ViperMan

I wonder if they could have done $34,999.99? That would have made me laugh out loud, and I would have actually enjoyed being the staff-O that got to type up the MFR or whatever. "It is 'tiered', congressman..." I understand this better now, and FULLY grasp that everyone in the AF answers to someone, including the COS. HOWEVER, the fault of the AF isn't that they currently have their hands tied by Congress/must do what they say. No one is blaming them for that, but there is NO DOUBT the AF could have and should have seen this coming and postured themselves earlier during "cold ops" to deal with the inevitable. Congress will likely almost always say "no" to one of their "children" at first request. The AF (at least parts of it) interfaces with Congress on a daily or weekly basis. Those individuals who do, know this, grasp how the sausage is made, and understand that they're not going to get something the first time they ask. The point? They were negligent in not initiating this effort years ago - that's the problem and complaint. Bitching about $35K vs $34K is just good fun. I don't like blaming the messenger either, but I do think the AF has played a greater role in this "crisis" than just a message passer between the country's legislators and the line fliers. The 5-year hiatus on airline retirements built up a 5-year backlog of hiring that was certain to affect retention. Now, we're reacting, when we had all the opportunity in the world to be proactive. Seems like a missed opportunity, and one which, if properly addressed, would have been a staff effort actually worthy of receiving OPR bullets.

Mostly agree with you, but not on your point that paying everyone the same is a solution (hello socialism). If someone has a skill set that is in higher demand it can command a higher price, and it should. Now, the $1K difference between AFSCs is amusing AF logic, as if it was the product of some Rube Goldberg device, and I agree with you that if they're going to pay people equivalently the same amount/bonus, they should just make it the same across the board - $1K difference between 11Xs ain't going to make a difference in retention for those seeking money - it will make a difference for those who want to feel like they are valued by the organization - which a bonus structured like this goes a long way to undermining. That said, if there is a (much) greater need for certain AFSCs, they should reflect that in the bonus they offer. Ultimately though, I'm not one for bonuses and would prefer to see the AF tackle this problem in a completely different way that represents the value provided to the DOD that each AFSC brings. I would rather have them divorce the pay scale from O-whatever and align it with AFSC. At this point in my career, I struggle more with the logic of paying O-1/2/3/4/5/6s the same when different AFSCs bring inherently different value to the warfighting table. Same is true for Es.

For a recent example, check out his "analysis" on the Thunderbird mishap...laughable.

Does this mean the USN gets back Miramar?

If it was X-dollars pegged to inflation/pay raises, meaning they recognize its value decreases as other pays increase, I would have taken that as a signal that they realized there was a systematic issue with the bonus of the last 25 years - as it is, I don't really any positive signals being sent with the current suggested bonus levels.

I agree with you and enjoy most of your posts. Not meaning to $hit on anyone - I just prefer to be very to the point on this forum. As far as the "closing doors" comment, of course flying any USAF jet is a privilege, and one all dudes should be very proud of - I simply mean that the last time someone got taken from the T-1 track and thrown into the F-22 was never. My original intent was to properly frame the two youngins' mindsets regarding opportunities in pilot training - it was their posts which strongly suggested T-1 studs had "dibs" on certain assignments, and the suggestive use of "quotation" marks also implied that they thought it was BS some hot dog 38 shithead swooped in and took "their" assignment - as if to say that if you choose to go to 38s you are opting out of the opportunity to fly what is generally the desired assignment on the T-1 side of the house - which is a bullshit thought. I've pasted what I was really getting at below: Ehh, on second reading, it really isn't even implied - they outright said it.

Well, lets just say we disagree. 38 studs have always been universally assignable - ever since the days of UPT, when T-38 studs went on to fly C-141s, OV-10s, etc. SUPT was implemented to save the Air Force money and to prolong the life of the T-38. Not to give T-1 students "dibs" on certain platforms. T-38 studs did rack their preferences, as did I years ago, knowing that I could always go fly something "heavy" later in life if I wanted to do so. Choosing to go fly 38s doesn't close any doors - choosing to fly T-1s does.

Yes. People who know a lot more than you made decisions that you don't like - it doesn't mean they're wrong. 38 studs are universally assignable, and those individuals who "stole" 17s likely out-competed the ones you think they "displaced" earlier in the program when they were "head to head" - i.e. when they were in T-6s. No. They either graduate and the above happens, or they wash out.

Is it though? The USAF puts > $1M bucks into a guy over 54 weeks and then an additional $300K over the following 3 years to do that "job" - so call it $1.3M bucks for 4 years of work. Then, you wind up getting only 6 years out of the guy when he finally gets to an MWS...so...?

LOL.

(whispered tone) FA #1 to #2: "Janet, would you please tell the captain the intercom is stuck in hot mic!!!"

Sure, as long as they're retired military pilots.

No, you're not out of line - you're just thinking outside the box (sts). Why is it proper to pay people who do drastically different jobs and accept wildly different levels of risk the same salary? It's acceptable because of the meme that was installed in your brain in whatever commissioning source you came from that "we're all equal."

The latter was. And yes, I think this is also happening, but there is also the reality that although technical progress may be rapid and uninhibited, there are also legislative hurdles that tend to put the brakes on things like this (progress) and don't care about Moore's law - generally they put on "safety" clothes to buy legitimacy, and implement some measure of control over whatever the industry happens to be. Mark my words, you will never be allowed to own a vehicle that is capable of full autonomy. The relevance of the fast-food argument is simply to point out that before we have self-flying passenger airliners, we are going to need to figure out what we do (as a country) with 10s of thousands of fast-food workers who will be dis-employed first - not to mention many other industries that have equally unskilled labor, or less-skilled labor than airline pilots - who arguably serve a much more important function that any one of the ~ 10^7 (or more) people who work in big-box stores and the like. Exactly - if you're not technically proficient, you'll likely not have much to contribute to anything.

Agree. One question: do you think we will see autonomous passenger aircraft or fully automated fast-food restaurants first?

Because then they could never take it away.

I cynically do believe that certain ones do care more about such calculations, but I still don't buy that they would give more weight to an airlines' complaint about USAF 11F salaries than they already do - I mean if they cared so much, why did they implement the 1500 hr ATP rule? That arguably will have a far, far greater impact on the airlines than will the "delay" that a higher military salary would have on staffing the airlines' rosters, since retired guys at 20 years would likely go to the airlines anyway.

I agree with you, and in my humble opinion, the USAF doesn't want to set the precedent of paying certain line officers double or more what they pay other line officers - it would likely cause "morale" issues in other parts of the Air Force - that is their real reason in my calculation - not the fact that they can't actually compete with the private sector (airlines). Which is why, every time I've heard it 'discussed', it's always brought up as a non-starter: "well, we know we can't compete with the airlines, so therefore..." Really? The DOD has an enormous budget - they could squeeze a couple rocks and put a major dent in their problem using nothing but money, if it was no object.

So? Senators care more about an airlines' bottom line than they do national security?

FYI getting to a fully autonomous car is a much more difficult problem than a self-flying airplane - basic reason, the driving environment is drastically more complex than the aircraft environment.

What about upping the retirement age to 85?

It matters because if you don't ID the root cause of an issue, you will never solve the problem. Nothing is wrong if the FAA lowers the hours for an ATP, but that's not the complaint. We (the pilots here) all know that it wasn't a flight-hour issue that caused the Colgan crash, and the subsequent rule-change doesn't really enhance the flying safety of the public. People's issue is that the USAF is addressing an issue that's not causing its problems.

I have a feeling this is ultimately a response to a number of "crash pads" that have cropped up around places like PIT and Shaw that take advantage (rightfully so) of the rules of the game regarding long-term "deployments" to places like AFCENT/CENTCOM, or TDYs at Randolph, etc. Bros notice that there is a huge economic disconnect between what is being paid for vs what is received on base. and have rushed to fill the gap. This undermines the "monopoly" system, takes money from someone's pocket, which powerful entities don't like, and hence a "mini" policy that directly contravenes established law.

I fully agree with you on this, and call me a cynic, but when I get a memo telling me I can roll up my sleeves, I delete it as fast as I do the ones reminding me that we're putting new cover sheets on our TPS reports - it just doesn't matter to me in the big scheme - I'll roll them up/down, wear whatever color boots you want, etc. That said, the AF wouldn't need to worry what the airlines did if their focus was on QOL. It is the only way the AF will compete with the airlines and it = (Fun / work) x Compensation. The Air Force, arguably, has a lot of control over two of these factors (Fun and compensation), so when people see our focus turned outward on issues that are yet to affect us, it's equivalent to worrying about a non-factor. So ultimately, I don't consider arguments that state the AF can't compete with industry - the AF is part of the only entity on the planet that can print money, so yes, they can compete - they just don't want to set that precedent. What else it suggests to me is that longer UPT commitments are not in the works, the AF was told 'no', or is anticipating being told 'no'. I don't think that this board's current attention on the 1500 hour rule is about that so specifically - rather it is general irritation with the latest in a series of misfires when it comes to addressing the problems the USAF says it has. The 1500 hour rule has not, in any way, contributed to the current exodus in the USAF - thus when this board reacts to it with 'really?' - it is a valid response. There is always a push and a pull when deciding on whether or not to leave the AF for other opportunities. Right now, the 'pull' factor has increased, but this was easily foreseen years ago, and is resultant from the long-looming retirement hiatus - not from the recent implementation of the 1500 hour rule. Once the regional airlines are empty, then we can talk about what the impact of that decision has had on the regional airlines as well as on military pilot retention, but as it stands now, the airlines can hire as many regional pilots as they can cram through training. What people here are focused on are the issues that "push" individuals out of service. Many people on this board have looked at this problem with the long view in mind and I've seen many such considerations that do address these issues in serious ways, but yet, we don't see movement on them or even acknowledgement that they're factors. Things such as: Basing decisions (Holloman, Cannon, Creech, Shaw, etc) 365s/179s (which exist specifically to skirt the USAFs own rules...) Up or out "Mandatory" not-mandatory education Ill-timed moves/PCSs TAMI/drones Opaque/unclear/questionable promotion rules The list goes on Ask me 10 years ago if I was considering going to the airlines, and I would have laughed at you. Give me more control over the factors listed above, and I'll laugh at the airlines...for at least another few years, which is all the AF wants anyway. So, yes, I sort of see that perspective, and I would give it more credence if it was backed up by actions taken 10 years ago to Increase the bonus Eliminate up or out Be more transparent with career opportunities/progression Or actions taken 4-6 years ago to not Force-shape fighter pilots...yeah...or other 11Xs... BL: seems to me that it is just something convenient to point at - just like the previous reasoning given which was "pilots just want to fly more..." when sequestration was all the rage. That, to me, sounds like American, Delta, United, and Southwest's problem - not the USAFs.

Nor did they pre-9/11...