Dupe

...Not even a pot of money at all. There's no Personnel funding line for CZTE. Its more like a very small hole in a very large bucket.

VSP gets you out earlier, and potentially a higher airline seniority number if that's your bag. If you're the type who's sold on getting out to do the airline gig, then VSP is the best vehicle available short of retiring.

One would hope the results of VSP/TERA would then alter the RIF matrix....

A bro of mine is on a 365 - so VSP/TERA ineligible. Yet he still faces a RIF.

Quite a few corporations have shed their flight departments in favor of a flexible outsource option. For the AF, our personnel costs are so dramatically high that I think the decision point is a much higher $ figure.

I've got a duty AFSC, a 2nd AFSC, and a 3rd AFSC... Which of those do I use to figure out if I'm VSP-eligible?

You're right. I suck for the mis-info. The 11/12/F/H/U was just those VSP inelligible.

30 second version: 11/12F/H/U are not VSP/RIF eligible. All other 11/12X AFSCs will be. My question: will the RIF board accept letters. I see the "Please RIF me" letter as being this decade's version of the "Don't promote me" letters of the 90s.

I've got 3 (count 'em, three!) AFSCs and a core ID now. I haven't a clue if I'm eligible.....

My view is that all these policies won't be needed with the emerging budget deal and will all be cancelled by the fall. It will take AF/A1 six months to figure this out. Countless dudes will show their hands through VSP or TERA applications before the AF turns the wheel hard the other direction. It's like the Air Force's human resources system is run by a pecking pigeon inside a German missile.,.

Perhaps a BRAC round could be the source of those replacements...

Those eligible under the DOS roll-back are those who declined an ADSC associated with PCS or retraining (that's the 3D/3E reenlist net code crap). I don't think many of those (of the 90 airmen identified) are even retirement eligible. If an airman is retirement eligible and turns down a PCS, finding the retirement tab on the AFPC website is usually the next step. I think this is a non-issue.

What do you think a WSO does on a "go watch the Space Shuttle" sortie? Get the shot and play "rocket man" at the right time....

I think it's a little more complex than this. Cutting 2% would be easy: just offer 15 year retirements to 11Xs and we'd meet end strength goals with thousands to spare. The problem is that we have to cut the folks we don't need. The folks we need are finding themselves marketable on the outside and think there is not much monetary difference between staying in and leaving (reference Hacker's math). As a result, they're making service vs quality of life decisions. The folks we need out are smart enough to recognize that their options on the outside aren't that great. Where does a MX officer with 10 years time in service and no A&P fit into the civilian world? What about a program manager in a world where defense budgets are shrinking? In much the same vein, we cannot keep the cyber officers beyond 4 years for anything... It turns out those with skills readily transferable into the outside world are the ones we have trouble keeping. Someone should look into that.

Seems to me like that's all the same stuff that's been on myPers since July: Early retirement offers for those career fields where few will logically accept it, PALACE CHASE, a program to force the fart-knocker O-5s to retire, and an early ADSC out (again, for those in careers where it isn't logical to leave) with no money attached to it.

My issue with the place is cost vs value. Getting a USAFA LT is about 6 times more expensive than a ROTC grad. Do we seriously believe USAFA grads are better officers/pilots/queep-masters by a factor of six? If not, then shut the place down.

Here's a potential other half: those who can't win in court take their fights to the court of public opinion.

Sure... I hear that. We're not going to give the Army an in-lieu-of tasking to go defend the Tawain Straight or deliver combat effects to Beijing in a contested environment. Hell, standing up for air power cost both the SECAF and AF/CC their jobs. That all said, I believe the O-4 MAAP Cell patch today can develop a coherent air plan that achieves overarching campaign objectives and spans the spectrum of conflict much more efficiently and effectively than his 90s-era counter parts.

Back on topic: Jointness. The AF understands the other services much better than we did a decade ago. I feel I understand both the TTPs and culture of the other services much more than those in the pre-9/11 AF.

Dude, you are letting your glider experience psyche you out. Go fly Cessnas or whatever. You'll suck at first. After every landing and maneuver ask "what could I have done better?"

Feedback: If you don't love flying, don't take a flying job (of any flavor). Earning flight pay means punching a 12-hour duty clock then hammering through DTS, OPRs, or other minutia on the back end. It's a lot of work for you to not love the flying aspect. If you like flying and you're qualified to be a pilot, go be a pilot. Some platforms are less "monkey skills" and more big-picture operator... have that conversation with your IPs. -A concerned CSO

The PT test. I'm serious. Sure... the thing is far from perfect. That said, I remember the plethora of 250lb, 5'-9" E-7s that existed 10 years ago. They just aren't around anymore.

The Guard of yore was not exactly a bastion of diversity, now was it? The social contract of these flying clubs has changed dramatically since we began going to war at a very reliable rate.

How was that system good for anybody except the George W Bushes of the world?

We need to do away with the 20 year retirement. If a mid-level person has a skill that's valuable, you pay him a mountain of cash (through bonuses) to stay. I'm convinced the current system causes way too many to stay in, reduces efficiency, and causes ballooning long-run costs.