ACSC paper bashes on the pilot bonus

[KennyB]

http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchro...win08/maue.html

W O W

[usaf36031]

Are those SPWINGS I see? Yep... that sounds about right.

Swallow my balls douchehat

spwings.bmp

[PirateAF]

Why do people have to go out and try to ruin other people's good deals?

If I were an assistant professor at the Zoo I wouldn't have time to write op-ed pieces on why we should screw the operators...I'd be too busy skiing.

Just another example of someone trying to move up the chain by stepping on others.

Blah.

[Mitch Weaver]

I would have preferred to have tracked active duty pilots as they exited the Air Force and joined the airlines since ACP applies to them and since the Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-3004, Aviator Continuation Pay (ACP) Program, specifically states that ACP does not apply to ANG and AFR officers.18 However, such a data set did not exist. Nevertheless, I was able to generate a reasonable proxy of airline impact on military-skilled pilots by examining a database composed of RC service records as well as earnings data from the Social Security Administration (SSA).

Anyone else see an issue with this analysis?

One way to mitigate this outflow of pilots would involve increasing the total number of pilots in order to lower deployment rates. The Air Force, however, should consider this very expensive option only within the portfolio of many pilot-stabilization alternative

Of all the possible alternatives to present, he chose to present IMO the most cost prohibitive. I can't see this guy having many friends.

[Duck]

Waaa, waaaa. I don't get ACP they shouldn't either.... waaa, waaa... There is sand in my V-jay jay!

[disgruntledemployee]

DO NOT PROMOTE. I repeat, DO NOT PROMOTE this dude. Not a team player.

BTW, that was the biggest piece of crap research I've ever seen; slanted, and full of guessing.

OUT.

[Guest Sandlapper]

Here's a thought using this guy's rationale....

He mentions that missile dudes don't have any real "transferable" skills that would apply to the private sector. Using the argument he presents that AF pilots don't really have any attractive private sector flying options (at the moment, anyway), why don't we apply the same rationale to missileers & cut their base pay in half? Really...what else are they gonna do? Quit? There's your savings. Ridiculous? Yes, of course it is...

[Palangi]

The main problem with his entire argument is that a military pilot would only cross over to a US airline. Come on, anyone with any kind of aviation trade understand would realize that you can make 14-15K per month after Taxes to fly in China, India, etc. They are hurting for senior level pilots who speak english and have experience flying internationally. Some of the airlines in china will send your kids to the Ex Pat schools for free (better education than most US schools IMHO), provide western medical care, fly family back to the US every summer for free, housing allotment.

His whole argument, like most outside of aviation, thinks that the glory of the aviation industry is airlines like SWA, US Air, and Delta. Not to bash them, but they are not the only ones on the block. When Aloha Airlines when out of business, many pilots got immediate interviews for Asian Airlines. He is right in that hiring for US carriers is down, but he is moronic to think that they are the only ones hiring.

Bad research, bad statistics, and poorly drawn argument. Even thought I am a Shoe in Training, I can recognize that the article was crap.

[busdriver]

His first proposition is probably correct, there is not a large threat of the airlines pulling away fixed wing pilots. That said, AFPC's VSP bungle hemorrhaged mid level IP types from multiple heavy communities. So we might have a new gap in experience.

That said he makes the claim that two policies have resulted in a more stable pilot force:

More pilots produced out of UPT

-So this may help deployment rates, except out commitments have gone up since the plus up occurred in 2000.

-On the topic of more pilots to reduced ops tempo, we shouldn't forget that more pilots either means more aircraft to keep them proficient, or less flight time. We all know we aren't getting more aircraft, get used to flying a sim I guess.

Longer commitment (10 years starting in 2000)

-Since 2010 hasn't gotten here yet, know one knows how this change will affect the stability of the pilot force. Typical myopic AFPC type thinking. Didn't we predict this same logical failing would be used to support killing the ACP?

For someone with so many degrees, he made some awfully obvious mistakes.

[Hacker]

Although he has a (somewhat) valid point with the reduction of the airline pay gap, he obviously didn't do any research with real pilots. Nor did he spend any time with even a basic Excel sheet comparing the actual USAF vs airline pay numbers over time.

First off, with respect to the airline pay gap, he hasn't done his homework enough. I did run the numbers in summer '07 and found that *with* the bonus, it was equally financially beneficial to stay in and retire (then go to a post-retirement airline gig) as it was to separate as soon as your UPT ADSC was done and go VFR direct to the airlines. Equal. With the bonus and the pension starting at age 42. So, do the math Brian -- cut the bonus, and it's no longer financially beneficial over the long haul to stay in past your initial hitch.

Second point, and probably the one that's more relevant -- With the increased deployment rates of the GWOT and the dramatic increase of UAV assignments, there is a corresponding drop in desirability of staying in once your commitment is up.

If the bonus were CANX, there would be a mass exodus for many reasons.

There's a third issue that Major Missile here isn't considering -- that ACP itself being a Congressionally-mandated pay, was difficult to get in the first place. There was discussion at the Air Staff level about stopping the ACP a year or two ago, the reason being that starting next year there is a 2-year ADSC gap from when the ADSCs went from 8 years to 10 years. One of the points made was that it was far easier to KEEP the ACP than it was to kill it and then try to revive it a couple years down the road when the financial landscape changes.

You guys have all ready made good counter-arguments to his proposition to pump up pilot production as an alternative. In addition, the criticism of his lack of actual cost-benefit analysis as well as failure to look ahead are both very valid.

Somebody needs to write this all up in a nice counter-paper. I have the Excel spreadsheets I did on the pay issue if anybody wants to use 'em.

[BQZip01]

Um, some basic information is accurate, but the conclusions are based on speculation. Furthermore, it focuses exclusively on the bottom line, not the quality/experience of the aviators and the impact of less experienced aviators on deployment rates. Sure, we can double the output of UPT if we need to, but if a pilot's life begins to suck dramatically because of leadership's shortsightedness (pilots pulling back-to-back tours frequently, always short of experienced/qualified pilots in the squadron, etc.), those pilots are going to jump ship just with the CHANCE to go to the airlines.

Now let's not forget how many pilots fly for the airlines AND the reserves too.

[Hacker]

Now let's not forget how many pilots fly for the airlines AND the reserves too.

He actually addresses that topic in the paragraph titled "Decline in Specific Airline Opportunity for Military Pilots". Unfortunately, his analysis in that paragraph fails to consider that the reduction of reservists employed at airlines is directly to linked to furloughs at the legacy airlines. Many of those furloughed will then take up mil-leave when recalled so they can get their USAF retirement before going back to their airline job.

In other words, the data in his graph is real, but he derives an incorrect analysis from the data, e.g. that it indicates there is less opportunity at the airlines for former military pilots.

[dmeg130]

I found the one missing variable in his equation was the Reflective Belt factor, which has increased exponentially since 2003. This is inversely proportional to any financial gain to be derived from ACP, and basically cancels out our whiny entitlement pay with loads of shoe bullshit that takes any fun out of being deployed. Analyze that, assclown, and I'll fund your research.

[Flare]

Someone should invite the Major on over to baseops and let us see him try to counter the arguments from actual AF pilots, not statistics.

Hacker...I think you and Major Spwings under-estimated your 2nd point. The suck continues to grow exponentially every day, and the bonus is a tool (sts) that allows dudes to stop, take a deep breath, and say "OK....I think I can put up with this shiite for another 5 years." Being as "cool" as the j o b is looked upon by outsiders, I doubt that we will ever have a shortage of dudes applying for UPT, but you can bet that we grow closer and closer to the line everyday where almost no one will stay past their initial committment regardless of how much money mother blue throws at him/her. Like Dmeg130 said, the "relective belt factor." ACP is just delaying when we reach that point.

Also, don't forget that $125K in 1989 dollars ain't anywhere near what it is in 2009 dollars. From a 6.9 google search, $125K in 1989 is equal to $207K in 2007 (latest data available). If my math is correct, we're only making 60% of what the original bonus was anyways.

[FlyinGrunt]

I think Dmeg130 hit the nail on the head- this guy isn't beginning to take into account all the intangibles involved with the decision to go or stay. He mentions deployments, but I don't think he really analyzes their impact in depth. One's guys "oh crap, AGAIN?" is another's "Alright, I get to finally do what I signed up to do!"

Most important in all that is the BS, aka "reflective belt factor." Any of you familiar with the eDodo may recall a toon Zero drew about that. We didn't sign up for this gig based solely on the pay and hours, we did it for other reasons - figure those out and you might be able to figure out the best way to get us to stay in!

[HeloDude]

One of the factors I'm surprised hasn't been brought up yet is the psychological factor of cutting someone's pay...

Let me back up one...and I'll add that for sake of the argument let's all assume that every pilot believes in Service before Self and that we can all agree in that there is nothing wrong for wanting to get out at any time when a commitment is up.

Even though ACP is considered a 'Bonus' in the sense that you are not necessarily entitled to it, take it away, and pilots will believe that their pay is being cut. Look at it this way...if we were told that from this day forward, no matter what rank you are or will achieve in your career, your pay will never change. That's means that I, would never be able to increase my base pay above O-3 with 6 years regardless of how long I stay in or when I pin on Major, etc--if this were the case, I'm willing to bet that the Air Force would see a large amount of people leave since they are not going to earn what they had originally once planned.

This goes along with the ACP Bonus. It's been around for almost 20 years and thus all pilots have come to expect it to be waiting for them when their commitment is up and have thus factored that in to their legitimate future earnings in the Air Force. If you take it away, many pilots (if not most) will take it as a pay cut in their future earnings and thus will be more likely to look elsewhere for other employment whether it's flying commercially or some other civilian job. Couple this with the increased ops tempo, BS with reflective belts and such, blues on Mondays, more additional duties, etc and you're going to see a lot of your more experienced pilots punching.

On another note...where is the argument for cancelling the bonus pay for doctors, nurses, etc? I'd like to see the same study (either for or against) for other bonuses.

[budderbar]

On another note...where is the argument for cancelling the bonus pay for doctors, nurses, etc? I'd like to see the same study (either for or against) for other bonuses.

Does anyone know what effect cutting CSO's (NAV) ACP has done to their moral, retention etc...?

Are CSO's jumping ship?

Edited December 29, 2008 by budderbar

[afnav]

Does anyone know what effect cutting CSO's (NAV) ACP done to their moral, retention etc...?

Are CSO's jumping ship?

I think the fact that they are offering bonuses to old guys who didn't take the bonus when it was around the last time may have something to do with it.

Also, my assignment guy has told me there is a virtual guarantee I'll be offered continuation to 24. There's no way in hell I'll do it, but it will be out there for the truly desperate.

[budderbar]

I think the fact that they are offering bonuses to old guys who didn't take the bonus when it was around the last time may have something to do with it.

Also, my assignment guy has told me there is a virtual guarantee I'll be offered continuation to 24. There's no way in hell I'll do it, but it will be out there for the truly desperate.

A Nav in the 20 to 24 TIS is more than likely a LT Col. to Col. rank, So wouldn't they be serving in paper pushing Jobs (Staff Positions) rather than flying centric positions? I guess that the Bonus is for that crowd to continue to fly in that rank rather than serve in staff positions.

I would "Guess" that in another two to three years we will see the the ACP being offered to Navs again after their initial commitment.

[hindsight2020]

Well I agree the guy missed the outcome of taking out the ACP because he tied it primarily to the airline job comparison, when in reality is has a lot more to do with people's historical expectation of said bump in pay, but I'll fart in this church and say that in so far as the airline-military opportunity cost is concerned, from the perspective of an AFRC pilot this guy shacked the airline analysis so hard it's not even funny. I'll go ahead and disclaim I'm no airline cheerleader, and this article makes scathingly accurate portrayals of the evolution of the airline business. To suggest that because he didn't include the dead cat bounce the airline hiring had circa 2005-07 he's not accurately portraying the airline job opportunity cost is really to miss the point of the article which is highlighting the overall slope of the earnings and benefits of airline jobs on the whole, which is not good. People need to stop dismissing the abortion of a system airline seniority and the race to the bottom is, the system is cyclical but the mean is not trending up, it's trending DOWN! Adjusted for inflation airline pilots have and will continue to see erosion in earnings and benefits, and that will never return to previous levels. The inelasticity of civilian and military pilots alike to fly "because of the love of it" will continue to ensure that management can get away with such tactics. The airline business, from the perspective that has been historically portrayed, is DEAD and the analysis of this fact on the article is dead on.

As a young trougher I also take exception to being lumped under the same category as the aforementioned senior pilots, furloughees or not, as if to infer we have equal access to the same earnings and seniority protections. The reality is that we do not, by virtue of timing they share a much larger buffer than a candidate in my demographic who would otherwise begin an airline career today or in a couple of years. See I got an excel spreadsheet too but mine is nice and grounded in reality, for it takes into account job stability criteria. According to my little excel spreadsheet to compare a 20 year stint in the AF with any tenure at a 121 operator (expat job contentions are not considered in my analysis) is outright disingenuous as the expectation of consecutive employment in the military is equivalent to that of a crooked post office worker (ie. solid as concrete) whereas airline pilots, particularly the younger in seniority, have a probability of consecutive employment similar to oh say..... an ice cream cone vendor in Siberia. To even make the effort of extrapolating an airline income pattern for 20 years is so unrealistic it's comical. Bottom line, you can't juxtapose the two, the airline option is statistically incapable of treading water against the amortization of a government job. If analysis of gaps in employment were somehow averaged and quantified into y'alls "excel" dreams, you'd see you're still better off financially doing 20 in the AF even without the ACP versus taking an airline job (if you could get one worth holding onto anyways).

As to the expat opportunities, gimme a break. Yeah some people might go for the 10K tax free in sandy (but hide your bible) dubai, but to suggest that the majority of military pilots, considering their family make-up and tendencies, are more inclined than less inclined to go after such jobs, is just inaccurate. So we disagree on that front. Is it a viable employment option? Yes. Is it statistically relevant to the point and discussion under which points were made in said article? Hell no.

Look, I fly with a bunch of the aforementioned senior AFRC dudes and the reality is that these folks recognize they are lucky to even have their jobs and those who retained employment post sept 11 are just quietly minding their business while the junior guys commiserate about the death of the dream. Heck, I know more people on said mil leave with NO intentions of going back to that job than guys chumping at the bit to sit right seat in your garden variety ERJ. I even know first year folks at continental who said "f00k this" and went on to seek civilian employment in federal agencies, and would take a full-time job at the unit in a heartbeat. So from where I sit, everybody with more than one mouth to feed, regardless of the kind of wings they wear on their bag, and who would be in the demographic of being affected by the dissolution of ACP were it to happen tomorrow, is balking at the idea of spotty employment at a 121 outfit. The guy in the article got that right, kicked it right between the nads. Therefore the bellyaching on this thread about ACP going away has more to do with anybody's bellyaching towards getting a paycut (airline pilots especially included), than it has to do with the supposed misfire this guy committed by writing the article. ACP goes away tomorrow and a whole lot of people would punch, but it wouldn't be to take an airline job, which is circular in reasoning, because if that's no longer true then would they punch en masse? Of course not, they'd stay and do the job till 20 and get the pension, pension they wouldn't get at the airline, and we already debunked the myth of working an airline job for more than a decade at a time for the 401K/TSP cheerleader types in the room. So hate the dweeb cause he's arguing for your paycut, not because you think his analysis towards airline employment is flawed, cause he shacked that.

[Spartacus]

I just don't know about this. I don't claim to be as smart as this guy or a lot of you who are countering his arguments, but the ACP will be a huge part of my decision matrix when the time comes. With a reasonable education and average social skills it seems like most military pilots could do very well just about anywhere in the civilian world. I hear people in my squadron say all the time that they are going to get out because they know they can make more money on the outside and won't have to worry about ops tempo and deployments, which take them away from the fam. (None of them are considering the airlines that I know of either.) If you take away the ACP it just seems like you're going to lose a lot more people than you normally would. Also, most people once they reach the end of their commitment are able to go to a major versus regional airline where you are going to make a lot more a lot sooner, and sure there are trends etc right now with pay but that seems like a huge bet to me. No one knows where the airlines will be next year let alone 5-10 years down the road. What if they start paying more and hiring more again, which will happen at some point. It just seems like there are a lot of assumptions that could really hurt if you are wrong. Like someone else on here said, "it will be a lot easier to get rid of the ACP than it will be to get it back." What if they take it away and then suddenly need it back because everyone is jumping ship? This dude just pisses me off. He has no credibility in my mind because it's like he is trying to piss in my cheerios because he is jealous of what I have. If a pilot had written this I think I would be more willing to consider what he is saying because it would affect him too. This all just seems like another example to me of the shoe clerks trying to knock down the pilots because we have it too good or something...

[hindsight2020]

I just don't know about this. I don't claim to be as smart as this guy or a lot of you who are countering his arguments, but the ACP will be a huge part of my decision matrix when the time comes. With a reasonable education and average social skills it seems like most military pilots could do very well just about anywhere in the civilian world. I hear people in my squadron say all the time that they are going to get out because they know they can make more money on the outside and won't have to worry about ops tempo and deployments, which take them away from the fam. (None of them are considering the airlines that I know of either.) If you take away the ACP it just seems like you're going to lose a lot more people than you normally would. Also, most people once they reach the end of their commitment are able to go to a major versus regional airline where you are going to make a lot more a lot sooner, and sure there are trends etc right now with pay but that seems like a huge bet to me. No one knows where the airlines will be next year let alone 5-10 years down the road. What if they start paying more and hiring more again, which will happen at some point. It just seems like there are a lot of assumptions that could really hurt if you are wrong. Like someone else on here said, "it will be a lot easier to get rid of the ACP than it will be to get it back." What if they take it away and then suddenly need it back because everyone is jumping ship? This dude just pisses me off. He has no credibility in my mind because it's like he is trying to piss in my cheerios because he is jealous of what I have. If a pilot had written this I think I would be more willing to consider what he is saying because it would affect him too. This all just seems like another example to me of the shoe clerks trying to knock down the pilots because we have it too good or something...

But that's the thing, your squadron mates are BLUFFING. As a Reservist I can piss into the wind and hit 10 AD dudes who swear up and down they could make soooo much more money the second they punch out. But they do their bean checking like good altar boys every year and every year there they are staying put. Under the economic conditions of 2009, none of them are going to move an inch, I'd buy stock in that bet if I could.

As to airline employment compensation returning, it's not conjecturing, it's historical trending. It's going to continue to go down the tubes...Now, it doesn't mean the majority couldn't learn to tolerate the job so long as you could pay the bills somewhat, but it won't be ever again the obvious win win choice under which many AF pilots long before punched for. If you think cabotage, open skies, ab initio, career regionals, and eventually the hobby pilot crowd is NOT the future and logical conclusion to the so called "cyclical" nature of the airline business, I got a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to lease you. Like I said before, this guy's clearly pissing in your cheerios [he's arguing for your paycut], but he's not doing it JUST because you're a pilot, which is a pilot way to feel among shoe clerks actually... If you think of it, you've just got a taste of what is like to be an airline pilot when it comes to having to deflect, defend and protect yourself from the constant waves of impending economic realities set on eroding your purchasing power. The only difference is that government workers, military pilots in particular, are just not accustomed to the idea of being vulnerable to tracking backwards in pay and benefits ['I can make soo much more money outside' chest-thumping diatribes aside], after all that's one of the central personal economic rationales behind public service, flag waving aside.....

And no I do not subscribe to the idea that the average military pilot is guaranteed by virtue of a mean educational level and some abstract valuation of social skills, the ability, and more importantly, the entitlement, of an above average income outside the military. If anything, among my own experience as a reservist that there's a whole lot of real smart individuals working military and civilian jobs consecutively, currently incapable of attaining the mythical "big time" income all your AD brotha's yap all day they could attain the second they separate...There's a lot of chaff in [the AD folks] that school of thinking IMO.

[Spartacus]

But that's the thing, your squadron mates are BLUFFING. As a Reservist I can piss into the wind and hit 10 AD dudes who swear up and down they could make soooo much more money the second they punch out. But they do their bean checking like good altar boys every year and every year there they are staying put. Under the economic conditions of 2009, none of them are going to move an inch, I'd buy stock in that bet if I could.

As to airline employment compensation returning, it's not conjecturing, it's historical trending. It's going to continue to go down the tubes...Now, it doesn't mean the majority couldn't learn to tolerate the job so long as you could pay the bills somewhat, but it won't be ever again the obvious win win choice under which many AF pilots long before punched for. If you think cabotage, open skies, ab initio, career regionals, and eventually the hobby pilot crowd is NOT the future and logical conclusion to the so called "cyclical" nature of the airline business, I got a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to lease you. Like I said before, this guy's clearly pissing in your cheerios [he's arguing for your paycut], but he's not doing it JUST because you're a pilot, which is a pilot way to feel among shoe clerks actually... If you think of it, you've just got a taste of what is like to be an airline pilot when it comes to having to deflect, defend and protect yourself from the constant waves of impending economic realities set on eroding your purchasing power. The only difference is that government workers, military pilots in particular, are just not accustomed to the idea of being vulnerable to tracking backwards in pay and benefits ['I can make soo much more money outside' chest-thumping diatribes aside], after all that's one of the central personal economic rationales behind public service, flag waving aside.....

And no I do not subscribe to the idea that the average military pilot is guaranteed by virtue of a mean educational level and some abstract valuation of social skills, the ability, and more importantly, the entitlement, of an above average income outside the military. If anything, among my own experience as a reservist that there's a whole lot of real smart individuals working military and civilian jobs consecutively, currently incapable of attaining the mythical "big time" income all your AD brotha's yap all day they could attain the second they separate...There's a lot of chaff in [the AD folks] that school of thinking IMO.

You make some good points but I'm still not buying all of it. If it was appropriate, but it's not, I could give you a list of five people that I know who are jumping ship in THIS economy because they are done with the military or can't get back into their airframe so they are leaving. One thing that some might be forgetting is that many might be willing to leave for lower pay but I don't think there are a lot who are willing to stay for lower pay. When you are already on the edge and are trying to decide if you are going to stay or go and then the AF kicks you in the nuts and takes the bonus away then that is probably going to be enough to push a lot of people over the edge. The thinking would be, "well I can stay and make less or I can leave and make less? Hhhmmm, I think I'll leave because of (insert whatever you want... ops tempo, deployments, additional duties, leadership, or whatever.) Whether it is true or not most pilots feel like they just might have a lot to offer. Take a guy with a masters level education and 8-10 years of military officer/pilot experience and I think most people are willing to take the risk of leaving and competing in the private sector, and I don't think that is a stretch.

As far as the airlines go most people that I talk to wouldn't touch them with a 10 foot pole. It just does not appeal to a lot of people. This is not a stay and fly in the AF or leave and fly for the airlines only situation. A lot of people have vastly different plans that do not involve flying when the get out whether that is at 10 or 20 years. However, if you are going to go to the airlines you cannot say for sure that that is going to be a bad move. It might look that way now but you never ever know 100% for sure. Just like with everything luck and timing is what will largely determine how things go for you, and that definitely applies to working for an airline. However, I'm 99% sure that what you are saying about the airlines is true and I agree with you but you just never know.

Sure I am biased because I am a pilot and this would affect me but I think it is a really really stupid idea written by a guy who knows nothing about flying. Correct me if I'm wrong but this guy seems to have a pretty comfortable setup. Has he ever deployed? Has he ever even been stationed outside of the US? Has he ever lived at a base other than a missile base or the academy? It's really easy to crunch numbers and to make something look good on paper but what are the practical implications? I have always wondered when I walk into finance or the MPF if the shoes really understand what a pilot does all day. It's my hunch that they think that we drink every evening and spend the day barnstorming. Perhaps part of this is a perception problem too because I sure a lot of shoes who really do not like pilots and this paper really gives me the same feeling. If people really understood what pilots go through then maybe things like this would not be written? I don't know I'm just thinking out loud.

Maybe we pilots have a sense of entitlement on certain things... I will concede that but you still can't take away the ramifications of something like this being put into practice. People will jump ship and this will only create a lot more problems than it will solve!

[Stiffler]

The author would have to wade through the other 59 posts in this thread that have nothing to do with either this discussion or his paper, which most people would be unlikely to do. All thanks to the undying obsession of a few to merge all topics into one 69-page locked sticky from which anyone is unlikely to actually glean current or useful information.

This is a great point. Moderators, did this discussion REALLY deserve to be merged into the incentive pay thread, when this is about a douchebag and his paper, and not about the future of the pilot bonus, per se?

Two topics can be related and not have to be merged. Just a thought...

[PirateAF]

There is a reason the Air Force pays folks extra to retain them: 25-50K in annual bonuses for medical/dental types seem to be the norm on the 2009 pay scales.

It takes over $200K to train a doctor...and it takes over $1M to train a pilot - and speaking for this pilot, $25K will make me consider any decision I make pretty carefully. I wonder how much it takes to train a missileer? Probably not much.

http://www.dfas.mil/militarypay/militarypa...ryPayTables.pdf

And folks aren't bailing for RJs...they're bailing for SWA - I know 10 guys who got out at their 8-10 yr commitment within the past year...some even due to last year's VSP debacle!