USAF Pilots Pass Up $225,000 Bonuses

[Richard]

And so it goes...

Richard

Pilots Pass Up $225,000 Bonuses
AFTimes, 14 Nov 2013

An extra $225,000 is apparently not enough to keep a fighter pilot in the Air Force.

In June, the Air Force announced a $225,000 bonus for eligible fighter pilots in exchange for a nine-year commitment. However, pilots are not taking the service up on the offer because of reduced flying hours caused by budget cuts, acting Secretary of the Air Force Eric Fanning said.

“If you’re not flying your F-22 because it’s grounded, you might as well go fly something else,” Fanning said.

Just a few pilots have applied for the bonus, Fanning said. The Air Force could not immediately provide a specific number.

The Air Force cannot compete with increasingly lucrative offers from the private sector, Fanning said. Private airlines are facing a large number of retirements in their pilot ranks and are going after Air Force pilots to fill their cockpits. That, combined with recent groundings of Air Force squadrons and fiscal uncertainty, is making it difficult to get long-term commitments from pilots in exchange for the bonus.

(Cont'd) http://www.airforcetimes.com/article...S02/311140038/

[Box]

This is why we need more drones.

Four drones can save us almost a million dollars in bonus money.





...corrected to show appropriate font color

[Spiffav8]

Originally Posted by Billy L-bach

This is why we need more drones.

Four drones can save us almost a million dollars in bonus money.

Four drones can't give a guy on the ground the support one manned aircraft can. Sure they can stay on station longer, but weather is a bigger factor for them and they are crazy slow to shift from one location to another. That and when they do shoot, they often miss.

I suppose a drone isn't a good comparison to a F-22, but I'm sure you catch my drift.

[Oldrotorhead]

Originally Posted by Billy L-bach

This is why we need more drones.

Four drones can save us almost a million dollars in bonus money.

Some of the fighter jocks are leaving BECAUSE they have to go fly drones. My cousin left the AF when he had orders for an non-flying job as a Major. He went to Delta. The fighter jocks want to fly and if they can't they go where they can fly. You could keep a lot of fighters in the air if AF1 cut its hours.

[Box]

you guys are missing the details...
...we dont have to pay the drone for health care and we dont have to listen to him complain about drone benefits


Besides, we dont NEED anyone to actually FLY the F-22...
...we just need to BUY the F-22


Troops cost money to feed and maintain. and lobbyists and industry big-wigs dont make anymoney unless they are selling F-22's to the military. We are STILL going to buy the drones AND the F-22's we just aren't going to FLY the F-22s. Buy them, hanger them, thank the builders, next project...
...and who gives a shit if the guy on the ground is getting supported? We just wont put any boots "ON" the ground.


More drones, less people.

[Peregrino]

Originally Posted by Billy L-bach

you guys are missing the details...

Thanks Billy - You saved me from taking out my current frustrations on Spiffav8. We've spent the last week working on budget issues and training guidance. Personally, we're all at the point where we're looking for someone to beat senseless and then kick a few times for good measure just so we can feel good about accomplishing something.

[afchic]

Most of these folks are about to find out what it means to be a penguin. "You have wings, but you can't fly".

We went through this in the 90's. All the guys that turned down their bonuses were stripped of their flying duties, and put in non-flying jobs, trying to make it that much more miserable for them until they punched. Money has never been the reason any of us do what we do, to include all military members, not just fighter pilots. What is so hard to understand about that, for some people, is beyond me.

Plus, the laws of unintended consequences is never seen for some senior leaders. We have a huge pilot shortage right now. I can remeber about 3 years ago, 153 pilots were forced out, for having been passed.over to Lt Col once. The very next week, the headlines of the Air Force Times was "USAF experiencing severe pilot shortage" Palm, meet forehead.

The personnelists have never figured out a way to get ahead of the wave, because they are always chasing the 5 meter target. We are in a perpetual bow wave. Either too many, so.we start trimming the "fat". Which leads to, too few, when they start thinking they can throw out these outrageous bonuses to entice folks to stay. We have never figured out, how to.let the wave flatten out. The idiots in Congress understand this concept even worse than personnelists

[The Reaper]

This also speaks to a huge leadership failure, where pilots lack confidence in their chain of command.

Welcome back, hollow force.

TR

[PSM]

I never really understood why the Junior Service felt that all pilots had to be officers, in the first place.

Pat

[AFHokie]

During WWII the Army Air Forces did have enlisted and warrant officers as pilots. Chuck Yeager started out as an enlisted mechanic and before promotion to Flight Officer when he started flight school. I can't find his date of promotion to 2nd Lt, but I do know it was not until after he returned from his shoot down and escape through Spain.

From his Chuck Yeager's webpage:
Before the U.S. entered World War II, the Air Corps required pilots-in-training to have two years of college and be 20 years of age. When they received their wings, they were commissioned as second lieutenants. In 1942, in an effort to train more pilots more quickly, the Flying Sergeant program was unveiled and the regulation was changed. Flying Sergeant candidates needed only to be 18 years old and have a high school diploma. Though he hadn’t been impressed with his first ride in an airplane, the Flying Sergeant program interested Chuck. Now qualified to enter the program, Chuck signed up in December 1942. He thought it would be fun, he recalled later. And besides, with three stripes he would get out of pulling guard duty.

The flying officer program was discontinued (I believe during WWII and probably due to manpower pool catching up with demand but cannot confirm) and AF warrant ranks (technically they still exist) were eventually discontinued entirely. Before the war you could start flight school as an aviation cadet as long as you had two years of school and upon earning your wings you were commissioned a 2nd Lt.

Personally, I'd like to see the AF reestablish warrant ranks for pilots. I don't think it would solve everything, but I believe its a step in the right direction. I'm sure there are numerous other 'arguments' as to why pilots should be commissioned officers, but the only one that made rational sense to me is the nuke mission. The majority of AF fighter/bomber aircraft are (or were nuclear) capable.

As AFChic said, AFPC never makes small manning course corrections. The spigot's either open full, or closed entirely. I remember seeing an AFPC briefing during the Lt Force Shaping during 2005 that broke out each career-field manning levels by AFSC. One that stuck out to me was Security Forces. They were almost 200% over manned with Lt's, but Capt, Maj, & Lt Col were so under strength they were still critically manned overall. IIRC, they cut ~50% of them. Then again, I also think it's asinine the AF places pilots in command of Mission Support Groups, but that's an argument for another day.

At the end of the day more money won't keep the people you want to keep and the 'corporate' culture is causing a lot more than just pilots to walk.

back to lurking...

AFHokie

[PSM]

Originally Posted by AFHokie

During WWII the Army Air Forces did have enlisted and warrant officers as pilots. Chuck Yeager started out as an enlisted mechanic and before promotion to Flight Officer when he started flight school. I can't find his date of promotion to 2nd Lt, but I do know it was not until after he returned from his shoot down and escape through Spain.

From his Chuck Yeager's webpage:
Before the U.S. entered World War II, the Air Corps required pilots-in-training to have two years of college and be 20 years of age. When they received their wings, they were commissioned as second lieutenants. In 1942, in an effort to train more pilots more quickly, the Flying Sergeant program was unveiled and the regulation was changed. Flying Sergeant candidates needed only to be 18 years old and have a high school diploma. Though he hadn’t been impressed with his first ride in an airplane, the Flying Sergeant program interested Chuck. Now qualified to enter the program, Chuck signed up in December 1942. He thought it would be fun, he recalled later. And besides, with three stripes he would get out of pulling guard duty.

The flying officer program was discontinued (I believe during WWII and probably due to manpower pool catching up with demand but cannot confirm) and AF warrant ranks (technically they still exist) were eventually discontinued entirely. Before the war you could start flight school as an aviation cadet as long as you had two years of school and upon earning your wings you were commissioned a 2nd Lt.

Personally, I'd like to see the AF reestablish warrant ranks for pilots. I don't think it would solve everything, but I believe its a step in the right direction. I'm sure there are numerous other 'arguments' as to why pilots should be commissioned officers, but the only one that made rational sense to me is the nuke mission. The majority of AF fighter/bomber aircraft are (or were nuclear) capable.

As AFChic said, AFPC never makes small manning course corrections. The spigot's either open full, or closed entirely. I remember seeing an AFPC briefing during the Lt Force Shaping during 2005 that broke out each career-field manning levels by AFSC. One that stuck out to me was Security Forces. They were almost 200% over manned with Lt's, but Capt, Maj, & Lt Col were so under strength they were still critically manned overall. IIRC, they cut ~50% of them. Then again, I also think it's asinine the AF places pilots in command of Mission Support Groups, but that's an argument for another day.

At the end of the day more money won't keep the people you want to keep and the 'corporate' culture is causing a lot more than just pilots to walk.

back to lurking...

AFHokie

Wow, awesome response! Thank you.

Pat

[Last hard class]

Originally Posted by Broadsword2004

I read this is because if they had to all be commissioned

Zonie. My brother. You used to speak American English. Help me out here.


LHC

[35NCO]

Why is there not any close air support like the A10 airframe in drone form? Does that make sense? I sincerly do not know the reason and if it offends it was not meant to. It is just a question of curiosity. It seems to me like it would make sense because of missions where there is no response to close air because of commanders worry about losing the aircraft or pilot in hot areas. As well important, time on station to support those on the ground. (The nonsense at Roberts Ridge comes to mind.)

I understand that trouble may be fixable if only the command structure was better. I can forsee that the robotic remote route would seem like a better future for such a mission. The next generation of video game raised pilots might turn out good or perhaps in some scenarios better than the original manned pilots. (Its a strange thing to see a 14 year old wasting his time playing video games. Then again, really watching them, they are doing some incredible muiltitasking and information processing and still accuratally accomplishing what they meant to do. Often for marathon hours on end. The hard part would be training these people in the future that there is not a reset button.)

Is it just a issue of arming drones beyond what we currently have, to be too dangerous at this time?

[FlagDayNCO]

Drones are only good for fire and forget, or let the missile follow the laser. Just like a video game, there is not much thought or control, the game does all the work.

A real CAS mission though... Requires a real pilot to be present in the battlespace so he/she can see what is happening and REACT to the fight.

In the drone video game world, the game is programmed to not let your bombs or bullets go too far off track, if your "close enough". That would never work in the real world where the men on the ground are walking rounds into a target.

JDAMs are cool on YouTube, but the A10 rolling in guns hot always clears the way, and is what the men on the ground count on when shit goes up in smoke.

[35NCO]

I see your point. Thank you for the response.

For the record though, I did not mean a literal comparison to a video game. I was just thinking about the "way" the future generation may think and how it could connect to a possibly better combat/support technological solution by adapting to their current trained brain connections. The solution being on the current assumption that the main issue is that commanders do not want to endanger expensive aircraft and pilots to save other people’s lives. Maybe defined better as a political/ego/selfish issue that should be more psychologically defined and repaired.

I do fly in the civilian world but as your post points out, I guess I just do not have enough military air knowledge or CAS experience to understand the problem or solution. (Not Sarcasm )