What's wrong with the Air Force?

[Goblin]

OPR yes.  Fitness test, not sure.  Depending on your SR he/she may withhold your retirement medal if you are not current on PT test.

Worth it

[ThreeHoler]

OPR yes.  Fitness test, not sure.  Depending on your SR he/she may withhold your retirement medal if you are not current on PT test.

Went to write a retirement medal for a guy. The CC told me not to waste my time since the Wg/CC would never approve it for the guy who failed his final PT test.

I know another guy who failed a test once because he was dumb (follow up test a few days later >90). The Wg/CC wanted to deny his MSM for "not meeting standards during the period of the medal." Thankfully the Sq/CC won.

Our focus is so ed.

[Homestar]

1 hour ago, ThreeHoler said:

Our focus is so ed.

 

That checks. 

[SuperWSO]

On 6/1/2017 at 7:14 PM, PilotCandidate said:

I wasn't sure who it was directed at but I figured it was quality advice for a newbie regardless

The fact that you were willing to think the advice may have been relevant to you guarantees that it probably wasn't directed at you. It's a contradiction.

That is the toughest part of an"unrecognized loss of SA"

[FourFans]

F'n A Cotton

[Guest nsplayr]

Great exchange, thanks for posting. 

Side note: as much as I vehemently disagree with Sen. Cotton on a variety of issues, it's really good to see veterans like him in Congress. They tend to retain more of the"making shit happen" attitude that's common in parts of the military and demonstrate a higher level of reasonableness than many of the more traditional politicians. We desperately need more veterans of all political persuasions in the halls of Congress.

Edited June 7, 2017 by nsplayr

[Guest]

8 hours ago, FourFans130 said:

F'n A Cotton

Very nice!

Two notes

1.around 40 seconds mark, SC saying I can triple the bonus and hardly make a mark on takers.

Dear fellow avaitors meeting Civilian leaders in the future,

Thank you for representing US at this important meeting. Please stop telling these heads that we do not care about the bonus or other financial allowances. I get it is not JUST about the money, but who in 11F will not consider taking a $105K per year for 2 years? You are downplaying what you bring to the table and leaving out a (IMHO) key part of the equation to correct course. Thank you and please continue to talk up all the other stuff too (365s, cbts, addl duty, etc). 

P.S. can you also ask when they are going to raise OUR flight pay? My $650/mth should be north $1K.

V/r

1111

(11F used for e.g. only since they have the highest bonus figures)

2. Around the 3 minutes 10 second mark Fingers comments on we need to keep the dream alive for folks to have the possibility to make it higher into those "leadership" positions.

 

honest question, do you read that as Fingers believing that most pilots can make it up the chain higher than a tactical track that tops out at O5?

 

I have yet to be in a community that did not pick their winners (leaders) early. So either stop that practice or create a tactical track that aligns with reality at a point when it is clear you will not be going higher (maybe O4 time frame).

 

Edited June 7, 2017 by Guest

[Stoker]

If they were really to attempt a "tactical track" for those not interested in leadership, I wonder if it would be possible to do some kind of "reverse brevetting." Pay and benefits of a higher rank, but wear the lower one.

[Right Seat Driver]

10 minutes ago, sforron said:

If they were really to attempt a "tactical track" for those not interested in leadership, I wonder if it would be possible to do some kind of "reverse brevetting." Pay and benefits of a higher rank, but wear the lower one.

Hah, I am sure DFAS could handle that.

[MDDieselPilot]

10 hours ago, FourFans130 said:

F'n A Cotton

1:30 to 3:00

 

One of these people speaking get it, the other does not.

Goldfein's stance of "I know what's good for you" is absolutely infuriating.  As a senior major and having been a (real) flight CC in charge of 60 people, I can absolutely say I never want to lead a group again.  It was good, I enjoyed it, learned a lot from the E2-E8s under me, and respect the career field i led greatly, but all I want to do is what I said I wanted 13 years ago when I signed up, to be a damned pilot.  F you dude.

[HuggyU2]

4 minutes ago, MDDieselPilot said:

...but all I want to do is what I said I wanted 13 years ago when I signed up, to be a damned pilot.  F you dude.

Well... 

that'll just about cover the fly-bys...

Edited June 7, 2017 by HuggyU2

[pawnman]

4 hours ago, Right Seat Driver said:

Hah, I am sure DFAS could handle that.

We pay doctors and dentists much more than their capt/maj brethren.  So there is precedent for people with extraordinary skills in high demand on the outside.

[Guest nsplayr]

5 hours ago, 1111 said:

P.S. can you also ask when they are going to raise OUR flight pay? My $650/mth should be north $1K.

Amen. The +6 year ACIP was raised from $400 to $650 in 1990, and remained static since then. $650 in 1990 dollars would be $1,216 in today's dollars. Congress, through inaction, has cut the purchasing power of that incentive pay by almost half since General Goldfein was the Captain Goldfein they spoke about during the hearing.

5 hours ago, 1111 said:

honest question, do you read that as Fingers believing that most pilots can make it up the chain higher than a tactical track that tops out at O5?

If they offered a technical track that enabled more flying and less BS that topped out at non-command O5, who would not take that?

Unless such a system was terminal O4, maybe O5 for very shiny tactical pennies, I don't know many dudes who would choose the leadership track just for the shot to command squadrons at the same rank as their technical-track brethren.

Edited June 8, 2017 by nsplayr

[Bergman]

8 minutes ago, nsplayr said:

If they offered a technical track that enabled more flying and less BS that topped out at non-command O5, who would not take that?

Ha!  They already have it...its called the ANG!

[HU&W]

Simple.  Tie flight pay to hours and sorties.  $20 ACIP per flight hour or $75 per sortie, whichever is greater for the month.  

[Guest nsplayr]

5 minutes ago, HU&W said:

Simple.  Tie flight pay to hours and sorties.  $20 ACIP per flight hour or $75 per sortie, whichever is greater for the month.  

I love it. It would make deployments much more lucrative too, I'd have had months of > $2,500 ACIP under your system.

Downside would be that tracking month-to-month would be a nightmare. A possible solution would be an annual ACIP check coinciding with your birthday-timed review of your annual flight records. Verify your hours/sorties, collect your large check, head to Vegas for a birthday weekend of hookers and blow, what could go wrong? 

[HU&W]

5 minutes ago, nsplayr said:

I love it. It would make deployments much more lucrative too, I'd have had months of > $2,500 ACIP under your system.

Downside would be that tracking month-to-month would be a nightmare. A possible solution would be an annual ACIP check coinciding with your birthday-timed review of your annual flight records. Verify your hours/sorties, collect your large check, head to Vegas for a birthday weekend of hookers and blow, what could go wrong? 

Just base it on flight records; it could be easily automated.   As I think about it more, probably need some kind of multiplier system.  Eg 3x for combat time, 2x for combat support, 2x for IP, .5x for CP, and .2x for SP.  Or something thereabouts.  

It would do amazing things for retention, and definitely for getting people doing the critical skill they're getting paid extra for.

[dream big]

21 minutes ago, Bergman said:

Ha!  They already have it...its called the ANG!

Exactly, I've been bringing this up for months any time this discussion comes up.  Same job, same beans, same freaking deployments, still serving the country and achieving national security objectives.  When the shooting starts you activate the units.  

Problem is...looks like they are having parallel similar retention issues.  

[Guest]

One of the things that bothered me the most in this video was Sen Cotton praising Goldfein for reducing queep, hiring civilians into support roles, and empowering commanders.  THIS HAS NOT HAPPENED.  Talking about what you plan to do, and actually doing it, are two very different things.  Gen Goldfein has publicly advocated for all these, but hasn't done anything.

[FlyinGrunt]

All those jokes about "AC pay" and "IP pay" . . . why not make those a thing?  Again, would target exactly the folks you're looking to retain, and would prob add up to the increased ACIP we're looking for.

[FourFans]

4 hours ago, nsplayr said:

If they offered a technical track that enabled more flying and less BS that topped out at non-command O5, who would not take that?

They'd have to make entry into that track very competitive event with an interview required, mission flying eval, instructor capability eval, and a significant bro check.  They'd have to make the selection process on par with that used for WIC applicants.

Put one bad apple in that basket and you ruin the whole thing.

[Duck]

The whole technical only track scares me. It's already bad enough with the "careerists" who run the organization into the ground. The one saving grace for me has been the occasional Sq/Cc or WG/CC who was still a CGO operator at heart. As a result those were the best units, with the highest morale and the best retention. I've seen change of commands where the whole squadron went upside down seemingly overnight.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

[tac airlifter]

11 hours ago, gearpig said:

4:20 - "Service before Self"

Very carefully phrased, but the translation is: You should be compelled to serve in spite of a lack of mission focus, declining job satisfaction, increased workloads, and decreasing quality of life.

It's time to remove "service before self" as a core value.  In principal I agree with the intent, however in practice this catch phrase is used as a cudgel to beat complex personnel circumstances into submission with implied victim shaming and callous disregard for morale.  I've never known a commander to say "service before self" to the right person for the right reason.  

Like the other core values, I like the philosophical basis and general direction but the folks who attempt operationalizing the message always seem to be hypocrites.  Why is that?

2 hours ago, FourFans130 said:

They'd have to make entry into that track very competitive event with an interview required, mission flying eval, instructor capability eval, and a significant bro check.  They'd have to make the selection process on par with that used for WIC applicants.

Put one bad apple in that basket and you ruin the whole thing.

Great point, totally agree.

the sad reality is many of the senior O-4 fliers who say they "just want to fly" are lazy.  Sure there are good ones who stay hungry for tactical excellence, continue to study, read AARs, tweak training scenarios, and are one step ahead of real world contingencies.  I like to think I was one of this type (before I was ostracized to staff).  But human nature being what it is, there needs to be a check in the system like you describe above.  We don't want the equivalent of tenured professors laying around the SQ.

[pawnman]

8 hours ago, HU&W said:

Simple.  Tie flight pay to hours and sorties.  $20 ACIP per flight hour or $75 per sortie, whichever is greater for the month.  

I'd be taking a pretty good hit, and I'm considered an "earner" compared to many attached flyers.

[YoungnDumb]

One idea drawn up by a buddy of mine as sort of a way to bridge the leadership track vs tactical track was to create a promotion system for O-4+ that was more of a checklist.  For example In order to make O-4 you would have to accomplish certain things like Flt/CC or equivalent, PME (ya SOS is mandatory just using it for arguments sake), and a litany of other things.  O-5 would be similar but maybe require IDE and a Joint tour or whatever.  TIG/TIS numbers would still apply so you didn't have an O-5 with only 10 years in.  This would then allow people to fly for as long as they wanted but still allow them to progress up the ranks and allow them to do other jobs but on their timeline.  Example, young Capt decides he wants to fly for his whole career, after say 12 years he decides he to finish whatever he needed to make O-4, makes O-4 and does a staff tour then heads back to the jet, retires as an O-4.  Another example, guy decides he wants to make command after being in the jet for ~6 years, starts working on knocking out the requirements to make O-4, makes O-4, starts working on requirements to O-5, etc. He's still a flier but he also knowingly is accepting/volunteering for more staff tours and such.

Edited June 8, 2017 by YoungnDumb