Flight Pay Changes

[Jim123]

So, asked again and here is what I got. Expect the increased monthly flight pay in the next few months. There will be caveats. The max amount for each year blocks will ONLY be paid to those who are still “on track”. When one strays off track by his or her own choice or things just don’t work out, expect your flight pay to decrease or go away. The “off track” jobs are still being decided by those at the bureau as is the amount of decreased and no flight pay for each of those jobs. These decreased/no flight pay off track jobs will be used to fund the flight pay for those “on track”. This is kind of like the bonus tiers for different platforms.

If this no kidding happens, it will just be another reason for guys to bail contact their elected representatives with their concerns. I am so glad I am retiring. Man, I swear, the Navy can fuck up a wet dream sometimes.

FIFY

 

[Farva01]

Here is the full explanation from PERS-435.


"In the wake of DFAS releasing the 2018 Pay Tables, you may receive some questions from your constituents regarding the increased AvIP rates. The rates posted by DFAS are the DoD maximums authorized by the DoD on April 26th of 2017, and not service specific. Our proposal to increase Navy AvIP is currently in route for Assistant SECNAV approval. We hope to have approval to begin implementation of the new rates in February or March of this year. Stay tuned."

 

[Brett327]

This makes more sense, and tracks with what was previously put out my PERS about incentivizing people to remain on a due course track/taking the tougher billets after squadron tours.

 

[robav8r]

If this no kidding happens, it will just be another reason for guys to bail. I am so glad I am retiring. Man, I swear, the Navy can fuck up a wet dream sometimes.

It will be interesting to see how PERS defines "On" & "Off" track career paths. I can see the FITREP debriefing now: "Hey, thanks for all your hard work, but your performance just doesn't warrant keeping you on track for continued, community milestones. Oh, and besides the shitty FITREP, your flight pay will end commensurate with your check-out date. Best of luck to you . . . . "

 

[Gatordev]

Odd note there, my detailer informed me it was with the education office, WTF do they get a chop on my retirement for? I would think any MSR would have been adjusted already.

They're probably checking if you've allotted any Post-9/11 education to a dependent. The fact that this incurs an extra committment gets lost on lots of commands (and individual service members). I didn't know about it myself and thankfully didn't pursue the option until after I heard about it. I know of another who allocated benefits and then tried to retire, only to find out he owed another tour.

Interestingly, the VA doesn't actually care, it's strictly an individual service (retention) policy.

This makes more sense, and tracks with what was previously put out my PERS about incentivizing people to remain on a due course track/taking the tougher billets after squadron tours.

I'm not sure it make complete sense. Generally, "harder" tours are non-flying. So one gets paid more flight pay for taking non-flying tours? I get it, it's an incentive, but to say that makes sense to anyone other than PERS is frustrating.

 

[Brett327]

I get it, it's an incentive, but to say that makes sense to anyone other than PERS is frustrating.

They're just working within the authorities they currently have. There's only so much they can move the compensation levers without congressional action. So, yes, to the extent that they want to incentivise people to remain on the command track, it make a lot of sense to me.

 

[Treetop Flyer]

They're just working within the authorities they currently have. There's only so much they can move the compensation levers without congressional action. So, yes, to the extent that they want to incentivise people to remain on the command track, it make a lot of sense to me.

Did congress tell the navy to only give the pay increase to some?

 

[Flash]

They're just working within the authorities they currently have. There's only so much they can move the compensation levers without congressional action. So, yes, to the extent that they want to incentivise people to remain on the command track, it make a lot of sense to me.

And yet for some odd reason I don't think that fiddling with who they pay out flight pay to, after decades of doing it one way, is really going to help things at all. But I think we all know by now that PERS knows best....

 

[IKE]

On an semi-related note. In a squadron I saw a poster of an ERJ cockpit cutout with a regional carrier name listed on it. If that doesn't tell you the state of some HSC squadrons, then you're blind as a bat.

FIFY.

 

[Brett327]

Did congress tell the navy to only give the pay increase to some?

The services appear to have some discretion between the max authorized and what the current levels are. Of course, we'll have to see how it's implemented, but I suspect that those who choose lower tier billets won't have their flight pay decrease, but those who choose top tier billets will see an increase.

 

[Treetop Flyer]

The services appear to have some discretion between the max authorized and what the current levels are. Of course, we'll have to see how it's implemented, but I suspect that those who choose lower tier billets won't have their flight pay decrease, but those who choose top tier billets will see an increase.

So by choosing/receiving “top tier billets” guys could receive literally hundreds of extra dollars a year? Sweet.

They may have found a way to insult both the people who got a raise and the people that didn’t.

 

[Flash]

The services appear to have some discretion between the max authorized and what the current levels are. Of course, we'll have to see how it's implemented, but I suspect that those who choose lower tier billets won't have their flight pay decrease, but those who choose top tier billets will see an increase.

Because everyone gets to choose their orders.

This will cause unnecessary friction where it didn't exist before, all for a relatively tiny amount that may or may not be saved. If folks actually think that this will somehow incentivize folks they aren't paying attention, let bonuses be the incentive and let flight pay remain the way it has been.

 

[Jim123]

Flash, haven't you heard? We don't have a retention problem.

 

[pilot_man]

They're just working within the authorities they currently have. There's only so much they can move the compensation levers without congressional action. So, yes, to the extent that they want to incentivise people to remain on the command track, it make a lot of sense to me.

The AF seems to have figured out a better way of taking care of their people, even with Congressional constraints.

 

[Brett327]

Because everyone gets to choose their orders.

This will cause unnecessary friction where it didn't exist before, all for a relatively tiny amount that may or may not be saved. If folks actually think that this will somehow incentivize folks they aren't paying attention, let bonuses be the incentive and let flight pay remain the way it has been.

Don’t shoot the messenger. I’m just trying to understand the policy, of which we have few hard details. It’s all conjecture at this point.