MPA90 x n] no sweat as an 11M; as an 11F in continuous 1A status? Not really. That's where the mileages diverge, even after acknowledging what @SocialD has already brought up as the primary objections by the peanut gallery: people getting tired of the groundhog day aspect of full time support.
And now back to "debating" the merits of taking a regAF AvB 🤭
-
7 hours ago, brabus said:
Ha! I’m glad this bullshit is finally getting the attention it deserves.
Don't be a playa hata. Those air medal commendations aren't gonna write themselves. A kill's a kill homey. 😄
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, Chida said:
4Fans:
That'd be a "why" question, but I'll take a stab. Based on what I've observed over 10 years as a reserve/guard, it is now clear to me that RegAF 1. does not "like" the part-time ARC and would rather it not be a thing, 2. Has never gotten on board with the idea that ARC members rate a retirement (or anything, really). As a result nothing has ever fundamentally changed and nothing will change, I predict.
Witness Congress over the years repeatedly tell DOD to fix the ARC's systemic problems, and what happens? Study after study, making Rand rich, but no hint of systemic change ever happens, just more band-aids.
Examples: 1. Early in the GWOT RegAF complained that it was "hard" to access reserves for their purposes. DOD came up with yet another duty status called ADOS (we're now up to 30 duty statuses, BTW). RegAF worried that Reserves would then easily stay on ADOS their whole career and then get a Regular retirement. The 1095 rule was born--1095 was supposed to be tied to a position, but having no mechanism for tracking this, they tied it to the person, the added benefit being that they could deny a regular retirement to individuals (for the most part). Navy & Army are much more aggressive than AF when it comes to a concerted effort to deny.
2. AFRES has been talking for YEARS about reforming basic functions such as UTAPS and AROWS, yet all they have are excuses as to why they cannot.
3. DOD whined about medical readiness in the reserve. Congress responded with making Tricare and Tricare Dental available to reservists. DOD opposed this.
4. AFRES's record-keeping system for reserve points was basically non-existent. The effect was that reservists would apply for retirement and then have to prove their service. If unable, AFRES would deny the retirement. Congress responded with a band-aid fix of mandating PCARS and issuance of the 20-yr letter which could not be revoked. AFRES opposed this idea and watered it down to include an out for themselves: "the number of years of creditable service and retirement points upon which retired pay is computed may be adjusted to correct any error." Ergo, the onus is ultimately still on the reservist, potentially, to prove his service.
5. When I first entered the SELRES I asked many benefit questions to the finance/personnelists both at my group and ARPC. I received virtually no information and the information I did receive was littered with errors/outright wrong. I concluded that these people didn't know and didn't care because they were full-timers (whether ART or AGR or attempting a Regular retirement) and it didn't affect them. It became quite obvious to me that I would need to find answers on my own starting with title 10 and go from there because the AFIs themselves are littered with errors.
6. BLAB: RegAF runs the show, does not care about the ARC, and any attempts at reform point to the desire of RegAF and ARC Full-timers to just do away with the entire concept of a part-time force because it's pesky to them. This explains the constant drum beat of "we're an operational reserve." It also explains the constant push to get rid of IRR participation (achieved by AFRES except for ALO and CAP-RAP--but they're working on it), points for correspondence courses (achieved by the Army), and the absolute disaster that the IMA program is currently devolving into, sped along by the so-called "IMA Strategic Review Team." Basically the AF wants people on active duty or not on active duty, but can't seem to get there because of their desire to deny benefits in the name of saving money.
Excellent summation of the historical problems of the ARC, especially the AD-Lite subset (AFRC) within it. I will say, regAF has always struggled with the concept of strategic reserve, and they certainly made a mockery of it during our foreign excursions to Iraq and AFG in the prior 20 years.
It is also absolutely the case that for upper management, this all has always boiled down to a contemptuous affair singularly devoted to shorting people a retirement and benefits. No different than a private corporation attempting to minimize legacy labor costs. It's just that it's viewed with greater skepticism to suggest government managers to be engaging in such attempts at govt sanctioned wage theft, since it's not a for profit organization. Given the sacrifices and opportunity costs @FourFans130 already spoke about (and personally resonates with me, especially the impacts my service had on my ability to even make a family in the first place, and I'll save the details in the interest of my 5th), it becomes insult to injury since, while on status, we're not free to just quit like civilians can.
As to regAF, it has always been a rank cake and eat it too, hypocritical organization. Bitch bitch bitch about folks leaving over an "up or out" management focus on promotions whilst the rank and file favor "tactical technician" track careers, which are anathema to regAF (and the reason I never did bother with regaf). But then they turn around and systemically kvetch about the ARC's existence writ large, which @Chida post expanded on in detail. I've always told the Alzheimer's ward that is the AvBonus thread: regAF doesn't care about money, they care about control. If they short you money that's a twofer. That's why they won't barter with their chattel even if it saves them money. The money is secondary to them: They want to control and throttle your time, in a way that suits them. That's why they hate Reservists, they've always found our legal ability to say no and leave money on the table for the sake of our lives (the very premise over reserve service as promised on the brochures mind you), too uppity for their liking.
-
1
-
-
6 hours ago, av8tor55 said:
Your retirement pay is based on your High-3, highest 36 months of basic pay. So if you did 18 months of O-4, and 18 of O-5, it would be an average of the two. The rank on your retirement ID is dependent on if you did 3 years TIG at that rank.That's AGR/regAF retirement, not TR/DSG. For a TR/DSG retirement, the grey area (time during retired reserve, aka the grey years, which usually top most people out at 30) payscale longevity accrual is based on retired grade, which would be O-4 for an O-5 without 3 year TIG. See chida's response. As such, that's why this mickey mouse business about TIG potato has always been centric to TRs, not AGRs or regAF (a mere vanity on paperwork for the latter two).
break break
According to Army sources, TR O-4s should still be golden on 6 months TIG. Typical of the DoD: WTFK
ETA: Just saw Dec 2021, not 22. Perhaps the latest change made the inclusion of non-regular retirement retired grades.
-
1
-
-
6 hours ago, filthy_liar said:
I don't think Danger has combat cred inadequacies. I think he's a badass that has done badass stuff. And I appreciate him posting his stories here.
I never said he did, you inferred that. I said I did.
5 hours ago, Danger41 said:With all your PIT and UPT experience I’m 100% certain you’ve had more risk to life and limb than I did in all my deployments.
Not where I was going with it, but you are probably correct, statistically speaking. 2,586 instructional sorties as of last week... with an ASD of 1.14 #oof. 3,100 IP/SEFE combined AETC hours, 2,100 or which are in the fatality-laden MDS in question. 4,200 total AF time, if you add the grey jet time. And still 4.5 years of flying duty to go to active retirement.
So yeah, that's a lot of fingertip at 2-4* bills (*you'll have to wait til my retirement to hear the declass number lol). Fair amount of close calls, To say nothing of all the funerals of direct co-workers(2), and students (2) in the last 6 years than I care to share on this message board.
I just wanted to clarify I was not being facetious about your combat story. I meant it unironically when I said it is a BAMF anecdote. I'm just a REMF living vicariously by comparison. The only thing I was mocking was my own career (I've earned that right after all). Apologies for any confusion, inflection in humor doesn't always land in written format. Cheers. 🍺
-
1
-
-
BAMF story. Good thing I dealt with my combat cred inadequacies years ago. To wit, and take a page from a certain POTUS:
Tumon Bay was my Vietnam.
-
1
-
-
the real question is, is it ADSB-out compliant? Otherwise someone call the FSDO, they're prob not busy seeing as they don't accept walk-ins for IACRA CFI renewals.... 😄
-
3
-
1
-
-
26 minutes ago, cooterscout said:
Seems like the community is the most supportive of someone trying to be their best in life, professionally and otherwise.
-
9
-
3
-
-
20 minutes ago, filthy_liar said:
I guess I am out of touch with some of the posters on here. People who are on the lower income spectrum find every single excuse in the book to not go to work. The system allows them to do that, and they take advantage of it.
Don't look now, but you just described every fvcking airline pilot I've ever worked with. Talk about schemers, grey collar workers is the demographic bullseye of that remark my friend. 😄
-
3
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, HuggyU2 said:
You're right. And I don't know why you think I'm butt-hurt by it. I simply pointed out that... based on my experiences in both worlds... he hadn't seen it from both sides and wasn't in a position to make a valid observation. No emotion here. I don't know Brabus but have enjoyed reading his posts for many years.
If your questions, Hindsight, are aimed at me, I'm sorry but I'm not willing to discuss the specifics of this event or my opinions on it.
p.s. "notch/autochaff"? Know your audience. I'm a U-2 guy. In a defensive scenario, we put our fingers in our ears so the explosion of the missile impact doesn't give us hearing loss... which could affect our future airline employment.
Maybe it's the written format on the forums, that makes inflection/tone difficult to put together. Apologies if I misread the incorrect inflection.
Yeah my question was merely posted in the interest of keeping the conversation going for everybody; though I was genuinely interested in your perspective, since I know you're closer to the CAF than most on here. No worries though, I copy loud and clear you're not willing to discuss further. Cheers 🍺
-
1
-
-
I really don't think he meant anything by it Huggy, no need for the notch/auto-chaff. I know this sub-sector of the hobby is close to your vest.
Back to the point, the question I would pose is: would the airboss' actions, especially the audible to shackle show lanes while co-altitude with both elements flying trail internally, be considered "customary" to the organization and/or other airbosses writ large?
I think that is a point of exploration that can shine a light on accepted practices, inside or outside CAF. One that could also lead to potential re-evaluation or tightening, in the furtherance of safety. It may be too late for all we know, but that will be for the regulators and the insurance market to adjudicate, as I've pointed out in the past.
I continue to hold my position that to home-on-jam on Hutain's individual execution within this audible, is reductive to a fault. But that's just one man's opinion.
Everybody stay safe out there. 🤙
-
22 hours ago, BashiChuni said:
yeah you shouldn't consider it the career totally sucks i wish i was still on AD getting treated well
Not at all what i said, ill leave ya to your usual strawmen.
23 hours ago, SocialD said:To your last point. This year, I averaged 8-9 days worked and 3 nights away per month while averaging ~100 hours/month of pay. I recently went on activation orders and now I'm working twice as much, while making 50% of what I was making (I'm a 21 year O-5)...that's some smeared glitter lol.
I'm not advocating for regAF by daring to make a critical comment about 121 work rules on this regAF-hating echo chamber. I'm not even regAF, and my career lifetime paycut (indexed to a job I've never intended to pursue as primary payer mind you) has been a matter of public record for 17 years now. Theres really no need for that whataboutism.
Tbh, if you've tactically vol-mildropped or vol-mloa at any point in your 121 stint, you aren't really in a position to get defensive about JA et al existing in your cba. i dont care how crappy the work pay ratio is at .mil either, as people recognize pay is not the feature behind chasing mildrop or MLOA.
if JA isn't a real threat at DL, that's excellent news. It shouldn't be at all at any outfit paying top 10% US individual income; which was my actual point, before it got strawmanned to hell. BL it's reality at swa though, based on what i witness at work (plurality swa cohort).
I just find it a bit unbecoming one has to feign sickness or hide behind the Uniform in order to not be treated like a sonic carhop 5 minutes late to a $11/hr shift. Frankly id take the 11 bucks in lieu of 220, if they threw in not treating me like i didnt just flew 150 people and brought everything back in one piece. But that's my "future retiree" privilege talking, which I of course wont apologize for and fully own. To each their own as we say.
Back to lurking mode on this one. Happy new year!
-
I used to think JA (or equivalent terminology) was only an FFD carrier dynamic. Do all airlines effectively have JA work provisions? Kinda smears the glitter off the airline humblebrag about days off....
-
1
-
-
56 minutes ago, Clark Griswold said:
Did not know that.
Quite possible
Get out your check book AF and you can fix this
1 - Hire for 2 year contracts ER / other aviation colleges grads for two year contracts or 750 training sorties. Incentivize timely production. 100k student loan repayment upon completion and with housing provided, pay per flight hour avg FO pay at an LCC.
2 - Offer 2-3 year MPA tours with 50k bonus per year as long TDYs to Guard and Reserve
3 - Recruit Army WO pilots
You have the money in MILPERS, stop being miserly, if you wanna catch fish sometimes you just need more/better bait
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalkoccams razor fellas....
Your assumption of the problem is inaccurate, your suggestions are thus moot. To wit, we dont have a shortage of IPs in AETC. RegAf mismanages their bodies on qweep, but lack of bodies we do not have, for the status quo production. The point of replacing us green suiters with blue suiters is straight up DoD wanting to short labor costs, especially legacy costs such as retirement and VA ratings. They cant scale it because the offer has to be miserly in the first place. The air force wont dare staff their core production on majority airline aspirant civilians either, highly elastic to airline hiring conditions. Thats the point of the ADSC on the green side in the first place.
Theyve done it historically on the mx side and the blunders have been repetitive and evident. The engine issues on the t38 are the latest example of that reliance on civilian hands with little recourse. Maybe they can take a page from swa DEN ground chief, on how to threaten civilians back to work in a sellers market lol.
At any rate, the only remaining cohort left is the retirees who dont want to do the airlines/91k, stacking a non-ART base rate GS on top of a green retirement. But without the first payer retirement it doesnt pencil out for the majority who are not in the jelly of the month club, especially in Del rio (did my 7 years consecutive, before the one regaf vml cycle apologist comes to tell me iT aiNt dUht bAd).
Thats why it aint scaling, and it wont. There's just not that many weirdo birds of that condition willing to sunset in the upt locales for what they can get at a sim outfit in a big city with nice suburbs or exurbs, if homesteading is the hangup.
And your assumption on mil appropriations for aetc is also erroneous. We throw loads of mpa to those who want it in the associate side of upt units. We already carry an outsized per capita share of the production load, leverage which quite literally justifies our yearly survival going forward. The problem is the planning offered for long tours is impractical for airline guys. Typical regaf stupidity. Offer 365 carte blanche on october 10, when in the summer of the prior fiscal they told you not to bank on any mpa for the upcoming fiscal. Then act surprised you have no takers wiling to upend their family lives on command. Absent the usual suspect outliers (e.g. airline guy with kids divorced from upt townie and that late 30s female mid life crisis that seems to be going around military marriages as of late, sticking to a year long mpa to save on the kids child support on nights away basis, while notching the "best job in the world" ....for a 4th year in a row....digress), theres just not enough volume there on the fringes.
I appreciate this might seem like a cool retirement hobby for the second career crowd, but this program wont scale. And for full disclosure, for the sake of my ability to complete my active duty retirement i hope it continues to die on the vine. Im certainly not going to cheerlead for my own paycut. We're all rent seekers in this life, cast ye first stone, and that goes especially so for civilian defense contractors. Happy holidays ya filthy animals.
-
1
-
U-2 Dragonlady info
in General Discussion
Posted · Edited by hindsight2020
oooooooouh you gonna get that @ss red round hea'h for saying some like dat. 😄