Jump to content

ViperMan

Supreme User
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    647

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    6

 Content Type 

Everything posted by ViperMan

  1. ViperMan
    I haven't seen the sweeping push, yet, either, nor do I think their is one. My comment is mostly directed towards all the internet geniuses (/trolls) that come up with bright ideas which haven't even been put through the most basic and obvious thought experiment available to someone with half a brain.
  2. ViperMan
    But seriously, not one post on this here internet (anywhere) has successfully addressed the VERY low hanging critique that a lesser-paid individual has LESS incentive to stay in the AF long-term. Read: enlisted pilots have a greater incentive to separate at their first opportunity than do officer pilots. So, given that, how does having enlisted pilots solve our manning problem?
  3. ViperMan
    GD I was just "Hall and 'rolled' Oates" - well played, very well played. "using the bodies up as we go" "waking up to fantasy" Yeah, I will not listen to that song the same way again.
  4. ViperMan
    Really, REALLY want to get jiggy with it? How bout we let dudes flying trash operate "single seat"? That'll fix MAFs problem overnight. Slides = GREEN. I mean that is the lowest hanging fruit with ultra-high payoff, right?
  5. ViperMan
    Production of what? X and XX rides?
  6. ViperMan
    By who? The staff? That should be fun for me...
  7. ViperMan
    Confirm what we're talking about is doing T-6s, and then prof advancing to F-16s? No T-38s whatsoever?
  8. ViperMan
    The "reason" you get "retirement" benefits is precisely so they CAN place you back on active duty.
  9. ViperMan
    I would send one more (polite) message, and then take the assignment if I was you. 6 months of active duty can effectively be reduced to 3 months if you have 90 days of leave. Yeah, this. Dig into AFI 36-2110. There is some verbiage in there that explains when you can and cannot 7-day-opt an assignment. The basic rule is if any extra training (AFT in your case), PCS, or whatever would result in an ADSC that takes you beyond another (different) ADSC, you can decline that "thing" and then establish a DOS. The fact that it happens to be 3+ years in the future is immaterial. That said, in your case, 3+ years is a long time to "hang it out there". I'd be very wary of doing that if I was in a place that could then summarily give me screw job after screw job. You basically have to ask yourself if the cost of that is > than the cost of 6 more months in an assignment that you want.
  10. ViperMan
    7-day-opt. There's your solution.
  11. ViperMan
    Kill the nerd!!
  12. ViperMan
    Fixed wing opportunities > Helicopter opportunities RPA opportunities > Helicopter opportunities It simply boils down to economics/available choices. It's not at all complicated. Right now we're watching people bail who are being paid $100K+ to do a job (RPA): you can observe that fact. It's happening right now. Nor will "moral" fix it. The suggestion that paying someone ~$60K to do that same job because of "moral" ignores another fact that you can also observe right now: fighter pilots are bailing faster than they can be replaced. "Moral" will only keep you around so long. What I feel like people should be discussing, is why the AF insists upon placing a job that can literally be accomplished anywhere, in some of the worst real-estate the AF has. Want to keep people around? Let them live in Hawaii, Guam, Japan, England, Florida, California, Colorado - don't shovel them off to Creech, Holloman, Shaw, etc.
  13. ViperMan
    This solves nothing - as a "solution" it will only exacerbate the problem. For the reason identified below: Shack.
  14. ViperMan
    Yep. In my case, when I witnessed the forced separation of 160-some majors back in 2011 (ish) followed almost immediately by the activation of TERA authority, for a nearly identical group of people, I realized just how important the AF viewed its people, and also how arbitrary and fickle continued service could be. "Hmm. I just got the boot, but the other 15-yr major across the street gets to retire? Exsqueeze me? Baking powder?" AF leadership needs to realize that their decisions enacted through AFPC and other entities are watched very closely and create a certain lasting "tenor" within the force that have effects on retention for many years in the future. This latest decision may be in a similar vein.
  15. ViperMan
    Which of the four who doesn't know jack $hit about the F-16 wrote the article on the Thunderbird mishap?
  16. ViperMan
    That guy went to Harvard? Seriously? With some of the arguments I've seen from him, that's pretty surprising.
  17. ViperMan
    Good. But only because it's necessary to take away the AF's shiny toy in order to impose a refocusing on its core functions.
  18. ViperMan
    I agree in principle, and also would want to walk in informed. I just think it begs the question "why"? i.e. Why do you need to speak to guys flying the line to "get the ground truth", but put certain "truths" off limits? The only thing I can think of is it was just an information gathering session to support pre-conceived conclusions for a (unknown to us) course of action that has already been mapped out. Kind of like my technique for completing ACSC papers - which we all know are bull shit: here's what I think, now I just need to find a couple of quotes that will support that...and, box checked, on to what I really care about. Makes me think these pilots were used.
  19. ViperMan
    So I guess they must have talked with the congressional staffers beforehand?
  20. ViperMan
    I can think of no better way to get to valid lessons learned than to skip the shot val, quarter back a root cause, and then chalk it up to a couple of execution errors. Sounds like a winning formula. Too bad it sounds like the Senator wasted some valuable time with those flying the line by putting up the lane bumpers before hand. I just wonder who it was who "briefed" them as to what the man was open and/or not open to hearing. Was it congressional staffers or AF people? Fvck it. Dark visor down. Banzai. ETA: I'm convinced the strategy is to buckle down, attempt to weather the storm, avoid setting a (high) bonus precedent, and hope for the best.
  21. ViperMan
    Well I guess I just disagree. No one is forcing their hand to sign a NEW agreement, and in my reading/interpretation of the previous (FY16) ARP, it seems pretty clear to me that the USAF would let this group sign up for a new agreement IF they wanted to. If they don't want to, well then they don't have to accept the extra year, and can walk with the lesser money and separate one year earlier. In any case, no one who is signing up for and getting the latest (FY17) bonus amount is getting out any "earlier" than anyone else who signs up for the same flavor of this year's bonus agreement. From a philosophical standpoint, I'm on board with everyone who says they should be paid at the higher amount. Dudes have committed to further service; I agree that everyone in that bucket should be given the same money for the same commitment. That said, I don't think tackling it from the standpoint that the FY16 ARP message actually means what everyone's favorite interpretation seems to be is a fair argument to make.
  22. ViperMan
    In fairness, I have not seen an actual ARP contract. Only the message that JQ posted on his blog. IF that really is the case, then I've got tons of empathy for them because it is FULLY BS. That said, do they really though? I find it hard to believe that this group of guys signed up for a bonus and contract length that said $25K/yr for 5 years, and the AF just came back to all of them and ROLEXED their separation by 1 year without additional compensation...I find that very hard to believe. If that's the case - of course it's a crime and should be squawked about - I just don't believe that's what's going on.
  23. ViperMan
    I'm involved to the extent that I'm in the AF. But anyway, you're right, either way it's irrelevant. I guess I don't sympathize with someone who was going to sign away years of their life to "just get the paperwork done" or "do the AF a favor." I read the FY16 bonus when it came out and I couldn't discern one benefit it would bestow on me to sign it early - so I didn't. I suppose the only benefit you get is a few more payments of X-thousand a month that you otherwise wouldn't? I think that's the benefit early-takers get? I don't know because I didn't consider it that closely since I was leaning towards getting out anyway. I almost stopped reading after you said it "didn't matter what the contract said," but I think your statement highlights the thesis of the Facebook group pretty nicely: "we don't care what the contract said - give us more money with no extra year." I did feel that it was solid logic. Thanks. As far as that goes, however, I've yet to see an interpretation that allows for the position that the Facebook group is running with.
  24. ViperMan
    I don't, because I passed on it. Nor do I have anything to do with its implementation/creation. Fine if I don't make sense. It was a post slightly out of context because it was a point-by-point response to claims that JQ threw out there to serve what I think is a convenient narrative (and allows him to bitch). So WTF do you think "and/or" means? IMO it means that the AF, when they figure out what the fvcking bonus terms will be during the next FY, will let those takers "sign a new contract" (just like they wrote in black and white). I mean if the USAF was just going to up the money for previous-year bonus takers they could have just written down such a simple concept, right? Something to the effect of "if you sign this early-take bonus agreement (FY16) and the monetary value increases on future-year ARP offers (FY17, 18, 19, ...) during the duration of your incurred ADSC, your payment will increase to the new, higher limit, with no additional incurred ADSC. We want to thank you for your service.", would have done the trick - the thing is, they didn't write it like that. But now there's a fvcking Facebook campaign to somehow posture as if it did. My malfunction is with the invalid narrative that I see routinely pumped from JQP. I DGAF about 80% of what he pushes out there, but every now and then there is a topic that I know something about, and also happens to be completely off base. He runs with BS and plenty of folks scarf it up because it feeds their anger. There are plenty of reasons to bitch about $hit the AF does - I just don't see this as one of them.
  25. ViperMan
    Not really, as I am on my way out. I like to bitch as much as the next guy, I just think there are plenty of valid complaints to grab a hold of. I agree with everything you said except the attempt to "spin." I'm trying to be as fair as possible here, but every now and then I see something that comes across that blog and I don't know what to think. Does anyone really read that release and think that the statement "shall be allowed to sign a NEW contract worth the HIGHER bonus amount and/or LONGER contract length" means the AF was going to UP the bonus (without increased commitment length) for those who signed a DIFFERENT agreement? That seems to me what JQ and others on the Facebook group are suggesting. I'm fully on board with shedding some much-needed light on AF personnel policies.
×
×
  • Create New...