FourFans

Agreed. However, having gone through the process. 6 months was a good min required to get everything ram-jamed through the AF's incredibly archaic and convoluted systems.

They sit at RAND. Big Blue and Congress decided not to listen. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR2415.html

Multiple thoughts on this topic. I'll go objective to subjective. Financially: the 'bonus' is still 25,000 to 35,000 dollars. It was introduced in the 1990s, yet has not substantially changed since then. in 2015 when I took mine (25,000 for 5 years), it should have been at least 37,000 to account for inflation alone. I didn't do my homework. I recommend others do theirs before deciding. By comparison, if you separate at 12 years of service and join an airline, a part 135 operator (think flying twin otters or -8's in hot places), a cargo carrier, or even a cargo carrier feeder to a major cargo carrier, you will make more money in the following 8 years than you would have in the Air Force. Moreover, the Air Force continues to insult their pilots with the need for a bonus and the option to take it...and sometimes no bonus at all...while GIVING doctors, surgeons, and dentists professional pay that exceeds the aviation bonus while not requiring a "take"...in the AIR FORCE. Not the dental force, or the medical force, the Air Force. This year, as a reservist pilot, I will not get an aviation bonus because it was not offered to pilots in my air frame at my base, because clearly the air force is good on pilots...while medical professionals get an automatic bump to account for the money they aren't making on the outside. Objectively the USAF demonstrates that it does not value it's pilots and is unwilling to truly push for retention improvements. The fellas at RAND have routinely updated their data that shows retaining a USAF pilot at 12-15 years for another 3 years using a $100,000 per year bonus is more cost effective than producing new pilots. Just like big blue, we'll completely ignore the safety improvements of retaining experienced pilots in one of the most complicated and dangerous corners of the aviation world. No, the USAF simply continues to accept the shackles that congress places on it regarding the restricted pilot bonus instead of pushing HARD for a professional pay similar to the medical career fields. That lack of effort shows me all I need to see. However that financial analysis ignores the quality of life items, right? Unfortunately a QoL analysis only puts more nails in the coffin. For example, pilots are likely to marry spouses in a like-status, like-education-level, and like-earning potential bracket. In short, we choose to partner within our peer group. Yet the Air Force completely ignores this fact and continues to move us every three years, thereby negating our life partners the opportunity to professionally put down roots and create a career, thereby stifling their earning potential. Yes, the air force has claimed new programs to improve this problem by letting pilot homestead, but they are largely lip service programs that have shown to kill career progression. Take a look at how well the career pilot program went...for the four individuals that got accepted. Or perhaps AFPAK HANDS, which I watched get used as a "force shaping tool" to force 8 senior MAF MWS IPs decide to separate instead of taking that as their next assignment (circa 2016). That trend has not changed. The senior leaders of the USAF refuse to force the middle leadership to abide by the simple rules of organizational excellence: Train and equip and prepare your people so well that they could leave and be hired by any other organization immediately, and treat them in such a manner that they don't want to. My own story included an advisory that my last three years before hitting 20 would include a PCS (I'd been in my API-6 'flying' non-flying desk job for 2 years) and a 1 year deployment...because 2.5 years in the desert and 4.5 years total gone from home in 17 years wasn't enough. When I asked for special consideration as the job I was filling is difficult to fill, I was flatly told no. So I voted with my feet. Then the USAF promoted me 3 months before my separation date...and I still separated (promotion carries no ADSC). But let's shift gears and assume I decided to apply to be commander a staffer or whatever career progression track big blue would advise me to take. The peek behind that curtain reveals nothing but another curtain. I've been close personal friends with enough commanders to have learned that becoming a commander, an aide de camp, or attaining some other advancement position does not actually allow you access to change, fix, or improve the system as we all secretly hope to do if given that opportunity. Instead, you are rewarded with a PCS, school, or lateral move every 1-2 years. Moreover, you get the exposure to discover that the senior GS and SES community as well as the bad O-7s (there are good ones, but the bad ones abuse their influence and tend to poison the well far beyond the abilities of the good ones to fix) and their staff sycophants continue to perpetuate the self-promoting trend of the USAF. That leaves the hard working 'good guy' O-6s and O-7s swimming very much upstream if they want to institute sincere and good changes. I know several of these excellent men and women, and I pray their influence changes the USAF. I realized that fighting that battle was not in my blood, so I couldn't continue on that road. What's that have to do with the bonus? In short, those who were going to stay would have done so anyways. Those taking it for the money factor only may not have done their homework to realize they could make much more elsewhere. So it's not really a retention bonus, it's a 'thanks for staying, we want to lock you in and take away your power to say "no" pay'. Hence I say, unless you know you and your family want to stay at the whim of the you-are-nothing-but-a-number AFPC assignment process until the end of whatever commitment you are 'offered', don't take the bonus.

Train our tactical leaders to prepare wisely, be team players, and act like adults...waiting...I see the flaw. My bad.

This is the problem set, but the sad part is that it already happens on occasion these days in the C-130 world. I watched a single Det run by a detco, a sup, a duty load, and an arms troop run airlift for four months at a time supporting multiple users at multiple bases without so much as a single complaint. Heck, I think their MX section was all of 20 people total. All they needed was reliable periodic comms with the users. No-one hears about it because they got the job done. But C-17s are involved so clearly it's not really happening or worthy of acknowledging. Granted that's on a small scale, but ACE, distributed ops, or whatever else you want to call it can work great if we identify the mission, the users, and let the tactical leaders on the line sort out the best way to meet user requirements. The most important step is making sure TACC/AMD provides support (not C2) and is not involved in daily operations. The second is localizing the operation and providing a clear scope, and objectives.

You could be living a different dream...

Yup. Because I had a concurrent running ADSC because AFPC incorrectly dated my GI bill transfer and refused to fix it. Regardless, having seen behind the curtain now, I can speak with authority when I say "don't take the bonus". ...and I did. I got out as soon as I could...right in the middle of a global pandemic, at 17 years of service, while non-current in an airplane, and I haven't regretted that decision even once. So I say again: don't take the bonus.

All true words. I personally believe that senior USAF officials who want to maximize retention intentionally (if not consciously) hope to keep service members from understanding the real power of that word: "no" by trying to keep us focused on the money aspect, instead of the quality of life as a civilian, TR, or guardsman. But even there they fail. The 25k bonus from the 1990s should be a bare minimum of 37-40k to account for based on inflation alone. It's a barehanded slap to our intelligence.

Any "renegotiation" will come with a longer commitment. For example in 2015 I took a 5 year $25k bonus. The next year I was offered a "renegotiation" option where the only option was up 20 YAS...which I flatly rejected. Weight all options heavily. When you are committed, you lose all power of "no". In the current environment, recognize that pilots are about to start abandoning ship again with airline hiring, leaving a massive hole in the population that is eligible for 180, 365, and non-desirable taskings to all AFSCs...and if you're committed, you have no say in the matter. Make sure that little 1990's level bonus is really worth it to you. If in doubt, don't take it and wait a year.

So, for frame of reference, I'd imagine that most universities and colleges instituted some version of this "safe space" silliness years ago with little or no fanfare. While I strongly disagree with the concept, it's not surprising to find that USAFA had this instituted on them (I highly doubt some cadet was whining for a safe space so loud that they made on for him). This sounds like something done TO the institution, not BY the institution. Don't believe me? How many USAF members here wanted to create an annual SAPR training in the format it currently takes (critiquing the format, not the content)? Yet you do it every year. If we're weeping for the country based on what a small federal school in Colorado is doing, we're way behind the power curve.

Concur. The one avenue they haven't tried (an aggressive bonus) is the one that would work most efficiently and effectively...just read the Rand study. I don't understand why they didn't try a super bonus for a year or two just to see what the take rate would be. Instead, budget dust in turning directly into airplane dust and dead pilots, and it's heartbreaking. But hey, none of those pilots were related to Senators...so like you said: acceptable losses. In other news, retention in my AFRC unit is excellent, and we're not even getting a bonus this year...yet we're happy to stay. Where's big blue's math on that? For those who haven't read this 2019 posting by RAND: Source: https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR2415.html

As I haven't said it a minute, and now I have even more perspective after separating. DO NOT TAKE THE BONUS AFRC and ANG have bonuses too, and they aren't underhanded or insulting.

Where is Robert Heinlein when we need him?!

Go troll somewhere else. This is actually a serious topic for adults.

Honestly, I'm stuck in a hotel and I have nothing better to do and this is kinda fun.

What you just said equates to "My own feelings are too loud to allow the introduction and analysis of facts. Look someone else understands some other facts that sound like they support me. By the way someone who has nothing to do with any of this died, so I'm right." If you were physically present, I'd slap you in the face, hard. Ask anyone here who knows me, they'll affirm that fact. Sometimes that's the only response to upset and end hysteria. I'm guessing you've never experienced such physical violence in your life. Perhaps you should seek is out. Like fight club, it might turn the volume down on these other stressors in your life. You emotions are important, that's true. These instructors are at higher risk than the rest of us, also true. Facts, however, provide context. These young (not 55 of older), hopefully fit, instructors or MORE at risk of dying from lung or heart disease or a freak car crash than they are from contracting COVID, even at their heighten exposure rate. If unique cases exist with at risk family members, those should be handled individually. We don't set guidelines based on the exceptions. Yes, we obviously test new inbounds. This is a risk mitigation measure...thereby lowering the risk you so ardently fear. The question remains: what are the COVID positive rates in the community that's so at risk? If the answer is nil, or virtually nil, the risk mitigation measures have worked...and the risk is being managed correctly. The sky is not falling. Stop carrying on like a petulant child who doesn't like being told he's wrong. That is exactly what the media, politicians, and the violent left/right side of our society would love for you to do and to get others to do. I am on your side, and I'm telling you that you're letting fear win. Stop it. No one else can do this for you. Stand up straight, identify and face the fear that's obviously assaulting you, then look at facts placed within appropriate context in relation to that fear, and respond with courage by telling your fear to sod off.

Setting aside the rampant ignorance that leads people to not want this vaccine, I can't pass on the necessity to clarify some science here: working with students has all of ZERO impact on someone's risk level. Age, health habits, and genetics directly impact someone's risk with this virus. Having a higher than normal interaction with multiple subjects may POSSIBLY (still not proven by the data we've seen) increase the likelihood of getting infected. However if an individual is young and healthy (i.e. doesn't smoke and isn't morbidly obese for starters) their level of risk is low, by the science and stats observed over the last year, of having a severe case of COVID if they get infected...meaning "low risk". Just because someone works with a lot of people does not make their job high risk. Please kill that false narrative wherever you encounter it. Our enlisted instructors would be better served by putting down the cigarette and the energy drink than by being kept away from students...or better yet, GET VACCINATED. Facts not fear

What I can't understand is why everyone is so up in arms about some old, old wooden ship!

How can the Bobulinski story be a hoax with so many verifiable hard facts? Just finished watching the interview. Seems legit.

Spoken like a stereotypical (thankfully it's a stereotype that the vast majority don't fall into) strat airlift pilot. You are ready for TACC.

Yes, this is what's right with the Air Force. In the midst of a political, social, and military stupidity, a C-17 crew landed an emergency airplane in the combat zone and NO ONE noticed. Dear crew: well done.

https://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/legislative/one_item_and_teasers/nom_cmten.htm You're in the waiting game. I don't see the Air Force Lt Col list even on the list yet. If you are a 1 Nov pin-on and the Senate delays past then, I'm pretty sure you pin-on the date that they approve it. VMPF and myper promotion sections should have the exact details on that ROE though.

BWAHAHAHAHA!!! Oh man. That's rich. You're good. Tell another joke. For the education of the masses, "We" is spelled "Army" If you think the USAF is leaving any time soon, think again. Just like "We" left the middle east after Desert Storm. Yet the USAF has been deployed there ever since. USAF assets will be the second to last ones out. Not trying to rain on your parade. Just gotta be a realist about it.

So you probably don't recognize that the forces in place in Afghanistan pose a threat to a VERY limited region...namely...Afghanistan and it's very immediate neighborhood. Nothing in that country provides an ability to threaten China. At all. Moreover, the country is so unstable that we would never place forces there that could pose any form of threat to China. It would be wasteful and stupid on a plethora of levels. If you are going to apply geopolitical strategy games, make sure you also apply real world analysis to them. The underlying part you missed: logistics Amateurs study tactics. Experts study logistics.

Out of curiosity, have you spent any time in Afghanistan?