BDGERJMN

Going to wave the proverbial BS flag here. To say that CSG schedules/MAP have anything to do with retention for 131X/132X or the associated ratings to man, train and equip the same, is a stretch at best. Further to say there has been no need to have a 2.0 presence in the CENTCOM AOR without knowing the reason why those CSGs are there is...well really, just misinformed. If you think supporting the CFACC with OEF sorties originating from the CSG is the driver, you're again, misinformed.

Used and abused? Guess what, when you (or I for that matter) or anyone who signed up to serve, this is what they signed up for, to serve at the pleasure of the President and the leadership, both appointed and elected that help inform and make those decisions. I don't like some of those QOL decisions any more than the next, but at the end of the day retention stats, good bad or otherwise, drive policy and is as has been stated, reactionary at best. ACCP, while some think is a tool to keep or get rid of those who might otherwise stay isn't the driver it once might have been.

LowSlowT2

I just retired last year, and I never heard that the exodus was "about to begin" at anytime prior to retiring. I always heard it discussed in context of WHEN the economy turns around AND the airlines start hiring again, THEN they'll have an issue. There have been some little bumps up in hiring in the past two years, but not like the two jumps in the '90s and besides, the global economy slowed again, and so did hiring. But retention and airline hiring are linked, just like airline hiring and the economy are linked. If you fail to see that, stop reading here.

I got commissioned in '91, immediately post DS and at the very beginning of the last big draw-down. The UPT ADSC was extended to 8 (and actually to 10 very briefly and back to 8 - I know, because I signed those papers), they recategorized pilot candidates (deferred UPT 3-4yrs), and banked the rest. That's foresight. That's lead-turning a problem. It sucked for a lot of folks, there was a lot of turmoil from 91-95 or so, the McPeak lunacy didn't help and many folks say he did all that crazy stuff to distract everyone from the draw-down.

I signed the bonus. I stayed and would have anyway - and no desire to be an O6 or beyond - I just loved the mission. But I was the exception. My command had the highest take rate and retention was still pretty poor - and this was before 9/11, all the queep, all the deployments, and crummy QOL. Know what happened during that time? Big bonuses (I took $25K/yr to 20yrs) and 10yr ADSC - it was reactionary. By the time they got all that done, 9/11 had happened, the aviation world had crashed, United and US Air had gone bankrupt with all the rest floundering, FedEX & SWA didn't pay well, and there was no enticement to get out anymore - it had little to do with the bonus or the 10yr ADSC. So, bonuses were reduced.

Because apparently, the AFPC rep used things that reduced airline hiring to somehow support his retention statistics. The single biggest factor affecting retention is airline hiring and the single biggest factor affecting airline hiring is the economy.

There are many influential reasons, but one of the big ones is the fact that with money, they cannot be proactive, they must be reactionary. They've maxed out ADSC-type management, I think, so money is all that's left. The way the military budgets work, they cannot get money for a problem that doesn't exist yet, they have to wait for it to appear and then address it. That is the very definition of reactionary. Even if leadership was really in tune with every nuance of the airlines and could predict airline hiring accurately, they couldn't get the money allocated...I'm not saying there's anything they can do about it either, it's beyond their ability to truly fix it, but we have to be realistic about how much money is going to fix this problem once it appears. And the answer is, it will do very little. Because, unlike the '90s where life was good, life sucks pretty hard for many in the 11x world.

Once again, AFPC is using historical data to do future predicting and only considering the raw numbers and not including external factors. A more valid comparison would be USAF retention percentages against airline hiring numbers - two lines on the chart, not just the one retention one.

No, I'm claiming that when the market changes, there won't be a damned thing the AF can do about it. I'm also claiming that making statements like "retention is good, so nothing to worry about" is moronic and indicative of a complete failure of leadership.

And that AFPC rep's comment about reducing bonus because of historical retention strikes you as, what, enlightened? Because it strikes me as incredibly short sighted. I had an almost identical conversation with my MAJCOM A1 about six months before I retired. His position was they were 300 pilots short and knew there was nothing they could do about it. They couldn't train their way out, they couldn't grow their way out, and they couldn't retain their way out. He, at least, knew that once things changed on the outside, it would get far worse. He also knew there was nothing he could do until it actually happened.

Stop-loss has to be laser focuesed and very short term to be used effectively, otherwise it hurts far more than it helps. It is the epitome of penny wise and pound foolish. It takes years to recover from the 'bad will' of a forced retention...and undermines the concept of an all-volunteer force.

But I will concede that you're correct insofar as that will likely be the first tool used...until some funding can be scraped up to throw money at a losing problem.

That 98% number is a recent phenomenon based on a couple of things: TFI, current QOL, the lack of airline hiring and generally slow economy. In the '90s, there were far more folks who completely separated and did not pursue ANG/AFR than you'll likely see anytime soon unless things radically improve on the outside.

The nuanced few that are lost are your warriors. The people that do it because they love the mission. It's getting harder and harder to stay, just because you love your job. Not everyone wants to be a flag officer, many of us stayed because we loved the mission and our job with no desire to ever be anything but a pilot.

But I disagree with you about the intent to retain beyond 10 years. The whole shift of UPT ADSC from 5, to 6, to 8, to 10 years has been precisely to get folks closer to the goal of an AD retirement to sway their decision making. So they absolutely do want to retain more people beyond their initial commitment. Are they retaining enough? I simply argue that we don't have the correct external factors to effectively evaluate it, but current QOL tells me that I think they're going to be hard pressed to retain anyone once external factors improve.

The discussions in the squadrons in the '90s went along the lines of, "It would be different if I was at the 12-14 year point, but I'm not even halfway to retirement." - THAT'S what drove the 10yr UPT ADSC - the belief they could retain more pilots if they got them closer to retirement.

Now there's talk about messing with the retirement....guess what effect that will have?

No, there is no perfect life or job. However, there can be no argument that there has been a slow, but steady erosion of QOL over the past decade+. For those of us who were in prior to 9/11, it has been very dramatic. The queep is so bad, many guys actually look forward to deploying so they can fly and not have to do ancillary BS. But that's a big drift to this thread - suffice to say that the queep adversely affects QOL.

Yes, we all raised our hands. But you're trying to use the straw man arguments commanders use to guilt folks into silence; 'you knew what you signed up for' or 'you're not truly patriotic' or any of the other things meant to shut folks up when they question the status quo. The fact I raised my hand is separate from my decision-making on when to leave.


So you do understand my point after all - you live it every day. You would leave if you had a shorter commitment and the airlines were hiring, you've changed your perspective because of the 10yr ADSC, and the goal of the blue card is keeping you in. So, because you don't like your QOL, you want to appear to be above the fray? Or, is it that you don't like being outsmarted by the AF in the retention game? I don't think its either - I think you're just a realist...and you prove my point. When the economy changes and the airlines start hiring, people like you will punch at the first opportunity - the 10yr ADSC just makes you think about it harder.

Because that AFPC guy Droopy talked to claims all is well. No, all is well right now, but he fails to see what the future holds because he's only looking at the previous 6-9 years of AF retention without considering what's going on outside the gate.

I don't believe, I know that the mass exodus WILL happen when the airlines start hiring like they did in the '90s. I saw it first hand with a far, far better QOL, almost no deployments, virtually zero queep and arguably the best mission in the AF.

Then again, maybe I'm just old. Folks like you who came in 99-02 have no other frame of reference, the current QOL is pretty much all you know. Maybe it won't be as big a deciding factor as I think it will because of my frame of reference. The only thing I do know is even when life was good, people still bailed in droves once the airlines started hiring...but we haven't seen that level of hiring since you got in.

e6bpilot

I have seen it first hand and it sounds like you have too. I agree...I signed up to serve and have done so honorably as have many before and after me. All I am saying is there are unintended consequences of the increased carrier presence. Those unintended consequences are going to be seen very soon in the form of people leaving en masse and our equipment being worn out.

Yeah, I realize the carrier presence isn't driven purely by OEF sorties. I am not that naive. It is driven by our world police policy...either way it is dumb and obviously unsustainable. I also realize that ACCP is a poor force shaping tool. There is a reason that VFA pilots are being paid $25G a year and they are still having trouble getting them to stay. It ain't worth the cash.

I think we agree on more than you realize. I have seen the people side of it first hand. We are carrying this massive burden on the backs of our Sailors, it can't and won't last.

webecheck

I don't dispute this. Airline hiring due to the economy is external to big blue, which you said wasn't considered.

Would you prefer they started without using historical data? Would you prefer they spent money now for a problem that may never exist?

12 yr commitment, stop loss. Make it 15yr, case closed. Some countries have an outright 20 yr commitment already.

Quick stroke of the pen on the non cockpit requirements and problem is solved. Plenty of unnecessary jobs desiring rated officers to fill will be axed in the future to solve some of this problem.

We aren't going back to the 90s for so many reasons. I believe 98%(or whatever it actually is) doesn't change.

True. But the value of mil compensation appears to be worth it at present, proven by retention stats.

I'm not going that route at all. I'm simply stating the whining commences when folks feel the tempo is too much for their compensation. I would have never signed up if they weren't going to pay me at all for it, like everybody else, so it is about the fair compensation for labor. Since they are paying us for it, we have decided a little less money, or some time away from home, is worth it for the desire to serve our country. So, the big change on the bad side is ops tempo. It has become worse, no dispute from me. I, like most of the USAF, have determined the compensation is still worth it in light of civilian opportunities and no current pension reform.

But I don't have a shorter commitment and the airlines aren't hiring...and there is no proposition to shorten the commitment

I'm an economist. Relative to the good ol' days; mil pay has increased while airline pay has decreased. Airline pilot job security decreased while mil pilot job security increased. Airline pension plans cut while mil pension remains the same. 2020 before the economy resembles something truly healthy for a number of reasons of which I don't have the time nor desire to try and explain in time consuming print. Fuel costs as a part of opex % increased and not going to return to 90s era. This airline boom will result in mass hiring for regionals. No shortage of qual'd pilots for majors these days. Growth on the horizon for legacy and major carriers is not like what existed in the 90s. Big blue has economists on the payroll you know.

2020 is my retirement year. I'll bet you a grand right now there is no "mass exodus" before I retire.

LowSlowT2

You're arguing in circles; agreeing with me and then telling me it doesn't matter...

...or maybe we're in violent agreement and having an issue with terminology - far easier over a beer than a keyboard.

Internet forums often result in that.

greenergrass

+1 My exact dilemma. Most of us just want to fly.

flybynuts

Web check,
Be comfortable with your decision to stay to 20 or more. At 6 yr pay at a legacy I making more than AD LtCol. My QOL is good for me and my family. It doesn't take an economist to determine what is best for their family.

webecheck

Geez, one dissenting opinion and it becomes a war here. I am comfortable with my decision. If I had a 6yr commitment and could guarantee a job with Delta it would be a different story. But, it was 12yrs before I could maybe get a job to make less than half what I am making now. Virtually nobody hiring in 2011 and the opportunity cost of lost investment capital from a pay cut of 140k to 60k best case would have put a dramatic dent in my ability to generate income from investments. That being said, I'm out at 20 due to all the aforementioned issues, but at the 12 yr point I felt the compensation with the bonus was worth it to get me to stay another 5. No heartburn about it.....and due to a macro economic climate which has, among other things, minimized the pay disparity between airlines and military from the 90s era I just dont see a mass exodus anytime soon.

Now if i could have walked into a flying AGR gig off the street....

LowSlowT2

No war. The more I read your posts, the more I think we're in violent agreement on most issues...I think we're talking/typing past one another.

Hilltopper89

I generally agree with most here, especially T2 since I lived through the early 90s til now and retired this year. The BL is that it ain't the same AF it was when I started flying and that anecdotally there appears to be a LOT more angst in most ranks than 20-25 years ago. I punched the first day I was eligible to retire. I'm blessed to have a mil pension and have a follow-on flying job as well.

I've been saying it for years: the AF should institute a 15 year commitment post UPT. This would not solve the angst but would guarantee retention in critical 11XX fields. I think the 10 year commitment (mine was 8) did much to force new majors with 8'ish years left into staying. A 12-15 year commitment would guarantee it (assuming no change in retirement benefits). As was stated earlier: the new Lts won't bat an eye at signing away that much time to get to fly jets. I wouldn't have.