|
I've heard a lot about the dual track system proposed in the AF. Seems like they already have it to some extent. I've met many a Major that has flown most if not all of their career. You're not going to make O-5, but who cares? I hit 5,000 hours at my 13 year mark and am doing a 15 month non flying gig in someplace nice to avoid the non-vol short tour, but if I can pull off 18 1/2 years and 7,500 hours, I'll take it. Fingers crossed.
I do hope there is a retention problem in the next few years. The USAF is a lot nicer to people when they need them to stay. The fact that bonuses have been declining shows that fact. I don't think it will be an exodus, but the people are getting out. They're just getting out as fast as the USAF is shrinking. That's not a retention problem. |
Originally Posted by LowSlowT2
(Post 1422916)
Whenever this is brought up, most folks will tell you it's called the ANG/AFR.
The RAF has a decent track system. Their entire system is based on age, not years in grade. Beyond O3, you are promoted based on a requirement and a job - in other words, you are promoted based on your job. When your three years are up, if you cannot find a job in your paygrade, you may go back to flying and take off the rank - you will wear O3, but be paid as an O4. This isn't the norm, but it happens frequently enough. The rest of it is age based. If you haven't made O4 by the time you're age 38, you are offered a contract called Specialist Aircrew where you continue to fly as an O3, but get paid extra based on your experience. At that point, it's unlikely to get promoted, but again, it does happen. Sometimes someone will get grabbed back onto the promotion track and sometimes it's simply a 'reward' (very rare). You can continue until age 55, I think. After that, you can go straight into the auxilliaries (reserves) and continue until 65. Your pension is based on your number of days of service, so you are vested from day one and if you punch at any time along the way, you will receive something. There are merit, time in service, and rank based gates within the pension system as well, but these are relatively minor. The grass, however, is not always greener. And as enticing as this sounds to your standard 'I just want to fly out my career' USAF pilot, there are pitfalls. It is very, very challenging to get rid of "dead wood" - that's probably the largest single issue I saw. There are other, less subtle challenges. But in theory, it works. Hopefully, the right person is matched with the right job, the rank is aligned with the responsibility, and experience is recognized and rewarded. I just don't know if it would translate to our massively larger force... Their system retains experience, in a low career-stress environment kind of like the civil service. They also retain deadwood, de-incentivize competition for many, have a promotion backlog, and an older, less vigorous force. Our system keeps the blood flowing, encourages striving and competition all around, trims the fat, and maintains a younger force. The later is vital in expeditionary warfare because you might need to go days without rest. A homeland defense force can be more civil-service like, but expeditionary forces have to be very dynamic. Another real downside to a 30-year O-3 or O-4 is the fact that they are filling a seat that could otherwise go to a college grad who might have 4-star potential...we get to do some cool stuff in the military as JO's, and we use that to attract the talent which will become our future leaders. Also...if we allow officers to stay forever the same would have to apply to enlisted. I mention striving and competition...that's a good thing as long as you're striving for the right things! A system that rewards and promotes striving for non-mission related queep is in need of adjustment. Our system is probably more costly due to turnover, training costs, and the fact that we have to pay the 20-year retirement to incentivize people to play real hard for 20 years knowing that they'll be getting the boot and starting over during their peak earning years. If you let people stay forever, you're paying them to keep working as opposed to retiring. |
We've all heard over and over that the bonus is not an entitlement, it's a retention tool. We've also heard that it may not actually have that much to do with retention....but, what if no bonus was offered at all? What would that do to retention if suddenly the bonus that everyone had come to expect and plan for was discontinued?
|
Originally Posted by rickair7777
(Post 1424215)
Tradeoffs.
Their system retains experience, in a low career-stress environment kind of like the civil service. They also retain deadwood, de-incentivize competition for many, have a promotion backlog, and an older, less vigorous force. Our system keeps the blood flowing, encourages striving and competition all around, trims the fat, and maintains a younger force. The later is vital in expeditionary warfare because you might need to go days without rest. A homeland defense force can be more civil-service like, but expeditionary forces and have to be very dynamic. Another real downside to a 30-year O-3 or O-4 is the fact that they are filling a seat that could otherwise go to a college grad who might have 4-star potential...we get to do some cool stuff in the military as JO's, and we use that to attract the talent which will become our future leaders. Also...if we allow officers to stay forever the same would have to apply to enlisted. I mention striving and competition...that's a good thing as long as you're striving for the right things! A system that rewards and promotes striving for non-mission related queep is in need of adjustment. Our system is probably more costly due to turnover, training costs, and the fact that we have to pay the 20-year retirement to incentivize people to play real hard for 20 years knowing that they'll be getting the boot and starting over during their peak earning years. If you let people stay forever, you're paying them to keep working as opposed to retiring. While I agree with much of the rest of your theories on what the tradeoffs may be, in practice, I found much of that not to be the case. Again, they are a much, much smaller force, so economies of scale will find their way into these types of things affecting them in different ways. And I fully concede (and did as much in my original post) that I'm not certain it would work as well in our exponentially larger force. However, they had exactly the same issues with retention and other major force shaping challenges. The single biggest thing I learned over there is, "different isn't wrong" - something we tend to overlook in the military and end up rationalizing or justifying our perspectives. ;) |
Originally Posted by Flyer5
(Post 1424293)
We've all heard over and over that the bonus is not an entitlement, it's a retention tool. We've also heard that it may not actually have that much to do with retention....but, what if no bonus was offered at all? What would that do to retention if suddenly the bonus that everyone had come to expect and plan for was discontinued?
|
" There are currently 100 Air Mobility Command pilots in fighter staff jobs due to the shortage of qualified fighter pilots to fill these posts." and there in lies the problem AMC pilots have known for years. The job of an AMC pilot is to be TDY. Then throw in a deployment and a few trips to Altus (that Do not count towards AFPC TDY time) and your gone all the time. Now add in the qweep and they all leave as well. Unlike the airlines or other major companies who invest in experience and talent, the air force shows you the door when you are an expert. What other airline would show the door to 3, 4, 5000 hr pilots? Those are the safest folks out there. Without saying too much...read safety reports from the past few years. Ask yourself what the experience level was of the aircrew. What was the career broadening tour/deployment history of the crew. So long as the air force is up or out experience will leave.
|
I'm far from Pollyanna, but just for perspective I'm on my fifth consecutive flying assignment. Everyone gets different miliage, but I've had fun. Took the bonus, never regretted it, with that and the GI Bill I think I can get my kids through college.
Yeah, there's challenges, but there's still fun to be had. Good luck |
Originally Posted by Sputnik
(Post 1426988)
I'm far from Pollyanna, but just for perspective I'm on my fifth consecutive flying assignment.
|
Originally Posted by FlyFastLiveSlow
(Post 1427417)
Those opportunities are out there. I wonder what the USAF would be like if more aviators actively pursued flying over the normal career path.
|
Originally Posted by reCALcitrant
(Post 1427467)
Let those dudes pursue their normal career path. We don't want to fly with them any way. They usually suck and the sky is a safer place without them.:rolleyes:
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:17 AM. |
User Alert System provided by
Advanced User Tagging v3.3.0 (Lite) -
vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2024 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Website Copyright ©2000 - 2017 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands