Learjetter Posted September 8, 2011 Share Posted September 8, 2011 No problem. Familiar territory for Big Blue, they went there and did exactly that in the early '90s. They also did "feet on the ramp" for non-bonus takers...not sure we're there yet...but "RPAs for non-bonus takers" could be one of the unpalatable options offered... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chida Posted September 10, 2011 Share Posted September 10, 2011 They also did "feet on the ramp" for non-bonus takers...not sure we're there yet...but "RPAs for non-bonus takers" could be one of the unpalatable options offered... This makes sense. If the USAF wants people to get out, then this would be a method of encouragement. They already know you're not *totally committed* (by refusing the bonus) and you just need to be pushed over the edge a little bit. A pseudo-RIF like the twice-passed over, non-continued group. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catbox Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 (edited) Thread Revival... "456 O-5s eligible to retire early By Jeff Schogol - Staff writer Posted : Monday May 7, 2012 7:41:57 EDT More than 400 lieutenant colonels will be eligible to retire after only two years’ time in grade, under a force management program designed to meet end strength goals." http://www.airforcet...ly-outs-050712/ Just curious if anyone here is going to jump at this early retirement for LtCols. This is another one of those things that I can't understand for the life of me. They are expecting 456 non-rated dudes who are (I assume) elligible to retire at 20 no matter what to take a reduction in benefits to help out Big Blue. I just can't see anyone doing this... But they could offer this to 15-16 year Majors who may not make it to 20 and see some real savings AND do right by them at the same time. Edited May 7, 2012 by Catbox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BQZip01 Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 We can't do that! It makes too much sense!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BFM this Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 I recently did the math for grins, and depending on where you end up on the pay scale, it equates to ~$30k per year to stay after 20. That's the rough equivalent addition to the retirement annuity to push the extra 2.5%. So someone separating 2 years early is giving up ~$60k of value. But hey, if you've got something better lined up, I say go for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 I recently did the math for grins, and depending on where you end up on the pay scale, it equates to ~$30k per year to stay after 20. That's the rough equivalent addition to the retirement annuity to push the extra 2.5%. So someone separating 2 years early is giving up ~$60k of value. But hey, if you've got something better lined up, I say go for it. How did you come up with a $30k/yr income hit for this program? I am also interested in how you think anyone is going to increase their retirement income $30k/yr for every year after 20. Seems a little aggressive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BFM this Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 Nope. Annuity model. Based on a total 7% roi (4% return, 3% saved for cola increases), it would take an additional $30k increase in annuity value to drive the 2.5% additional retirement benefit.Again, dependen on where you finish off on the pay scale. Give or take... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
albertschu Posted May 8, 2012 Share Posted May 8, 2012 I recently did the math for grins, and depending on where you end up on the pay scale, it equates to ~$30k per year to stay after 20. That's the rough equivalent addition to the retirement annuity to push the extra 2.5%. So someone separating 2 years early is giving up ~$60k of value.So you'd have to be able to find a gig that would pay $30,000.69 to make it worthwhile? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JPStryker Posted May 8, 2012 Share Posted May 8, 2012 Pretty sure "retiring early" in this case doesn't affect retired pay at all. These guys should be under high 3 no matter what and will receive that pay. The only thing this does is allow them to retire as LtCols vs. Majs if they didn't serve the 3 yrs TIG (otherwise if you hit 20 before doing 3 yrs TIG you would be retired in the rank of Maj, still getting paid high 3 including the years you served as a LtCol). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThreeHoler Posted May 8, 2012 Share Posted May 8, 2012 There is a reduction penalty from the "50% base pay" for retiring short of 20 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JPStryker Posted May 8, 2012 Share Posted May 8, 2012 They're not letting them retire before 20. It's semantics. They're saying, "You can retire after 20 years of service as an O-5 even if you haven't served 3 yrs TIG". High 3 is high 3. So, if your high 3 isn't at O-5 pay then you're getting less but you're still getting high 3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BitteEinBit Posted May 8, 2012 Share Posted May 8, 2012 Pretty sure this program is designed for prior E O-5s over 20 years but less than 3 TIG....a traditional O-5 pins on at 15.5-16 years and would have 3 years TIG by 20....anyone willing to retire earlier than that would in fact take a penalty under the new temporary early retirement authority (15-year retirement). I can't really imagine why anyone would take that option when they can retire at 20 years +1 day as a LtCol and normal retirement. That is why it doesn't seem to make sense if you're talking about a traditional O-5. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClearedHot Posted May 8, 2012 Share Posted May 8, 2012 They're not letting them retire before 20. It's semantics. They're saying, "You can retire after 20 years of service as an O-5 even if you haven't served 3 yrs TIG". High 3 is high 3. So, if your high 3 isn't at O-5 pay then you're getting less but you're still getting high 3. 99.69% true...it is not about your pay being "O-5 pay". The plan is a straight up calculation of the % earned of your top 36 months of base pay, in the example cited above 12 months of O-4 pay + 24 months of O-5 pay, then divide by 36. Determine the percentage based on years of service and subtract any Spouse benefit plan you choose. Then multiply the percentage time the final pay amount. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rusty Pipes Posted May 8, 2012 Share Posted May 8, 2012 I have a feeling this is going to be a popular thread again in the next few weeks when the O-5 Board results are supposed to be released. We had an AF 4 Star come talk to a group of us (all flyers) a few months ago and in the Q&A a newly pinned on Maj who was within a year of his UPT ADSC asked the Gen why the folks in his year group would ever stay past their commitment after seeing the passed over guys get booted and a bunch of denied VSP types get RIF'd. His honest answer surprised me... He said, "We really screwed that one up last year." He did say that he thought the AF did a disservice to the "157", but said the bigger concern was the exact question the Maj asked... what incentive does a pilot have to stay past his commitment. When asked about the 15 year retirement option for the passed over guys he said he wasn't in the loop of deciding those specific personnel details, but did say that making sure what happened last year doesn't happen again was a topic that was on the agenda amongst the 4 Star "leadership". I'm not exactly sure what that means, but I guess we'll find out here in a few weeks. I know lots of guys coming up on or just past that ADSC who asked for assignment extensions waiting to see what happens this time around… most who oddly enough just got their ATPs! Hmmm… Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FallingOsh Posted May 8, 2012 Share Posted May 8, 2012 , but did say that making sure what happened last year doesn't happen again You can't fix stupid. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catbox Posted May 8, 2012 Share Posted May 8, 2012 , but did say that making sure what happened last year doesn't happen again was a topic that was on the agenda amongst the 4 Star "leadership". I'm not exactly sure what that means, but I guess we'll find out here in a few weeks. The AF is really in a bind with this one because nearly everyone I've talked to (incl O6 and above) thinks that last years non-continuation was dead wrong. However if they go back on it this year they acknowledge the validity of the 100 or so guys suing over not-making it to 20. If they don't continue the passed-over guys this year then exactly what you said, what incentive is there for dudes with less than absolutely stellar records to not jump at a tempting airline offer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skitzo Posted May 8, 2012 Share Posted May 8, 2012 AF/A1 Lt Gen Jones painted quite a bright future today at SOS. His brief indicated that the only major hurdle would be a Force Shaping Board in 2013, other than that all other programs brought our end strength down. Who knows what Congress will do though, and the likelihood is that we will all be facing more and more cuts in the future... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cap-10 Posted May 8, 2012 Share Posted May 8, 2012 AF/A1 Lt Gen Jones painted quite a bright future today at SOS. What flavor of Kool-Aid was he handing out? Cheers, Cap-10 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperWSO Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 AF/A1 Lt Gen Jones painted quite a bright future today at SOS. His brief indicated that the only major hurdle would be a Force Shaping Board in 2013, other than that all other programs brought our end strength down. WOW, I feel much better knowing that I was one of the 157 dudes (and dudettes - I know at least one female in the crowd) who was holding the Air Force back. Now that we're gone, I'm sure things have improved measurably. If it is obvious now that their course of action was unsat, why did they do it? It seemed like a great idea at the time? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rusty Pipes Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 The Navy offered a 15 yr retirement to the guys who were involunarily separated this year (FY) who had 15 yrs of service by the mandatory separation date. I have raised this question before somewhere on here... but I'm guessing the AF/DoD is going to have a tough time explaining to your local Congressman/Senator why the service of a 15 yr Navy P-3 pilot who was offered a retirement is worth more than a 15 yr AF C-130 pilot who is non-continued and only gets separation pay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThreeHoler Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 The Navy offered a 15 yr retirement to the guys who were involunarily separated this year (FY) who had 15 yrs of service by the mandatory separation date. I have raised this question before somewhere on here... but I'm guessing the AF/DoD is going to have a tough time explaining to your local Congressman/Senator why the service of a 15 yr Navy P-3 pilot who was offered a retirement is worth more than a 15 yr AF C-130 pilot who is non-continued and only gets separation pay. The Navy only offered the 15 year retirement option to the ERB (Enlisted Review Board) guys. They're not offering it to officers at this time. http://navylive.dodlive.mil/2012/01/23/navy-offers-early-retirement-program/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rusty Pipes Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 (edited) The Navy only offered the 15 year retirement option to the ERB (Enlisted Review Board) guys. They're not offering it to officers at this time. http://navylive.dodl...rement-program/ OK... then they will have to explain why the service of a Petty Officer with 15 yrs is worth more than that of a 15 yr Major C-130 pilot. This link seems to be more relevant as it talks about those who were involuntarily separated... http://www.navytimes.com/news/2012/01/navy-erb-sailors-will-get-15-year-retirements-012012w Edited May 9, 2012 by Rusty Pipes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuggyU2 Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 OK... then they will have to explain why the service of a Petty Officer with 15 yrs is worth more than that of a 15 yr Major C-130 pilot. Well,... it seems that since they can afford to get rid of Petty Officers at 15 years, their service would be worth less than the 15 Major. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rusty Pipes Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 Well,... it seems that since they can afford to get rid of Petty Officers at 15 years, their service would be worth less than the 15 Major. How is a retirement with benefits for life for a Petty Officer with 15 yrs that is involuntarily separated less than just separation pay for a 15 year Major who is involuntarily separated? Did I miss something? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
backseatdriver Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 What flavor of Kool-Aid was he handing out? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now