What's wrong with the Air Force?

[Bergman]

On 4/29/2017 at 10:19 PM, Fuzz said:

I'm sure it varies by community but the guard and reserves from my experience provide an MWS qualified pilot sure but that doesn't usually mean a combat ready or capable pilot.

You're joking, right?!

 

You did caveat your comment so I'll give you that.  Which community are you referring to, because in my limited experience the ARC bubbas are full-up and have 2-3 times more experience as well.

[Guest nsplayr]

Not sure if this has been posted on BO.net before, but I agree with this:

https://philipgmorrison.wordpress.com/2017/01/15/its-your-move-the-dilemma-of-incurred-commitment-in-the-modern-job-market/

BLUF: frequent PCSing leads to unnecessary separations, even for "free agents" who could otherwise punch more or less immediately

Completely true in my sample size of 1. My departure from AD was driven by a PCS, yet I likely would have stayed on at least a little while beyond my ADSC had I remained in place.

[mcbush]

The monetary and personnel costs associated with the PCS grind are massive. DoD spent $4.3B reshuffling its people in FY14, which is up 13% since 2001 even though the number of moves is down 12% over the same span, meaning that total costs are up 28% on a per-move basis. The AF sees a disproportionate amount of that cost too, since airmen, and AF officers especially, are the costliest segment of the DoD to move.

Per AFPC's own statistics, we're also PCSing our officers every 37 months on average, despite the assignments reg stipulating 48 months as the standard. If you crunch the numbers, you'll find out that Big Blue could save close to $100M per year if it did nothing but follow its own damn AFI WRT TOS before PCS's. That doesn't even begin to account for the added value in QoL, the likely increase in retention, etc. 

Here's the GAO report if anyone's interested. Assignments AFI is 36-2110.

[MooseAg03]

They sure as hell follow that 4 year TOS minimum when you get sent to RPA purgatory.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Homestar]

Stopping the PCS madness is a great idea. 5 years should be the standard. All a typical pilot needs till he goes to ACSC are jobs at/below the Wing level anyway. All that can be done in one place. If you want to move after 5 years but before 10 look for a job in a squadron somewhere else and get hired there. Let Sq/CCs hire their squadrons. I'm sure there are tons of problems with this idea. 

Edited May 2, 2017 by Homestar

[ViperMan]

58 minutes ago, nsplayr said:

Not sure if this has been posted on BO.net before, but I agree with this:

https://philipgmorrison.wordpress.com/2017/01/15/its-your-move-the-dilemma-of-incurred-commitment-in-the-modern-job-market/

BLUF: frequent PCSing leads to unnecessary separations, even for "free agents" who could otherwise punch more or less immediately

Completely true in my sample size of 1. My departure from AD was driven by a PCS, yet I likely would have stayed on at least a little while beyond my ADSC had I remained in place.

Pile on: I fully agree with the author, and the main factor he discusses - incurred service commitment for a PCS - was at least 60% of my decision to separate. No shit. I'm also on board with those who say slowing the PCS beast would save the government (DOD) a lot of money that is wasted literally shuffling one Captain/Major with the next.

That said, what is the solution to the "clog" that would occur in places like Hill, Hawaii, Phoenix, Spang, Aviano, when you have other "less desirables" that are in the mix such as Holloman, Cannon, Creech, et al? Of course one man's trash is another's treasure, but there would certainly be an ever-growing population at the garden spots, and dwindling pops at the shitholes. What's the fix to keep manning "balanced"?

[Clark Griswold]

32 minutes ago, ViperMan said:

Pile on: I fully agree with the author, and the main factor he discusses - incurred service commitment for a PCS - was at least 60% of my decision to separate. No shit. I'm also on board with those who say slowing the PCS beast would save the government (DOD) a lot of money that is wasted literally shuffling one Captain/Major with the next.

That said, what is the solution to the "clog" that would occur in places like Hill, Hawaii, Phoenix, Spang, Aviano, when you have other "less desirables" that are in the mix such as Holloman, Cannon, Creech, et al? Of course one man's trash is another's treasure, but there would certainly be an ever-growing population at the garden spots, and dwindling pops at the shitholes. What's the fix to keep manning "balanced"?

Another special pay for shitholes for 0 to 3 years, bonus for staying beyond three years.  

Bottom 1/3rd requested bases get a base pay bonus of 10%.  Sign up for a 5 year hitch at Turdshit AFB and get years 4 & 5 with a bonus + 10% base pay.  Make the bonus appreciable, at least 6 o 12k per year, with increasing pay for tenure at Base X.

Coming at it from a perspective of someone with rug rats, steer money to these bases for great housing-facilities-schools (On base DODS or contract schools if the local schools are abortions or grants for local school improvements if it could be done legally).

Not saying this from hate but there could be other incentives to encourage movement at appropriate times rather than stagnation at garden spots.  You could require the desirable spots to fill X % of 365s first with some caveats to ensure they get sometime in the sun or beach before a 365 to somewhere not so nice.

Less desirable bases would then have at least one attractive amenity (or several if you implement that plus a bonus pay).

[Guest nsplayr]

53 minutes ago, ViperMan said:

Pile on: I fully agree with the author, and the main factor he discusses - incurred service commitment for a PCS - was at least 60% of my decision to separate. No shit. I'm also on board with those who say slowing the PCS beast would save the government (DOD) a lot of money that is wasted literally shuffling one Captain/Major with the next.

That said, what is the solution to the "clog" that would occur in places like Hill, Hawaii, Phoenix, Spang, Aviano, when you have other "less desirables" that are in the mix such as Holloman, Cannon, Creech, et al? Of course one man's trash is another's treasure, but there would certainly be an ever-growing population at the garden spots, and dwindling pops at the shitholes. What's the fix to keep manning "balanced"?

Excellent that the article's main point wasn't just to slow the roll on PCSing, but that the incurred service commitment for a mandatory PCS was the issue. 100% agree...when faced with A) accept PCS and add to my overall ADSC or B) punch, I took the red pill.

To solve the problem of massing folks in desirable locations, you do what every other large organization on earth does: leverage incentives. Pay more for less favorable locations. Offer career benefits for accepting tours in less favorable locations. Also you probably just accept that quality at those less favorable locations is going to inevitably be lower due to the trend of people with their heads screwed on straight will choose more favorable life conditions for their families.

[Lawman]

Excellent that the article's main point wasn't just to slow the roll on PCSing, but that the incurred service commitment for a mandatory PCS was the issue. 100% agree...when faced with A) accept PCS and add to my overall ADSC or B) punch, I took the red pill.

To solve the problem of massing folks in desirable locations, you do what every other large organization on earth does: leverage incentives. Pay more for less favorable locations. Offer career benefits for accepting tours in less favorable locations. Also you probably just accept that quality at those less favorable locations is going to inevitably be lower due to the trend of people with their heads screwed on straight will choose more favorable life conditions for their families.

 

It would be an amazing concept for the services to actually offer a hardship location pay to some of the spectacular locations stateside like Polk or Minot.

 

I get prioritizing cost of living adjustments but BAH is designed to handle that, what isn't handled is money to make being 7 hours away from anything and any family in the middle of the desert.

 

 

Another factor I would say all the service branches need to see is what there actual needle is at with the constant game of "that's where you're PCS'ing enjoy the sandwich I gave you." I can count on one hand the number of people told to go to crap location that threatened to drop their papers and leave that didn't, but I can count at least 15 guys that are out for the same reason. How many times does HRC have to lose that fight while still calling themselves successful before somebody tries to make a change. Maybe treating people eligible for retirement/guard/etc like they have no option but to take the hand dealt isn't a good policy to stick to when you're simultaneously facing a manpower shortage.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[HU&W]

37 minutes ago, nsplayr said:

To solve the problem of massing folks in desirable locations, you do what every other large organization on earth does: leverage incentives. Pay more for less favorable locations. Offer career benefits for accepting tours in less favorable locations. Also you probably just accept that quality at those less favorable locations is going to inevitably be lower due to the trend of people with their heads screwed on straight will choose more favorable life conditions for their families and so you close them down because you can't staff them.

fify

[nunya]

19 minutes ago, Lawman said:

How many times does HRC have to lose that fight...

I think we're at 2 now?

 

[FlyinGrunt]

Yeah, that 37 month average sure ain't happening at Afcannonstan . . .

[Guest nsplayr]

We're not saying likely, but answering, "What should be done?"

Also Cannon specifically ain't closing...AFSOC pumped so much money into MILCON it would be irresponsible to close it now. Lots of improvements on base and some in town which are nicer than before, but since the location isn't changing my recommendation is some kind of incentive pay scheme to try to keep people from punching when those orders drop.

Same can be said of at least half a dozen other garden spots although I fully agree that if the taxpayers haven't recently sunk millions into undesirable bases, they should be closed. BRAC is needed and I'm pretty sure wanted by Big Blue management in order to pay for fleet recap and other priorities.

Edited May 2, 2017 by nsplayr

[Prozac]

I take issue with any argument that says the AF can't afford something. Bullshit. The Air Force will prioritize bleeding edge technology fighters over everything else. If solving personnel issues means one less F-35, they'll take the jet every time. 

[BFM this]

4 hours ago, cantfly said:

Have you guys lost your damn minds? You all know the AF is NEVER going to offer incentive pay to live in a less than desirable area. There is an all out assault on BAH already. The AF can't afford it in general. If the officers were to receive incentive pay then the E's would as well. 

I would rather push to shut down the bases out in the middle of nowhere, than receive incentive pay. Correlating people leaving the AF after being stationed at one of these bases would provide more ammunition than anything else.

Word is that Creech AIP is getting turned back on per last years CPIP.

Never say never.

[BFM this]

4 hours ago, nsplayr said:

Also Cannon specifically ain't closing...AFSOC pumped so much money into MILCON it would be irresponsible to close it now. Lots of improvements on base and some in town which are nicer than before,

Dude, that has not been a player in any previous closing decisions.  In fact, as pointed out in previous threads (too lazy to search) signed MILCON projects proceed even AFTER closing decisions.  Reference the brand new commissary and hospital that were opened on Chanute  right before they shuttered the place.

[Weezer]

1 hour ago, BFM this said:

Dude, that has not been a player in any previous closing decisions.  In fact, as pointed out in previous threads (too lazy to search) signed MILCON projects proceed even AFTER closing decisions.  Reference the brand new commissary and hospital that were opened on Chanute  right before they shuttered the place.

MILCON and BRAC are funny things.  A lot of times they will get pushed through regardless of what the service wants.  Both are fully in Congress's wheelhouse.  MILCON is line-item approved by Congress, so there's no way that senator from Illinois is going to let a MILCON get turned off if it's directly benefiting his constituents in the very near future.

[Weezer]

Interesting discussion on locations of AFBs and incentives, etc.  The Air Force has been trying to close locations since the last round of BRAC in 2005 (Article).  In fact, Cannon AFB was on the closure list in 2005.  The NM governor and associated politicians wrangled for its survival (Article).  Same for several other garden spots.

Implying the AF is responsible for the locations of its bases misses the point of why there are so many bases and why some of them are in such crapholes.  To a limited extent, spreading your forces out is a good idea militarily...during the Cold War, it wouldn't have been a great idea to have all your bases in LA and NYC.  Not only could you take them out with one strike, but you'd also take millions of people out with them.  Maybe that idea still holds today, but I'd say that argument has lost weight over time.

A more compelling arguments on why bases in crappy locations exist is the relative power of particular Congressmen and Senators.  As the case of Cannon showed, powerful politicians exert influence by way of funding over the location of military bases.  Grand Forks, that completely lacked a mission for several years, is another example.  Politicians from these lousy areas leverage their votes or influence on committees to protect these cash cows for their constituents.

A related political concern is the proximity of flying ops to population centers.  Bases that were originally way out of town now find themselves surrounded by suburbs.  Upper middle class suburbanites start complaining when F-15s are doing touch and gos all day over their house, regardless of the fact the runway was there long before they were.  Additionally flight operations require clear zones at the end of the runways, which take up valuable real estate local developers would love to get their hands on.

All of that makes the case for Big Blue coming up with more creative ways to offset the morale lost by putting young Airmen of any type in these lousy areas.  Not sure if it's still the case, but for a long time space guys at Cavalier got remote credit and benefits for that assignment.

[cantfly]

I think we all understand the facets of the Cold War which drove some basing decisions. However, a company has to be willing to restructure and close down stores or locations in order to be more competitive and to save costs. The AF direct competitor is the airlines. Macy's as an example don't usually close stores in highly populated cities unless the store is not profitable. Unfortunately, they are closing about 68 stores this year. Macy's is currently having to compete against Amazon. They say Amazon is killing malls in general across America. Just like the airlines are killing the AF. 

Look at your bases and restructure period. You won't have to pay a dime in incentives. Besides, if you pay out incentives and people still get out of the AF after being stationed at one of these locations would derail the program. Last thing you want is John McCain bitching about incentives like a spilled glass of metamucil. He lost his marbles over BAH. I can already see the program being abused.

We all know Uncle Sam doesn't want anything to cost Big Blue a dime. If I'm going to step in front of a GO and say I would like more homesteading options for aviators and for you to restructure a base from each MAJCOM on a 4 year basis would be more reasonable. Sir/maam, this won't cost you a dime, but save money and pilots in the long run. His/her ears might perk up. 

When you talk about costing the AF more money not dealing with iron on the ramp, golf courses, or pools you are going to lose.

Maybe after your commitment ends, you are authorized to submit a "Wish List" of places the AF cannot send you period. And the AF must give you one of your top 3 assignment preferences. The list must be honored by AFPC. Almost like having seniority in the airlines. I came up with this idea because the problem is the high time guys leaving after their commitment is up. Not saying this idea won't screw over the younger guys. But it would be a far better incentive to me.

 

Edited May 2, 2017 by cantfly

[matmacwc]

20 hours ago, Homestar said:

Stopping the PCS madness is a great idea. 5 years should be the standard. All a typical pilot needs till he goes to ACSC are jobs at/below the Wing level anyway. All that can be done in one place. If you want to move after 5 years but before 10 look for a job in a squadron somewhere else and get hired there. Let Sq/CCs hire their squadrons. I'm sure there are tons of problems with this idea. 

Somebody old tell us why this didn't work in the 90's, I know we have tried it and it was a disaster.

[ViperMan]

20 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

Another special pay for shitholes for 0 to 3 years, bonus for staying beyond three years.  

Bottom 1/3rd requested bases get a base pay bonus of 10%.  Sign up for a 5 year hitch at Turdshit AFB and get years 4 & 5 with a bonus + 10% base pay.  Make the bonus appreciable, at least 6 o 12k per year, with increasing pay for tenure at Base X.

Coming at it from a perspective of someone with rug rats, steer money to these bases for great housing-facilities-schools (On base DODS or contract schools if the local schools are abortions or grants for local school improvements if it could be done legally).

Not saying this from hate but there could be other incentives to encourage movement at appropriate times rather than stagnation at garden spots.  You could require the desirable spots to fill X % of 365s first with some caveats to ensure they get sometime in the sun or beach before a 365 to somewhere not so nice.

Less desirable bases would then have at least one attractive amenity (or several if you implement that plus a bonus pay).

I agree that incentive pay would fix the issue for some folks (like with those whose personal desires align with the assignment, such as having rug rats).

Using myself as a data point, however, I can tell you that right now I make right around a $100K/yr, and there are contractors that the AF pays ~$180K/yr - to do a similar job at Holloman. If that extra $80K (~10x the bonus amount you suggest) was offered to me as "Holloman incentive", it still would not be enough for me to move there. So I get that I'm a data point of one, but I'm telling you that the AF could double the money, and it wouldn't affect my calculus. IMO, to a great, MANY people, it's all about location, location, location, and with the way BAH, and COLA is designed, no one at any base should be hurting financially, so it's not like someone would really need that extra money. Just my 2 cents.

I think the AF does have to get creative when it comes to solving their problems, re: your X% of 365s suggestion. On that note, specifically, however, I think 179s/365s need to be drastically reduced, and beyond that, the AF needs to keep a long-term (i.e. career-long, 20+ year) list of those who have done such tours - and ensure everyone who hasn't done one, stays closer to the top than ANYONE who hasn't - including HPOs. A lack of transparency and fairness when it comes to 179s/365s is a major factor I think leads people to bail.

20 hours ago, nsplayr said:

Excellent that the article's main point wasn't just to slow the roll on PCSing, but that the incurred service commitment for a mandatory PCS was the issue. 100% agree...when faced with A) accept PCS and add to my overall ADSC or B) punch, I took the red pill.

To solve the problem of massing folks in desirable locations, you do what every other large organization on earth does: leverage incentives. Pay more for less favorable locations. Offer career benefits for accepting tours in less favorable locations. Also you probably just accept that quality at those less favorable locations is going to inevitably be lower due to the trend of people with their heads screwed on straight will choose more favorable life conditions for their families.

On the career benefits side, I think there could be stuff done in that regard. Something like every 3 years you spend at Holloman (sorry to keep piling on), nets you 4 years of service (YOS) - meaning you get pay raises earlier, get more time subtracted off your commitments/ADSCs, AND get to retire early. Costly? You bet - but such places already are costly in terms of attrition. Soooooooo, costly is a given at this point. Two tours at Holloman? Cool, you get sanctuary at 16 YOS, and get to retire at 18 - with a 20 year retirement.

1 hour ago, cantfly said:

We all know Uncle Sam doesn't want anything to cost Big Blue a dime. If I'm going to step in front of a GO and say I would like more homesteading options for aviators and for you to restructure a base from each MAJCOM on a 4 year basis would be more reasonable. Sir/maam, this won't cost you a dime, but save money and pilots in the long run. His/her ears might perk up. 

When you talk about costing the AF more money not dealing with iron on the ramp, golf courses, or pools you are going to lose.

Maybe after your commitment ends, you are authorized to submit a "Wish List" of places the AF cannot send you period. And the AF must give you one of your top 3 assignment preferences. The list must be honored by AFPC. Almost like having seniority in the airlines. I came up with this idea because the problem is the high time guys leaving after their commitment is up. Not saying this idea won't screw over the younger guys. But it would be a far better incentive to me.

Yeah, I like it. Maybe give certain assignments/bases "point values." Lock up a Can-Kun tour, get 100 points; rock a non-vol AFPAK hands, clear 500; soak up Spang/Aviano, pay -200. Next assignment drop, whoever has the most points, gets first dibs. This flies directly in the face of how the AF stacks the deck, but it would solve LOTS of problems - I can almost guarantee it. Every point you get to the end of your career with, the AF pays out 1000-to-1.

Edited May 2, 2017 by ViperMan

[Lawman]

I would worry about timing any sort of adverse location bonus to a specific amount of time.

That's way too easy of a "fix" for assignments to accomplish where they simply PCS two guys from two separate crap locations at the year X-1 day mark to the other guys crap location (and vice verse).

Then they get to pretend the PCS cost nothing and that they "saved the service money" in not paying out a bonus.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ViperMan]

2 hours ago, Lawman said:

I would worry about timing any sort of adverse location bonus to a specific amount of time.

That's way too easy of a "fix" for assignments to accomplish where they simply PCS two guys from two separate crap locations at the year X-1 day mark to the other guys crap location (and vice verse).

Then they get to pretend the PCS cost nothing and that they "saved the service money" in not paying out a bonus.

Valid. Which is why any such system should be implemented on a "continuous" vs "discrete" basis. A day at a time would likely solve the issue: 3 days in Holloman, 4 days-of-service (*DOS) - new acronym, first coined right here. Then, at worst, dudes get screwed out of one days' time. At its core, this is the exact same issue, and root cause (IMO), that led to the design of the 179.

Edited May 3, 2017 by ViperMan

[brickhistory]

2 hours ago, matmacwc said:

Somebody old tell us why this didn't work in the 90's, I know we have tried it and it was a disaster.

You rang?

Homesteading is great for some who get their base of preference.  Not so much for the Minot/Cannon/etc folks.  If you want to move those folks, where do you put them?

Same for overseas return folks.  Where do you put them?

What do you do with joint-spouse folks?  Special needs?  Pretty soon the pipeline gets clogged up beyond recognition.

And for the current up or out construct, how do you show career progression for a dude who flies the line at Base X for 5 years?  Not defending or attacking the premise, just stating the institution's viewpoint of the issue. 

Lots of butthurt when the bright shinys got to have their cake and assignment too, but Joe Bag o' got the sticks followed by a remote.

 

Also, Congress drives the train for budget and MILCON.  They simply don't care about efficiency or QOL.  They care about votes and the what the various Committees of 50 or other vampires do for them.  Not about you who most likely isn't a resident, i.e., a voter of their anyway.  You'll be gone a few years and Joe Local will still be there expecting to make his money off Uncle Sam's troops.

You are a commodity.

Vote with your feet accordingly.

[ViperMan]

35 minutes ago, brickhistory said:

You rang?

Homesteading is great for some who get their base of preference.  Not so much for the Minot/Cannon/etc folks.  If you want to move those folks, where do you put them?

Same for overseas return folks.  Where do you put them?

What do you do with joint-spouse folks?  Special needs?  Pretty soon the pipeline gets clogged up beyond recognition.

And for the current up or out construct, how do you show career progression for a dude who flies the line at Base X for 5 years?  Not defending or attacking the premise, just stating the institution's viewpoint of the issue. 

Lots of butthurt when the bright shinys got to have their cake and assignment too, but Joe Bag o' got the sticks followed by a remote.

Also, Congress drives the train for budget and MILCON.  They simply don't care about efficiency or QOL.  They care about votes and the what the various Committees of 50 or other vampires do for them.  Not about you who most likely isn't a resident, i.e., a voter of their anyway.  You'll be gone a few years and Joe Local will still be there expecting to make his money off Uncle Sam's troops.

You are a commodity.

Vote with your feet accordingly.

That's what I see, too. Hill to Holloman? No fvcking way. You HAVE to close bases.

Yeah, that. Your choices are your only currency.

Edited May 3, 2017 by ViperMan