ViperMan
-
Posts
648 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
6
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Blogs
Downloads
Wiki
Posts posted by ViperMan
-
-
11 minutes ago, hindsight2020 said:
I've addressed that very point, albeit over at APC. It is understood that an enlisted with access to a job at proverbial Delta (a growing percentage of junior NCOs are attaining a bachelors degree, compared to generations past) at the end of their training commitment has much less incentive to stay than a commissioned officer as the income delta (pun very much intended) is indeed much larger than for the O.
I've yet to see evidence there's a sweeping push for the 11X career field to be manned by enlisted.
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.
-
1 hour ago, YoungnDumb said:
Well, damn, another case of me not being able to read.
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?
-
1
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, Snooter said:
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.
-
33 minutes ago, Clark Griswold said:
Why the hell are they not at least pulling all the 16 drivers instructing in 38s, in droids back at least first?
Don't FAIP any 38 studs to the 38 (or 6) but offer to capable and motivated heavy drivers, T-1 grads, a chance to qual and then instruct in the 38 (to include a chance to attend IFF if it is in the needs of the AF) with the understanding the devil will get his pound of flesh for this crossflow.
Another idea that could work (also would be no fun for those having to do it) would be to shift work schedules, some dudes fly & work weekends and Monday/Tuesday are there weekends. Would boost your output, needs more manpower (mil and contract) but could be done with $$$ but keeps the aircraft and training maximized.
And if you really wanted to get jiggy with it, look for a short / medium term lease option for a common fast jet trainer, L-39 or similar, and set up a 3 year program to produce some studs in another training program. Get 30 aircraft, set up 3 flights in one super det at a SW base (DM, Kirtland, etc...) and fly 7 days a week. Need about 50 ARC instructors, 3 year ADOS orders (no loss of ARC affiliation) and a great bonus (50K per year). No sim, extra flight hours, make it work. Not run thru a BCA and would cost some serious $$$ but would clear at least part of the problem. Probably about 500 mil for the whole program (over 3 years).
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?
-
6 hours ago, matmacwc said:
Who has the skinny on the F-16 RTU students who never flew in Phase III at SUPT and just did sims? I hear there are 2 at Kelly, certainly we have a UPT or Kelly instructor on here to verify. There is more to the rumor but it’s hard to believe. It certainly would increase production quickly.
Production of what? X and XX rides?
-
8 minutes ago, LookieRookie said:
It's being discussed. And UPT expanded to Bergstrom or Alliance with a contractor esque deal ala Doss with AF QA
By who? The staff?
That should be fun for me...
-
4 hours ago, matmacwc said:
Who has the skinny on the F-16 RTU students who never flew in Phase III at SUPT and just did sims? I hear there are 2 at Kelly, certainly we have a UPT or Kelly instructor on here to verify. There is more to the rumor but it’s hard to believe. It certainly would increase production quickly.
4 hours ago, xcraftllc said:Nope, I'm at Kelly now, not a thing yet. They're just talking about the prospect of there being up to 2 per class some time in the future. Lots of folks asking what it might look like and how they would do it if it were a thing.
Confirm what we're talking about is doing T-6s, and then prof advancing to F-16s? No T-38s whatsoever?
-
17 minutes ago, HeloDude said:
How many retirees would be willing to to give up their retired benefits to refuse to come back on AD? Not saying this 'could' happen, but I wouldn't be surprised based off all the caveats written in our laws.
Regardless, I'm expecting lawsuits galore if/when guys get non-vol'd back to AD if met with the risk of losing something (retirement benefits, etc). Take a look at each of Trump's EO to limit/ban certain types of immigration:. All have been met with a federal judge finding the EOs unconstitutional--why would this be any different?
The "reason" you get "retirement" benefits is precisely so they CAN place you back on active duty.
-
1
-
3
-
-
3 hours ago, BashiChuni said:
so I am 80/20 getting out.
I don't want to decline the assignment because I want the assignment. I'd like a break from the deploying lifestyle...and as a hurlburt u28 guy the next assignment in afsoc will be cannon.
I also don't think I can 7 day opt since im 3 years and 2 months out from my 10 year ADSC
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.
8 hours ago, ViperStud said:Not so sure 7-day is an option. Bashi mentioned the 3-yr would go 6 months past UPT commitment, meaning there are about 2.5 left after PIT to serve out the PCS time. If I could go back in time, knowing I would get out after the assignment, I would refuse to sign the paperwork. That's what you should do. Be respectful to your CCs when they ask why and simply state that you're not bowing to AFPC when they have consistently interpreted the AFI differently and you have one clause in black-and-white to support your case. You'll be in an interesting gray area if he AFI subsequently changes between now and PIT start date, that's why you should refuse to sign ASAP and get some email traffic going to document it.
As a data point, we had a dude who showed up at my ANG unit a year or so ago as an AD guy. Turns out he got an assignment he didn't like and told the OG he was separating to join our unit. The OG responded by asking - what if he could get him the same assignment on AD? He said yes and the assignment changed to an AD billet with us. The porch is very much negotiating with terrorists at this point, regardless of what they actually say. You give up any and all leverage the second you sign that ADSC paperwork.
1 hour ago, ihtfp06 said:You can 7 day opt if the three years ADSC for training or the two year ADSC for PCS takes you beyond your current ADSC.
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.
-
7-day-opt. There's your solution.
-
1 hour ago, SurelySerious said:
24?
Kill the nerd!!
-
2 hours ago, Azimuth said:
Why not? The Army does it all the time with Warrants flying helos being the majority of the experience in the Army Aviation branch.
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.
3 hours ago, dream big said:I see what you're saying, but it would mitigate the problem or at least delay the shortage of RPA folks? At least it may perhaps boost morale in the RPA squadrons since you're filling it with people who want to be there?
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.
-
3
-
-
1 hour ago, dream big said:
The RPA community is going to face a similar exodus to civilian RPAs (which pay much more) that we are facing in the pilot community. It's time for enlisted RPA operators. For Fs sake, if we can trust a 19 year old Army E2 to take a 50 cal to the head of a terrorist then we can train at least some USAF NCOs to drop some hellfires from MQ-9s. I know some enlisted have already started cross training but I don't understand why this isn't a bigger push. I could find you dozens of enlisted folks sitting at a computer all day that would kill to fly RPAs and do well at it.
This solves nothing - as a "solution" it will only exacerbate the problem. For the reason identified below:
4 minutes ago, ihtfp06 said:
And then, when their enlistments are up, they would kill to also GTFO and make more money on the outside. Paying someone even less to do the same job isn't going to fix the problem.
Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkShack.
-
2 hours ago, Ram said:
That's my whole point: AFPC thinks this is a "smart move" because they get to net-gain a few CAF pilots, while forgetting about the trust relationship that they have been trying to repair.
CAF wide, all the young CGOs watching this are taking notes and wondering if the Porch and A1 actually mean it when saying "guys...we know we've fvcked up...and we promise things will be different from now on."
Empty words? You be the judge.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.
-
3
-
-
4 hours ago, HU&W said:
Ever since he sold his blog to Bright Mountain Media, I think he's been using ghost writers. There are 3-4 distinct writing styles, a literary voice if you will, with differing sentence structure and word choice. Tony is definitely still writing. I think one of the writers is a disgruntled retired SNCO. There's also at least one other; more sedate, but less educated than Tony.
Which of the four who doesn't know jack $hit about the F-16 wrote the article on the Thunderbird mishap?
-
3
-
-
13 hours ago, MDDieselPilot said:
This is what I don't get with him.. He was my sq/cc and a fairly balanced guy in person. For being Harvard-educated and a previous (successful) leader in the military, I'm surprised how closed minded he is to new information. I've occasionally talked to people "in the know" on various bits he's written who have said they contacted him privately to say he was railing on the wrong guy/girl/office, but he wasn't interested in changing his tone or narrative.
That guy went to Harvard? Seriously? With some of the arguments I've seen from him, that's pretty surprising.
-
1
-
-
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.
-
1
-
-
14 minutes ago, daynightindicator said:
That's the impression I got. The negotiations over the bonus and retention issue have been going for a while. SAF/LL handles interaction with congressional staff, and they work closely with HAF on that stuff.
Personally I wouldn't want to roll into a meeting with congress without a little intel on who I was talking to and what they already knew.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.
-
2 minutes ago, daynightindicator said:
HAF/A3 rep and SAF/LL
Both really good dudes. They weren't trying to dissuade the pilots from anything, just relaying the background on the situation and trying to give them some IPOE.
Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network ForumsSo I guess they must have talked with the congressional staffers beforehand?
-
30 minutes ago, daynightindicator said:
They (at least half of them) were briefed beforehand that harping on the bonus would be a non starter with Sen Cotton. He already thought $25K was more than enough and he is stuck on the "service before self" mantra. They were advised (but not directed) that it might waste their valuable time with him if they went in guns blazing on the bonus.
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.
-
3
-
-
14 hours ago, Homestar said:
This is only true if they sign a new agreement for the higher amount. Otherwise they keep their original agreement of 9 payments of $25k/year or till 20 YAS. If 1 extra year isn't worth the $45k then they won't sign a new agreement.
14 hours ago, tac airlifter said:Valid, I was speaking only of the dudes who signed the early eligible then chose to opt in to the newer bonus. Should have said so. Those guys are rightfully pissed that they have an extra year, which is an arbitrary (but significant) amount of time.
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.
-
14 hours ago, tac airlifter said:
Viperman, no one who signed early had reason to assume they were signing up for an additional year without the bonus. Now they have an extra year to their ADSC, without being paid for extra for it, and they are confused. Instead of empathy, you have contempt.
I appluad you on posting this in an attempt to understand. People hate being treated like shit and told they are whiners for complaining, and yet this is what the AF does. Ours is a fundamentally broken and stupid organization that does not value its people, and they prove this anew with every years bonus.
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.
-
18 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:
ViperMan, you're obviously involved, because you're taking it personally. In either case, here's why you're wrong.
This isn't people who signed one bonus, and expect another. They signed early, just to get the paperwork done. But other than the amount of money one gets by having their bonus start on time (as opposed to the usual lateness the Air Force demonstrates each year), early signers were doing the AF a favor.
It doesn't matter what the contract says. Logic says that the people who HELPED there Air Force by signing early should be taken care of if the bonus goes up.
But even more to the point, it's almost laughable that "leaders" who are now publicly begging for solutions to the problem they let fester can't see why this is such a perceived betrayal. It's like there is some sort of competition at the staff level to see how many tone deaf proclamations and policies they can put out.
You say you're on your way out. Good. If the Air Force has any chance at all of pulling out of this dive, it's going to need leaders who can actually empathize with the people they claim to want to retain.
I'm sure you felt your dissertation was nothing but solid logic and tough love from the top rope. To me it sounded like someone who is way too excited to tell us how stupid and greedy we are. Which, ironically, probably has way more effect on retention than the bonus you're defending.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.
-
26 minutes ago, Bender said:
I did take the time to read it.
You write as though you have some skin in this game...part of drafting that we're you?
Why are you so interested you feel the need to write all of that? To tell people it's no clear that "and/or" doesn't mean "and/or"?
You push just doesn't make sense, Bro. I'm not trying to tell you that you're wrong or right here...you just don't make sense.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).
26 minutes ago, Bender said:When it says "and/or", that implies option. A lot of people (particularly people who are going to sign it anyway...shocker) take that to mean and FVCKING or. Not "and" if you want, or "or" if you want, or "and" if I want, or "or" if I want, but rather "and/or", just like it "fvcking" written.
I sign again, for the higher bonus amount ONLY, with all the same other terms...and a longer term if "we" want to, in a strange case with the same amount (I guess if the bonus went down...which was specifically addressed) for a longer term.
Higher amount and/or longer contract term...you are out of your fvcking gourd to be arguing this emphatically...particularly stating you opted out of signing on for a bonus. That is, unless you had some part of offering it. If you didn't, you've simply gone bat shlt crazy in the time I've been a part of this board. Don't worry, I do blame the USAF for that...
I'll be honest, after thinking about it...I don't even care about trying to sign a contract for more money. Is, wasn't, and won't ever be the point when the money we're talking about is plain, unadulterated bullshlt. Ain't no one hanging around these parts for the money...
Keep jerking people around though...with the open ended contract wording (without explanation...the God knows there are enough fvcking AFPC roadshows to be clear about it) and pathetic "increases" (where it doesn't need to be...hint, hint: monthly compensation for every last pilot you need, which is ALL OF THEM), see where it gets "you".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.
26 minutes ago, Bender said:I only say "you", in quotes, because I don't understand your malfunction...I don't know that it's actually you with the problem.
That's what I think.
BendyMy 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 $hit the AF does - I just don't see this as one of them.
-
1
-
F-16 Students skip Phase III
in General Discussion
Posted · Edited by ViperMan
Sarcastic post aside, I'll answer the questions literally (for sarcastic fun):
They won't. Enlisted pilot retention will likely be lower than officer pilot retention.
Nail on Cranium, though I will say that it's not so much the 'process' that the academy/rotc/ots puts "you" through (capable people are capable people); rather, the pool of candidates that make it through the other end of those said training pipelines have shown they have the metal to handle the USAF UPT pipeline. This 'cheaper' process enables the USAF to select (from an already select group) individuals who are likely to succeed in a challenging program (which is extraordinarily expensive), which is, arguably, the point of those accession processes. My point is, the whole purpose of accession programs is to save tax payer money by sending the people most likely to graduate through the most expensive training known to man...having a "college degree" and 90 days of marching is not too high a bar to granting that privilege, IMHO.
Interesting point, made me think. What does OTS cost relative to the Academy? A penny on the dollar? It costs next to effing nothing to send a bro through OTS, commission a bitch after 90-days, staple a gold bar on his shoulder and proudly salute. What I (cynically) think is that now the leadership is looking for more control. Can't control Capts/Majs/Lt Cols who don't give a F$#% what a two-star says because they realize that that guy is effectively their peer with a few years more experience. Better to have a SSgt F-35 pilot or C-17 pilot who just CAN"T say no, and who can't (legitimately) scoff your ideas.
Control. Read Catch-22.