Goldfein advocating FAA 1500 hour rule change???

[TMILL]

The $60k a year proposed in the house bill would have been hard to walk away from, even with the queep and 365s.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Only if it wasn't related to a commitment. I would be more willing to stick around it the pay was built more in line with the medical bonuses of not signing a commitment (at least from my understanding).

Shoot just bumping flight pay up to $1k max per the new NDAA would help some.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ViperMan]

1 hour ago, sqwatch said:

Because if the military outbids the civilian sector for labor as we are a significant source for the airlines, powerful lobbyists and people start calling senators.
 

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

[ViperMan]

10 hours ago, pcola said:

Agree with this sentiment. Why should it be assumed that the AF can't compete financially with airline salaries? Given the relatively small percentage of mil personnel that are pilots, it would seem that even huge bonuses should constitute a relatively small percentage of DOD $. Take a look at some of the unique medical bonuses and then ask yourself why the AF/DOD/Congress refuses to entertain the idea that its pilot force is as worthy of receiving competitive compensation.
 

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.

[ViperMan]

10 minutes ago, BeerMan said:

Yep, especially if the airline is headquartered, has a significant presence, or impacts the economy of their state.  

Are you surprised?

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.

Edited February 16, 2017 by ViperMan
I mispelled 'on'

[Sprkt69]

Here is an idea, stop having rated officers be part of the normal Line Officer promotion system. Might just solve some minor issues

[Magellan]

17 minutes ago, Sprkt69 said:

Here is an idea, stop having rated officers be part of the normal Line Officer promotion system. Might just solve some minor issues

Why the odds are stacked in our favor?

[FlyinGrunt]

Because then we could abandon this idiotic, childish idea that all officers at the O-3 level are the same, and should be compared as such.  Captains are not generals, and nobody should give a fvck about SOS or the other "common discriminators."

The very idea goes against the AF's own doctrine of CGOs getting in-depth knowledge and experience in their specialty.

[pawnman]

7 hours ago, Magellan said:

Why the odds are stacked in our favor?

Are they?  I didn't get a DP because the people I was stratified against were the DO of the SFS squadron and a flight commander with 200 people reporting to him in CE.  It would be in our favor if boards actually cared about combat time or flying hours, but what they seem to care about is exec time and SOS DG.

[pawnman]

8 hours ago, ViperMan said:

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

Depends on which one garners more campaign contributions.

[Snooter]

Can't the AF do a year to year bonus?  That way you know immediately if you get a 365 and turn it down and if they try to drop a 365 on you mid term; you can 7-day opt...  you always have the option to separate at the end of your year.  And I don't buy that the military can't match civilian sector pay.  I get congress won't allow it but if we can afford 30 billion a year for 50 years for the f-35, I think we can pay for some experienced pilots to fly it...  hell the helmet costs 350,000 I'm sure we can find some money somewhere to help soften the bed for the takers...

Edited February 16, 2017 by Snooter

[Duck]

Can't the AF do a year to year bonus?  That way you know immediately if you get a 365 and turn it down and if they try to drop a 365 on you mid term; you can 7-day opt...  you always have the option to separate at the end of your year.  And I don't buy that the military can't match civilian sector pay.  I get congress won't allow it but if we can afford 30 billion a year for 50 years for the f-35, I think we can pay for some experienced pilots to fly it...  hell the helmet costs 350,000 I'm sure we can find some money somewhere to help soften the bed for the takers...

The AF isn't interested in anything other than your indentured servitude. Offering a year to year bonus puts way too much power in the pilot's hands.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

[Hound47]

1 hour ago, Duck said:

The AF isn't interested in anything other than your indentured servitude. Offering a year to year bonus puts way too much power in the pilot's hands.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

I'm not saying that it will happen anytime soon (or ever knowing how Big Blue works) but the 1 and 2 year contract options were/are being considered.  Here is an excerpt from within HAF regarding a way forward on the Aviation Bonus...date of info was ~19 Jan 17.

MAJOR INITIATIVES, ACCOMPLISHMENTS, CHALLENGES (2-4 Weeks):

•             Aviation Bonus:  A1 and A3 plan for tiering the Aviation Bonus based upon new $35K cap was presented to CSAF (did not get briefed to MAJCOM/CCs).  CSAF approved next step of socializing various COAs with Congress to gain feedback.  LL working to set those meetings up starting next week.  The proposal includes tiering of annual amount based on input from the A1PF Aviation Bonus Model and a contract length baseline of 5 years along with 9 and 13 year contract length options for the greatest mission needs.  New options will look at 1 and 2 year contracts as well.

[LookieRookie]

Let me guess, the only way to get $35k is to select the 13 year contract.

[Herk Driver]

The $60k a year proposed in the house bill would have been hard to walk away from, even with the queep and 365s.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Which is interesting to me since most people sound dead set on moving on to something else regardless of bonus amount. The queep will stay the same or get worse...and if new guys opt in to the new blended retirement then there is even less of a reason to stick around past initial ADSC expiration


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

[Guest]

Which is interesting to me since most people sound dead set on moving on to something else regardless of bonus amount. The queep will stay the same or get worse...and if new guys opt in to the new blended retirement then there is even less of a reason to stick around past initial ADSC expiration


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

IMHO, people may sound dead set, but if AF actually put the money on the table, I think they'd get a good number of takers. 60k a yr represents a ~50% pay raise (pre tax) to a bonus eligible O-4. Coupled with the increased security that an active duty retirement represents, I think it may give many of the on-the-fencers something to think about. 35 is AF/Congress correcting ARP for inflation. 60 would have shown they were actually concerned with retaining pilots.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[VMFA187]

3 hours ago, ihtfp06 said:

IMHO, people may sound dead set, but if AF actually put the money on the table, I think they'd get a good number of takers. 60k a yr represents a ~50% pay raise (pre tax) to a bonus eligible O-4. Coupled with the increased security that an active duty retirement represents, I think it may give many of the on-the-fencers something to think about. 35 is AF/Congress correcting ARP for inflation. 60 would have shown they were actually concerned with retaining pilots.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Amongst my Marine Hornet brethren, $60k minimum would be required to change someone's mind. $75k would go far in solving our retention problem.

[brickhistory]

On ‎2‎/‎14‎/‎2017 at 9:58 AM, Warrior said:

 

 

Short term I think you're right. Longer term I think the airlines will find a way to decrease their demand for pilots.

As the American public gets comfortable with self driving cars, how long before the idea of autonomous passenger airplanes moves into the realm of possible?

I think that's the long term future of the airline industry. 5 years ago I would have said never gonna happen.

 

 

http://www.usnews.com/news/business/articles/2017-02-13/up-up-and-away-passenger-carrying-drone-to-fly-in-dubai

 

To my flying friends, I wish you nothing but success in capitalizing on your training and skills.

I think you are naïve if you don't think that every day very large, very rich interests are working diligently to replace you.

Egged by the airlines who would like nothing better than to cut one of two of their biggest operating costs - labor (the other being fuel) - and pay the Bombay guy to run the LAS - ORD routing. 

Dispatchers becoming operational C2 is happening and there are far fewer of them to pay.

DoD isn't just interested in this in order to not put a guy in harm's way.  Cutting the payroll always is an attractive thing to staff warriors.

 

Sure the link may be nothing but a stunt and as funny as Achmed facing a face full of sand milli-seconds prior to impact when HAL 9000 decides to reboot will be, it all starts somewhere.

[ViperMan]

33 minutes ago, brickhistory said:

http://www.usnews.com/news/business/articles/2017-02-13/up-up-and-away-passenger-carrying-drone-to-fly-in-dubai

To my flying friends, I wish you nothing but success in capitalizing on your training and skills.

I think you are naïve if you don't think that every day very large, very rich interests are working diligently to replace you.

Egged by the airlines who would like nothing better than to cut one of two of their biggest operating costs - labor (the other being fuel) - and pay the Bombay guy to run the LAS - ORD routing. 

Dispatchers becoming operational C2 is happening and there are far fewer of them to pay.

DoD isn't just interested in this in order to not put a guy in harm's way.  Cutting the payroll always is an attractive thing to staff warriors.

 

Sure the link may be nothing but a stunt and as funny as Achmed facing a face full of sand milli-seconds prior to impact when HAL 9000 decides to reboot will be, it all starts somewhere.

Agree.

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

[brickhistory]

8 minutes ago, ViperMan said:

Agree.

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

If they stick to the timeline in the article and actually have a autonomous passenger aircraft next summer, then that's where my bet would be.

If you mean airliner; the latter, which I assume was your point.

Mine is that this is happening and Moore's law is applicable.

Edited February 17, 2017 by brickhistory

[Clark Griswold]

3 minutes ago, brickhistory said:

If they stick to the timeline in the article and actually have a autonomous passenger aircraft next summer, then that's where my bet would be.

If you mean airliner; the latter, which I assume was your point.

Mine is that this is happening and Moore's law is applicable.

True - in this case I think it will be partial automation (single pilot ops) before they go for the full monty.  

One human in the cockpit, HAL in the right seat and a datalink to another human who could thru another autopilot take control of the jet.  That human on the ground will be responsible for intervening on any number of jets linked to an Ops Center for savings in the unlikely event that ground directed intervention is needed.  This will satisfy the two pilot regulations until ICAO says one person in the loop is enough.

This is the bow wave of history forming, how the hell do we run society when 50% of the population (or more) are automated out of work.

Edited February 17, 2017 by Clark Griswold
last thought

[ViperMan]

18 minutes ago, brickhistory said:

If they stick to the timeline in the article and actually have a autonomous passenger aircraft next summer, then that's where my bet would be.

If you mean airliner; the latter, which I assume was your point.

Mine is that this is happening and Moore's law is applicable.

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.

15 minutes ago, Clark Griswold said:

True - in this case I think it will be partial automation (single pilot ops) before they go for the full monty.  

One human in the cockpit, HAL in the right seat and a datalink to another human who could thru another autopilot take control of the jet.  That human on the ground will be responsible for intervening on any number of jets linked to an Ops Center for savings in the unlikely event that ground directed intervention is needed.  This will satisfy the two pilot regulations until ICAO says one person in the loop is enough.

This is the bow wave of history forming, how the hell do we run society when 50% of the population (or more) are automated out of work.

Exactly - if you're not technically proficient, you'll likely not have much to contribute to anything.

[RTB]

9 minutes ago, Clark Griswold said:

True - in this case I think it will be partial automation (single pilot ops) before they go for the full monty.  

One human in the cockpit, HAL in the right seat and a datalink to another human who could thru another autopilot take control of the jet.  That human on the ground will be responsible for intervening on any number of jets linked to an Ops Center for savings in the unlikely event that ground directed intervention is needed.  This will satisfy the two pilot regulations until ICAO says one person in the loop is enough.

This is the bow wave of history forming, how the hell do we run society when 50% of the population (or more) are automated out of work.

I just don't think it's going to work with the flying public anytime soon.  IMO we are generations away from people willingly climbing aboard a drone, in a nasty rainstorm, to fly across the ocean at night with no humans driving from the front.  I also think it'll take all-new design aircraft before it's feasible...too much retrofit required on the existing fleets, fleets which will be around a long time.  There are other significant issues to overcome but I think human nature will be a huge obstacle for a long time.

[Clark Griswold]

43 minutes ago, RTB said:

I just don't think it's going to work with the flying public anytime soon.  IMO we are generations away from people willingly climbing aboard a drone, in a nasty rainstorm, to fly across the ocean at night with no humans driving from the front.  I also think it'll take all-new design aircraft before it's feasible...too much retrofit required on the existing fleets, fleets which will be around a long time.  There are other significant issues to overcome but I think human nature will be a huge obstacle for a long time.

Possibly and I agree with you on a dedicated design being the likely first iteration of partial or fully piloted commercial air travel, I think though the public acceptance of it will happen faster depending on the deployment/success of driverless cars.  

That will be the great amelioration to automation, if you own a car that is automated or ride in one and overall have a positive experience, that will probably dull your reluctance to autonomous commercial flight.

Not for this kid, from my one RPA assignment I was both impressed and sobered to the realities of unmanned flight and I would extend that to all forms of automated (fully) travel.  It's great when everything is working and there are no or little deviations to the plan, when that's not the case, everything doesn't necessarily go to shit in 0.69 seconds but it can start to wrap up really fast...

Keep people in the loop, use technology as appropriate and don't try to put it into things it was not made for (sts).

 

Edited February 17, 2017 by Clark Griswold

[brickhistory]

I am one of those that wants a meat servo (sts) up front to handle things when HAL can't.

However:

Around 20-ish years ago, the first RPAs were fielded.  Not long before we hung ordnance on them after thinking "only good for surveillance."

Less than 20 years ago, I was on the Air Staff working with the FAA trying to convince them to allow UAVs (as the term was then) in the NAS.  Hit a near-brick wall.

How many stateside bases fly RPAs now?  How many other federal, state, and local agencies do as well?

Generations before this comes to pass is a stretch, I think.

If it's a cheaper ticket, a lot of folks won't care just as they haven't has air travel has become bus service.

I'm not advocating for it, I just happen to think it's inevitable and I don't think The Man (whether in uniform or business suit) cares about the societal impact if his bottom line improves.

Therefore, young 'uns might want to keep an eye, and their options, open is my only reason for posting.

But if they can hack flying for Big Blue, they most likely will hack something else as well.

But they won't be irreplaceable.

 

[viperdriver1313]

On 2/14/2017 at 3:15 AM, di1630 said:

They are going to up the UPT commitment. 16 yrs is my guess. This will push some people away, but there will be no shortage of people signing up not knowing what they are getting into. Quality may go down, lowered standards in ROTC/academy for a pilot slot but I think it's coming.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

Fingers came and talked to us at Misawa.  We asked him that direct question.

He actually said he wanted to lessen it to 8 years active duty..and 6 years in the reserves.  So yes, more years total in commitment.

Allow AF pilots to fly for the Airlines but still hold on to that experience an extra 4 years..

 

Let me know if I'm completely out of line, but having an inherent dangerous job, working 14+ hour days, and flying a jet that requires more skill that working at a desk=should equal more pay. I'm making as much money as a COMM officer (who works half that)?  Doesn't seem right to me. I'm not all about the money and would even take a pay cut at this point to fly for the Airlines as soon as I'm done with my 10.

Don't just patch the problem with $30K plus bonus's at the 10 plus year point after I'm burned out.