Air Force Raises Fighter Pilot Retention Bonus

So, you want to recoup the costs of (already paid) pay and benefits after a service-member dies? That's what it sounds like.

Sounds to me that the issue was giving a large lump sum to begin with.

From the AF point of view, they must feel to keep the pilots they want, the 1/2 lump sum is the big carrot needed to retain these pilots.

Just one question, is the bonus tax free, if not what would the tax percentage be on that lump sum, I would assume around 35%+.
 
I was very OK with parents trying to get a third party for a flyover at AFA. I wasn't OK with the Thunderbirds being forced into it by parents who didn't know any better. That didn't happen. I'm happy they had a flyover and that it was paid for by a third party.

And yes, the Air Force is "new", but that doesn't explain the disparity on bases, especially joint bases. The last time I played golf at Andrews AFB, they had three golf courses... THREE!!! That isn't because golf when the Air Force was building bases.

And I certainly realize you aren't the one complaining about pilot retention bonuses.... and to some degree, neither am I. I'm complaining about lump payments. I 100% see that it would be very hard for you to find ANYTHING about the Air Force to complain about. And I'll admit that I am likely biased when finding things to complain about when it comes to the Coast Guard. BUT I could find a number of things the Coast Guard does wrong. I think the Coast Guard does a poor job of modernizing the fleet. The Coast Guard has issues with speaking up and throwing its weight around in Washington. So don't think my "bitterness" is somehow focused on the Air Force. But I think you would also find a number of ex-AF officers who would have some choice things to say about the Air Force. They're ex-AF because they were sacrificed for the F-22 program.

We're not going to see eye-to-eye on this. Many parents feel the need to defend their sons or daughters services. They want to lechure others on "how to treat your sister service." I'm going to save you some time and just tell you to save it. We (people here who have served or are serving) have worked with our sister services. Sometimes it's a good experience, sometimes it isn't. Those experiences shape out opinion of our sister services. And I can tell you, based on the time I've worked with the Air Force, in large part nothing from those experiences have created a negative image, in my mind, of airmen. If anything, I've been surprised by the insecurity of airmen for a service I always assumed was well-established.
 
There was no question, just a complaint about how the AF is screwing up again.

From Post 10:

"I took a signing bonus for my job. If I leave before the agreed upon time, I pay the remainder of the bonus back. Why isn't this the case here? Again, I'm not talking about a yearly bonus, I'm talking about pilots taking the lump bonus at once, for the extended period. Or am I confusing this program?"


The curved exclamation points are "question marks"
 
So, you want to recoup the costs of (already paid) pay and benefits after a service-member dies? That's what it sounds like.

Correct. That's what I think is right. I understand retention bonuses. I don't understand lump sum.
 
I was very OK with parents trying to get a third party for a flyover at AFA. I wasn't OK with the Thunderbirds being forced into it by parents who didn't know any better. That didn't happen. I'm happy they had a flyover and that it was paid for by a third party.

And yes, the Air Force is "new", but that doesn't explain the disparity on bases, especially joint bases. The last time I played golf at Andrews AFB, they had three golf courses... THREE!!! That isn't because golf when the Air Force was building bases.

And I certainly realize you aren't the one complaining about pilot retention bonuses.... and to some degree, neither am I. I'm complaining about lump payments. I 100% see that it would be very hard for you to find ANYTHING about the Air Force to complain about. And I'll admit that I am likely biased when finding things to complain about when it comes to the Coast Guard. BUT I could find a number of things the Coast Guard does wrong. I think the Coast Guard does a poor job of modernizing the fleet. The Coast Guard has issues with speaking up and throwing its weight around in Washington. So don't think my "bitterness" is somehow focused on the Air Force. But I think you would also find a number of ex-AF officers who would have some choice things to say about the Air Force. They're ex-AF because they were sacrificed for the F-22 program.

We're not going to see eye-to-eye on this. Many parents feel the need to defend their sons or daughters services. They want to lechure others on "how to treat your sister service." I'm going to save you some time and just tell you to save it. We (people here who have served or are serving) have worked with our sister services. Sometimes it's a good experience, sometimes it isn't. Those experiences shape out opinion of our sister services. And I can tell you, based on the time I've worked with the Air Force, in large part nothing from those experiences have created a negative image, in my mind, of airmen. If anything, I've been surprised by the insecurity of airmen for a service I always assumed was well-established.

Again guessing. You have no idea whether I served or not. I will save you sometime also. You are bitter and it is obvious to many. Calling AF pilots ****ty is about as bad as it can get LITS. Again the bonus payout has details that none of us have access too! When you get the detail then start complaining.

Talking about insecurity you might want to look up the definition because you got it a bad case of it.
 
Again guessing. You have no idea whether I served or not. I will save you sometime also. You are bitter and it is obvious to many. Calling AF pilots ****ty is about as bad as it can get LITS. Again the bonus payout has details that none of us have access too! When you get the detail then start complaining.

Talking about insecurity you might want to look up the definition because you got it a bad case of it.

This thread is going to need its own roll of toilet paper. Unless LITS meant "shifty".
 
This thread is going to need its own roll of toilet paper. Unless LITS meant "shifty".

HaHa, yeah I'm sure he meant Shifty.

I have to say, I flew with a few "Shifty" pilots in my day from both the CG and the AF. Just because they're qualified to be in the cockpit, doesn't make them all Maverick and Goose. After a few landings I felt like kissing the tarmac.

I really think LITS was just saying that there are "Shifty" AF pilots, not that AF pilots are all "Shifty" Heck, the CG has some pretty "Shifty" boat drivers, that's not saying all boat drivers are "Shifty"

"Shifty", I like that word.
 
Again guessing. You have no idea whether I served or not. I will save you sometime also. You are bitter and it is obvious to many. Calling AF pilots ****ty is about as bad as it can get LITS. Again the bonus payout has details that none of us have access too! When you get the detail then start complaining.

Talking about insecurity you might want to look up the definition because you got it a bad case of it.

You're right, I cannot, with 100% certainly say if you served. I will say that every spidey-sense in my body is telling me you never served in the military. But I've been wrong before...

Calling AF pilots ****ty is about as bad as it can get LITS.

I can think of worse.

Again the bonus payout has details that none of us have access too!

Perhaps Air Force public affairs (a specialty still recovering from F-22 induced cuts) should have provided more information than "look at the millions we're spending, oh, by the way, sequestration is sooooo painful."

I can't originate info that hasn't been released, which is why, in post #10 on this thread I asked if I understood the program correctly. Unfortunately, apparently you're as informed as I am.

Talking about insecurity you might want to look up the definition because you got it a bad case of it.

I haven't been in the Coast Guard for two years. I watch from "afar". Yes, many of my friends are still in. Yes, I keep in touch. Yes, I read news releases and articles. But no, it's no longer my fight. I had my time to wear the uniform, but that time has past. I wear a suit now, but it isn't a 4-button blue suit of varying hues. The decisions of the Air Force have little impact now. Whether they burn $100 million, or $1 billion, the people who suffer are the service members (including Air Force) who aren't getting a bonus, and having had a pay increase or step increase (for the GSs). Maybe my buddies in the Coast Guard don't get a boat to replace their 60 year old one. Maybe my buddy in the Air Force gets pushed out.... who knows. What I do know is, this discussion has nothing to do with my "security". It has everything to do with either poor Air Force policy or poor Air Force communications... or both.
 
Time to bring the discussion back to topic.

If you have anymore to say about other posters, it is time to stop now.

If you have anything to say about the topic of the increased bonuses, then please continue.

Stealth_81
 
Do we know if there is a way for the federal government to recoup, pro-rated, a 50% lump sum bonuses?

LITS,

I do not know the mechanism, if any, to recover those monies. I would have to go by the word of Scoutpilot above where he said all bonuses are paid out upon the death of the service member.

Stealth_81
 
HaHa, yeah I'm sure he meant Shifty.

I have to say, I flew with a few "Shifty" pilots in my day from both the CG and the AF. Just because they're qualified to be in the cockpit, doesn't make them all Maverick and Goose. After a few landings I felt like kissing the tarmac.

I really think LITS was just saying that there are "Shifty" AF pilots, not that AF pilots are all "Shifty" Heck, the CG has some pretty "Shifty" boat drivers, that's not saying all boat drivers are "Shifty"

"Shifty", I like that word.

HAHAHA.... yes, shifty.... I see a lot of that on the Metro every morning on the way into work.... some very shifty eyes... which is why I bring a book.
 
OK everyone. Let's cool our jets a little here (pun intended) and try to get back on track in a civil manner, regardless of "perceived biases" some of us may or may not be guessing at.

Indeed, LITS ask a very good question -- Why pay a lump sum up front instead of keeping the bonus on a yearly annuity? Why risk not fulfilling the contract?

Let me provide you an answer as it was explained to me when I had similar questions when I saw the pilots I flew with getting bonuses while I did not. (full disclosure: when the AF faced a WSO shortage, they offered me a 5-year bonus at my 14 year point to stay in and fly. Sounded like a waste to me to offer it to folks at my point in my career (6 years to retirement). But heck, who was I to turn down free money? Wasn't as much as what they offered my front seaters, but it was something.)

The hope is that by offerring a "lump sum" option, more folks will sign up. Part of the "folks think short term more than long term" sense of things. By giving that short term option, they played with bigger bait in the hopes of catching more fish. They DID look at the risks, to include "what if they die before the contract is up". And frankly, the risks were very small, and when compared to the benefits of more pilots signing up, worth it.

On another clarification point: Yes, if you sign up for the lump sum, it will be taxed. Except if you sign up while in a combat zone, where all pay is "tax free". I saw a LOT of other career fields (particularly the Air Traffic Controllers, who are also offered very hefty bonuses to stay) who waited until they deployed to sign up for their bonuses while dwnrange. Folks play the system. Angers you as a taxpayer, but before you throw stones, ask yourself if you don't "stick it to the man" as well sometimes.

Now, back to our broadcast of Jerry Springer.

On that note, I'll answer everyone who complains about how the AF spends its money on it folks more than their service does with my usual response -- Don't blame us for your poor life choices.... :shake:
 
LITS,

I do not know the mechanism, if any, to recover those monies. I would have to go by the word of Scoutpilot above where he said all bonuses are paid out upon the death of the service member.

Stealth_81

Right, which makes sense for an annual retention bonus. I have to say, I've never been in a field that required "retaining", so I'm not sure if there are other programs that allow service members to have a 50% advance on their bonus.

Not to mention the loss is taxed incomed with a $112.5K payout v. $25K
 
Do we know if there is a way for the federal government to recoup, pro-rated, a 50% lump sum bonuses?

Maybe the same way they recoup back taxes ( from their estate), or cadets that leave the academy or ROTC after their 2 year. I just guessing but there are way for the government to recoup there losses.
 
Right, which makes sense for an annual retention bonus. I have to say, I've never been in a field that required "retaining", so I'm not sure if there are other programs that allow service members to have a 50% advance on their bonus.

Not to mention the loss is taxed incomed with a $112.5K payout v. $25K

Most bonus payments I have seen are paid 100% in advance with payback clause if unable to live up to the terms of the bonus. I have never seen bonus payment after the fact, I am sure they exist.
 
Back
Top