Acp
12-27-2008, 05:07 AM
#1
Line Holder
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Dec 2008
Posts: 29
Acp
Look at this guy's paper. I knew he wrote this from a silo:
Why We Should End the Aviator Continuation Pay Bonus Program
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the 25k/yr and even the monthly aviation bonuses we get (the up-to-840/mo) have never been upgraded for inflation. Beyond the argument of whether they were right or wrong, what I haven't heard ever brought into the discussion (at least recently) is that they never have gone up and therefore are worth far less than they were in 1989 or whatever it was when they came out or were re-set.
Why We Should End the Aviator Continuation Pay Bonus Program
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the 25k/yr and even the monthly aviation bonuses we get (the up-to-840/mo) have never been upgraded for inflation. Beyond the argument of whether they were right or wrong, what I haven't heard ever brought into the discussion (at least recently) is that they never have gone up and therefore are worth far less than they were in 1989 or whatever it was when they came out or were re-set.
12-27-2008, 06:11 AM
#2
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2008
Position: B717 FO
Posts: 210
He is a an educated, idiotic bean-counter who's spent waaay too much time underground in a missle silo. He is frustated that pilots get a bonus. He probably wanted to be a pilot too but washed out of UPT. He is only looking at the short-term $ savings and not the long-term effects of getting rid of ACP. If you see this terd, buy him a drink - but tea-bag it first.
I remember reading an article by a Navy bubblehead (in the early 1990s) that all Sailors should be on sea duty for 6 years at a time with only 1 year of shore duty. He showed it as a money savings move. In reality, retention would've been about zero. Training costs would sky rocket. Thankfully, the Navy never instituted the policy.
Can you tell I dislike bean-counters!
C9
I remember reading an article by a Navy bubblehead (in the early 1990s) that all Sailors should be on sea duty for 6 years at a time with only 1 year of shore duty. He showed it as a money savings move. In reality, retention would've been about zero. Training costs would sky rocket. Thankfully, the Navy never instituted the policy.
Can you tell I dislike bean-counters!
C9
12-27-2008, 06:50 AM
#3
Moderate Moderator
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: Curator at Static Display
Posts: 5,681
Greatest Achievement
Unfortunately, a lot of what he says is true. I would take exception to the statement that a pilot at a Regional "...will take a few more years to make $100,000 a year..." Yeah---like maybe an extra 20 years.
However, I find it interesting that a lot of USAF Captains at a UPT base still want to get out, even in these economically perilous times. The bonus may sway them. It made the decision for me--I was sitting on the fence in 1989.
Finally, the Major's Bio at the end of the article, and his greatest achievement. Yes, he was a missile Geek, and he proudly proclaims the highlight of his career: he launched an actual Minuteman III missile.
In other words, he and another guy successfully turned their keys at the same time.
However, I find it interesting that a lot of USAF Captains at a UPT base still want to get out, even in these economically perilous times. The bonus may sway them. It made the decision for me--I was sitting on the fence in 1989.
Finally, the Major's Bio at the end of the article, and his greatest achievement. Yes, he was a missile Geek, and he proudly proclaims the highlight of his career: he launched an actual Minuteman III missile.
In other words, he and another guy successfully turned their keys at the same time.
12-27-2008, 07:03 AM
#4
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 40,044
As long as the flight training pipeline is costly and/or there are airline jobs to be had you guys have nothing to worry about.
The surface guys in the nav used to pee and moan about everybody but them getting bonuses...nothing changed until they started voting with their feet, now they gets bonuses too.
The surface guys in the nav used to pee and moan about everybody but them getting bonuses...nothing changed until they started voting with their feet, now they gets bonuses too.
12-27-2008, 07:53 AM
#5
Line Holder
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Dec 2008
Posts: 29
I'll be honest--the bonus swayed me. I took the option of staying in until 20 yrs of av service, 1/2 up front, so the 10yrs at 25K, which no longer exists. I've still got a few yrs left but my brother bailed and went to the airlines.
12-27-2008, 01:10 PM
#6
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Posts: 829
Despite his PhD, that "study" is no less shallow than any of the others that I have seen.
There are a thousand reasons why people get out of the military. To state that the only reason the ACP exists is to counter the airline industry is ludicrous. The ACP is designed to entice people with critical skills (maybe he hasn't noticed that several dozen enlisted and officer specialties have a bonus of some sort) decide to stay in the USAF and let the USAF recoup more of its investment in training beyond the initial commitment.
I know pilots that left to go to medical school, to take federal jobs, to go into business, etc. Even I got out post-9/11 with the intention of doing something other than the airlines.
To determine if the ACP is worth it, you need to determine what the retention rate is, what you want it to be, and see how to get there from here. To be honest, the most cost-effective way to do it would be to start low and keep upping the amount until the desired number of pilots took it.
Of course, the USAF would never want to really know why people are getting out. Some people would stay in if you let them stay at their current duty location, some would stay in if you left them in the cockpit, some would stay if you promised them no Korea. Hell, a ton of old guys would stay in to fly UAV's if you gave them a ACE/CTP detachment like the old SAC bases used to have so they could maintain some sort of flying currency. But, the USAF doesn't roll like that - they don't make deals.
They publish half-reaserched papers that threaten to take away the ACP because the airlines are not hiring anymore - but for some reasons the pilots are still getting out.
There are a thousand reasons why people get out of the military. To state that the only reason the ACP exists is to counter the airline industry is ludicrous. The ACP is designed to entice people with critical skills (maybe he hasn't noticed that several dozen enlisted and officer specialties have a bonus of some sort) decide to stay in the USAF and let the USAF recoup more of its investment in training beyond the initial commitment.
I know pilots that left to go to medical school, to take federal jobs, to go into business, etc. Even I got out post-9/11 with the intention of doing something other than the airlines.
To determine if the ACP is worth it, you need to determine what the retention rate is, what you want it to be, and see how to get there from here. To be honest, the most cost-effective way to do it would be to start low and keep upping the amount until the desired number of pilots took it.
Of course, the USAF would never want to really know why people are getting out. Some people would stay in if you let them stay at their current duty location, some would stay in if you left them in the cockpit, some would stay if you promised them no Korea. Hell, a ton of old guys would stay in to fly UAV's if you gave them a ACE/CTP detachment like the old SAC bases used to have so they could maintain some sort of flying currency. But, the USAF doesn't roll like that - they don't make deals.
They publish half-reaserched papers that threaten to take away the ACP because the airlines are not hiring anymore - but for some reasons the pilots are still getting out.
12-27-2008, 08:30 PM
#7
Line Holder
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: SWA Poolie
Posts: 89
This guy needs to spend more time helping his buddies pass a nuke-surety inspection or ORI and less time worrying about the pilot bonus. If he doesn't want to do that, maybe he should analyze the VSP. How much did it cost the taxpayer to rid the rated community of experience? What effect did VSP have on opstempo and therefore the retention of those who didn't take it? How much will the AF end up paying people to come back to fly UAS/RC-12's/etc?
12-28-2008, 08:31 AM
#9
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2006
Position: Falcon 900B
Posts: 108
This guy lost a HUGE amount of credibility by analyzing Reserve Component pilots - even admitting that he didn't have any information about active duty pilots who the ACP actually applies to. Nice apples and oranges paper, dude 
And I'll second this notion:
And I'll second this notion:
12-28-2008, 09:20 AM
#10
Line Holder
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Dec 2008
Posts: 29
A lot of the guys I knew who were getting out in the late 90s, and turning down the bonus, were going off to use their MBAs, applying to med school, PA school, working on CPA ratings...etc so on... The bonus almost kept some of them in, but w/o the bonus they wouldn't have hesitated even for a second. It kept a decent amount in at the time.
The main problem with the paper is that he assumes that all pilots are interested in are flying, so it is an either/or proposition. flying for the air force or flying on the outside. A lot of guys just do something else entirely and leave flying behind. Also, like a few have pointed out, the writer's logic mirrors that which the Air Force's leadership has used--always short term solutions to short term problems.
The main problem with the paper is that he assumes that all pilots are interested in are flying, so it is an either/or proposition. flying for the air force or flying on the outside. A lot of guys just do something else entirely and leave flying behind. Also, like a few have pointed out, the writer's logic mirrors that which the Air Force's leadership has used--always short term solutions to short term problems.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
