Airline Pilot Forums

Airline Pilot Forums was designed to be a community where working airline pilots can share ideas and information about the aviation field. In the forum you will find information about major and regional airline carriers, career training, interview and job seeker help, finance, and living the airline pilot lifestyle.




View Full Version : 340th FTG Reserve IP


Max Relax Roll
04-23-2018, 01:42 PM
Looking for information about transferring to the 340th, specifically to Columbus AFB. I was previously a T-6 IP there while on AD, have been with the ANG for 3 & 1/2 years, and am considering relocating to the Memphis area (family necessity). I love my ANG unit but I'd be looking at a double-commute between the Guard and my airline job if I make this move. The 2 hour drive to CBM vs 2-leg offline commute to my Guard unit would make life a lot easier. Appreciate any public comments or a PM.

Specifics to me: O-5, current C-130 IP/former T-6 IP, 17 years total service between AD & ANG, and no desire to retire at 20 years if I'm capable of doing both my jobs well.


hindsight2020
04-23-2018, 04:54 PM
Looking for information about transferring to the 340th, specifically to Columbus AFB. I was previously a T-6 IP there while on AD, have been with the ANG for 3 & 1/2 years, and am considering relocating to the Memphis area (family necessity). I love my ANG unit but I'd be looking at a double-commute between the Guard and my airline job if I make this move. The 2 hour drive to CBM vs 2-leg offline commute to my Guard unit would make life a lot easier. Appreciate any public comments or a PM.

Specifics to me: O-5, current C-130 IP/former T-6 IP, 17 years total service between AD & ANG, and no desire to retire at 20 years if I'm capable of doing both my jobs well.

I'm almost positive we got folks on this board who work at the 43rd. Look up the Group af.mil site and download the application. My recommendation is to call the unit and ask to speak with the POC currently in charge for hiring (probably DOT) and they can point you in the right direction. You might also want to touch base with the flt/cc for the aircraft you wish to get hired onto, to see what the current manning situation is. Surprise surprise, easier to get full time jobs these days than part time ones. I'm a DLF guy otherwise I'd provide you with the POC contacts myself.

It's a great mission, I enjoy it much more than my time in the bomber. It's repetitive work, and some of the participation requirements are a bit more onerous than combat coded units believe it or not, but you fly fly fly, which is why I love it. It's also generally a sequester-proof job, compared to some units in the CAF/MAF. Good luck!

beavf16
04-23-2018, 06:11 PM
I'd say call the flight CC before DOT. Coordinate a time to visit and bring a gift for the bros. Their mandatory UTA should be soon so that would be a good time to meet everybody.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


AFTrainerGuy
04-25-2018, 04:02 AM
Looking for information about transferring to the 340th, specifically to Columbus AFB. I was previously a T-6 IP there while on AD, have been with the ANG for 3 & 1/2 years, and am considering relocating to the Memphis area (family necessity). I love my ANG unit but I'd be looking at a double-commute between the Guard and my airline job if I make this move. The 2 hour drive to CBM vs 2-leg offline commute to my Guard unit would make life a lot easier. Appreciate any public comments or a PM.

Specifics to me: O-5, current C-130 IP/former T-6 IP, 17 years total service between AD & ANG, and no desire to retire at 20 years if I'm capable of doing both my jobs well.

Iím a 43rd T-6 guy. PM me for any questions

ColoradoAviator
04-29-2018, 11:30 AM
Be sure to ask about 179s/deployment "opportunities" when you interview with a unit under the 340th FTG. Not trying to dissuade anybody - just make sure you know what you getting into these days.

CPE1704TKS
04-29-2018, 01:59 PM
Be sure to ask about 179s/deployment "opportunities" when you interview with a unit under the 340th FTG. Not trying to dissuade anybody - just make sure you know what you getting into these days.

Would you care to elaborate? AETC flying IPs are currently fenced from deployments. Is it different for these reservists?

PRS Guitars
04-29-2018, 02:54 PM
Would you care to elaborate? AETC flying IPs are currently fenced from deployments. Is it different for these reservists?

Are AD AETC IPís fenced right now? I wasnít aware of that. To answer your question, yes the reservists at the 340th FTG are deployable now. Donít know what the frequency of deployments will be.

CPE1704TKS
04-29-2018, 03:40 PM
Are AD AETC IPís fenced right now? I wasnít aware of that. To answer your question, yes the reservists at the 340th FTG are deployable now. Donít know what the frequency of deployments will be.

True story... last I heard was that this only applies to pilots flying, and not those in staff billets.

What sort of deployments are the 340th folks getting? Are they typically looking to get put on active orders, or are there a fair amount of non-vols? I honestly hadn't heard of this either.

hindsight2020
04-29-2018, 06:16 PM
Are AD AETC IPís fenced right now? I wasnít aware of that. To answer your question, yes the reservists at the 340th FTG are deployable now. Donít know what the frequency of deployments will be.

It's a bit more nuanced than that. This is directly a result of 19th AF being successful at fencing in their guys imo. The DFP root cause problem here is CENTCOM, but apparently it's a third rail to accuse that US command of rent seeking these days. I digress.

At any rate, the legal questions are still being challenged. Initial push in FY 17 was absorbed by Colorado GSU "volunteers" under a gentleman's agreement to divvy up the deployment in 45-90 day chunks. 11F/11Bs are getting double stuffed on this one. They're the worst retention demographic within the Group, yet only 50% of the taskers can be filled by non-11F/B whereas 100% of the taskers are 11F/B compatible. Just terrible follow through, this whole thing.

The Group subsequently gets tagged for another couple taskings this year so they went into a more organized straw poll sequence: List was made from most manned to least, the individual taskings get split one per unit down the list in that order, and it recycles back to the top of the list when they reach the last unit. So that's currently two units per year getting affected, with more to come. One GSU is being internally completely fenced off from the taskings, and that is of course a self-evident provision to those of us who understand the nuances of said unit.

The at-large problem is the "institutional reserve" question being trampled on, which is central to all the people hired before they changed the cartoons on them. The AGRs have been successfully fenced off from the tasking under the auspices of that status falling under a different mobilization authority (Other AD Operational Support, I had the email with the chart, forgot the details), whereas the TRs are being pickled individually under an expanded partial mobilization authority coming from POTUS. As you can surmise, having Active Duty counters not deploying, causing the TRs to get tagged, and their AGR supervisors also fenced out, is not a particularly friendly work environment and the mother of all moral hazards if you think about it.

So the current play being proposed is continue to rely on volunteers looking to hide out from the airlines and need USERRA exempt time (presumably those beyond the 5 year cap). Once that gets exhausted then they'll start tapping people truly involuntarily and that's when the wheels will come off the bus in earnest. The question of preempting the taskings and any equivalent "3-day opt" authority have been answered in the negative already. So every day you serve without submitting 1288 to the IRR or separation/retirement request signed before the tasker drops, is one potential non vol IA 179 you're on the hook for.

Anyways, once those invol tributes get picked, the plan is to have the Group reclama back to AFRC under the AFI charter of the Group being a "deployed-in-place" institutional Reserve, thus asking AFRC to mobilize the TR in-place at his duty station for the duration of the tasker, and having AETC deploy one of their AD UPT IP bodies that said TR is now working full time in his/her place for. I cannot wait to see that food fight.

As to new hires? Brave new world. We're certainly having to disclose this dynamic as part of the interview and application process. For my part, I'm withholding taking any retention payments this year in order to get a feel for any inkling they might reverse their position on AGRs, at which point I too would punch for the airlines and a 1288 to a CAF unit with more predictable, reserve friendly, flying deployments. The irony. So far that hasn't been presented, but you never know these days. I don't know how we keep the lights on these days honestly. Everybody has a dagger hidden in the wrist, and draft 1288 template in the G-suit pocket.

True story... last I heard was that this only applies to pilots flying, and not those in staff billets.

What sort of deployments are the 340th folks getting? Are they typically looking to get put on active orders, or are there a fair amount of non-vols? I honestly hadn't heard of this either.

So far "volunteers" have covered for the Group. I expect that bank to run out fairly quickly. At that point it's anybody's guess what kind of fallout this will have. Combine this dynamic with the loss management policy being enacted year to year currently, and it's a time bomb if they don't get CENTCOM under control. It really is amazing to me how in an environment where pilot production is purported to be the #1 visibility priority of Big HAF, yet they're willing to destroy 22% of the UPT production capability (AFRC's piece, with only 17% of the manning mind you) over deployed nonnery, half a dozen BS taskers from the fraud waste and abuse factory also known as CENTCOM.

As to what kind of taskers? The only kind when your flying mission is non-deployable. Combat Desk, Operation Deny Xmas, et al pick your platitude. To the same place we all know. Which again it's kind of a double whammy, because all of us wouldn't mind the deployment if a) we did it as a unit and b) was being accomplished in our core competency. But this? This is more of the same Big Blue wasting and antagonizing their talent to make their political masters happy, then wondering why they're in the pickle they're in retention wise. And I digress again...

Han Solo
04-30-2018, 04:01 PM
It's a bit more nuanced than that.

chopped for brevity.

Thanks for reinforcing my disdain for my former employer. None of the regional guys I fly with seem to believe it when I tell them just how little I miss the USAF. Flying fighters was awesome but the juice wasn't worth the squeeze (other than setting me up for my current employment I suppose). I don't understand how at an individual level there were so many great people but at a macro level the place is so effing retarded.

crewdawg
05-01-2018, 04:58 AM
Just another reason I keep telling my AD buddies to avoid the Reserves, and go to a Guard squadron that has it's own base and isn't attached to an AD wing. For now, it's the last bastion of hope for the ARC...although I'm certain that our days are numbered.

Then you have the ones that went to the Reserve squadrons on the AD base they were last stationed... I was dumbfounded when I heard one say, "the reserves are great, they only require 7 days/month..." For those of you still on AD, if a squadron says they require 7 days/month, run, don't walk, run away quickly!

hindsight2020
05-01-2018, 01:10 PM
Just another reason I keep telling my AD buddies to avoid the Reserves, and go to a Guard squadron that has it's own base and isn't attached to an AD wing. For now, it's the last bastion of hope for the ARC...although I'm certain that our days are numbered.

Then you have the ones that went to the Reserve squadrons on the AD base they were last stationed... I was dumbfounded when I heard one say, "the reserves are great, they only require 7 days/month..." For those of you still on AD, if a squadron says they require 7 days/month, run, don't walk, run away quickly!

In fairness, what Guard squadron requires elbow-pointer types to do only 3 days a month? Can you even CMR on that little participation? No dog in that fight (I'm AGR) just sayin'. Heavies? sure. Fighters, I'd love to know. Hell even RPA squadrons require more than that.

As to non-TFI units being the cat's meow, absolutely. I was in one...until it wasn't. It's a losing bet. You can't bank on that status remaining the case, especially as a 10-12 YAS separating guy. And btw, look at what happened with the dinosaur puppet re-enlistment fiasco. I was shocked to find out, that blue falconry happened in the Guard of all places. No free lunch anywhere I'm afraid.

crewdawg
05-01-2018, 03:25 PM
In fairness, what Guard squadron requires elbow-pointer types to do only 3 days a month? Can you even CMR on that little participation? No dog in that fight (I'm AGR) just sayin'. Heavies? sure. Fighters, I'd love to know. Hell even RPA squadrons require more than that.

Pointy nose DSG here. As a going in game plan, I give 4 days/month, not counting months with TDYs. Due to random requirements/exercises/weather/etc., that's not always enough to get my sorties, so I may show up another day. Some months I make RAP, some months I do not. IMHO, anything more than 5 days/month (aside from normal TDYs/Deployments) is an unreasonable expectation. I have heard of/seen squadrons that require 7 days/month which is beyond ridiculous. For some odd reason, they always seem to be hiring...


As to non-TFI units being the cat's meow, absolutely. I was in one...until it wasn't. It's a losing bet. You can't bank on that status remaining the case, especially as a 10-12 YAS separating guy.

Agreed, I'm just pointing out that there are steps you can take to mitigate such an issue, when deciding where to rush. For example, the likihood of units like Tulsa (F-16s) or Louisville (C-130s) becoming attached to an AD wing is exponentially less than Reserve/Guard squadrons that are based on/near AD bases. There are unicorns out there like the SCANG (F-16s) and how they're not at Shaw, I'll never know. Being in a squadron based on an AD base...ya, you're likelihood was much higher of being folded into mother AF. As a minimum, I would recommend seeking out squadrons who own their own iron.

Note: I understand that it's not always an option due hiring offers/family desires.



Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.1