New maximum for sea time

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

This has been brought up before, but I can't find where it's at. I stated somewhere that the max points for sea service was twenty. Well I was corrected about that the other day. The new max is thirty points. Of course the first person won't be eligible for the full thirty until 2009. But still, giving someone thirty points solely for sea time removes competition from the mix. When people are seperated by hundredths of a point in the final multiple throwing 2 points a year at the sea going folk eliminates the importance of the test, marks, and TIS/TIG.

[BMC Mark Lewis]

Should sea time count more than personal awards, marks, and the SWE? I don't.

I do not have much in the way of sea time.

[BMCS Dennis Endicott (Ret)]

Maybe that's how it should be.

15 years of sea service deserves a perk.

[OSCS Jimmy D. Belcher]

Sea points do not count except from 1994 on. I have 9 years sea time and only have a year and a half towards my final multiple which was gained after 1994. That is the year more female underway billets were created giving them a better chancce of competing and advancing. I sure would like to have 15 more points going toward my final multiple.

If this information is false please let me know before May so I can fight to get them back.

[BMCM Deane Smith]

30 points is a lot. I firmly believe that there should be some points given for sea time...but is 30 an unfair advantage? Are we advancing our best qualified or our most underway qualified?


Here's the maximum points that you can receive on the SWE:

Service Wide Exam - 80
Performance - 50
Sea Time - 30
TIS - 20
TIG - 10
Awards - 10

Total: 200

[OSC Thomas Jackson]

I am not sure how many points should be given, however, without the sea time, you do not have the full experience and knowledge of your rate. At least it's true with the OS rating, different equipment and procedures.

[BMCS Jim Madsen]

Just to stir the pot I would like to ask this: Does anyone know the ratio of women to men in the Coast Guard? What is the ration of women to men sea duty opportunities? Are they the same? Then, are they the same accross the ratings? If they are anything but equal, does that not then provide an unfair opportunity for one or the other?

[OSC Thomas Jackson]

Good point. I am not sure, but I think the only Underway billets for females in some rates (i.e. OS) are 378's and Polar Rollers. I know that the only females on 210's are officers.

[BMCM Deane Smith]

You can visit the link below and it lists all of the cutters that are available for underway opportunities for women:

http://www.uscg.mil/hq/cgPC/epm/epm-2/womanafloat.html

[BMCS Dennis Endicott (Ret)]

1. We shouldn't give the SWE such weight, because it gives "book smart" people an advantage...

2. We shouldn't give marks and awards such weight, because they are too subjective...

3. We shouldn't give TIS and TIG such weight because they reward people for simply being around...

I've been hearing arguments against various aspects of the advancement system for decades.

Underway units are more arduous and demanding than anything else out there. They also make us better Coasties for the experience. I am better qualified because of my sea service. I also deserve that advantage over someone who has avoided getting underway.

At least you can choose a course of action that will postively effect your advancement opportunities. Besides, the exam has always been the deciding factor. Do well on it, and the rest doesn't matter.

[BMCS Jim Madsen]

Personally, I think it would be nice if the Coast Guard linked advancements with transfers and did a board / e-resume type thing. If an individual is eligible for advancement at time of transfer, then the e-resume should include positions at the next higher paygrade. If the individual then is the "most qualified", the advancement comes with the transfer. This would allow the detailers to look at things like sea time and quals for advancment within the respective rating. A YN with seatime has an advantage, but does that make them a better YN? Also, imagine NOT short touring a year after arriving at your new unit. For those that do 3-4 years at a unit without advancing, then maybe they should be offered a transfer at the same paygrade with a minimum 2 year assigment prior to eligibility for advancement. Just an off the top of my head thought, but it provides incentive and eliminates some of the anguish that others might feel with transfers every year or two.

[BMCS Dennis Endicott (Ret)]

You want to punish people for not advancing???

[BMCM Deane Smith]

Dennis said...Underway units are more arduous and demanding than anything else out there. They also make us better Coasties for the experience. I am better qualified because of my sea service. I also deserve that advantage over someone who has avoided getting underway.

I agree and hope that no one would argue that. Believe me, I will be the first in line to take my sea time points and not feel bad about it.

The question remains...Is 30 points too high of a max?

[OSC Thomas Jackson]

They have tried to punish people for not advancing twice since I've been in. The programs were called Reduction in Forces (RIF) and High Year Tenure.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Dennis, I've heard all of the complaints also, but 30 points is more than a perk, it's a guaranteed advancement. Even the person who writes number one isn't given the full 80 points unless their test was so far ahead of the field. The other areas might separate the field by a couple of points, but take a look at the average sea points for any given rate from the past two SWE. Very few people have remained afloat for the entire time since '94, but they've skewed the average. Just ask the people who have gotten all of their sea service before '94 for their feelings on this. Why not stop the points at seven years and continue increasing the pay until the 15 year mark. I'd rather take the money and study harder.

Tom, the last RIF was based solely on marks, not people declining advancement.

Jim, people posepone advancing for many personal reasons. I think that the service has changed alot over the past couple of years by leaving people until they're tour complete. But that's just what I'm seeing. I don't see a time or way when we'd go to a transfer/advancement system due to the different tour lengths and positions.

[OSCS Jimmy D. Belcher]

Even if a person has been underway since 94 that means they have 20 points now. I once fought to get my single point Good Conduct and it moved me up 6 spots on the advancement list. 20-30 points is almost a guarantee that you will be advancing even if you did poorly on the service Wide.

[MKC Tony Balcer]

I don't think 30 points is too much, people should be rewarded for being underway. But, I do think that there should be other qualifications that you get points for as well, like being a surfman. That should count just as much as sea time. Here is the other thing. I think that in certain technical ratings should have to accumulate at least 5 years sea time before you are eligible to make E-7. I also think that time served as EPO/XPO/OIC should count towards advancement as well.
MKC Balcer
abalcer@cgctahoma.uscg.mil

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Jimmy, my point exactly. The "average" sea points for BMCM last year was 6 something. How can you stop the guy with twenty ? The "average" MK1 has 1.7 years afloat. You can't stop the people afloat, and that's not what the SWE was geared for. The former QMs will be advanced before the BMs who haven't been afloat as much. It's not right. We're not getting the "best qualified" person. And just so my stance isn't taken the wrong way on this issue, I'm a BM and I've been afloat since '91. I'm one of the guys skewing the average.

Tony, I 'd like to see Command Cadre Positions awarded points. Making people serve more than one year afloat couldn't hurt us either. As for the surfman thing......it too has been brought up before. They do get SWE points, just not as many as for sea service. Of the two of them, sea service HAS to be valued higher. BMs are the only ones receiving anything for those surfman points.

[BMCS Dennis Endicott (Ret)]

Why would you want to stop the guy with 20 sea time points?! Because he's done those difficult jobs, he's probably a better Coastie than the guy that has 6 points.

This is an excellent way to get people competing for the those sea-going billets. Once that occurs, I doubt that there will be such a broad difference in point accumulation.

[BMCS Jim Madsen]

My comment / suggestion was not meant to punish anyone for not advancing. I fully understand that if someone is in a great job in a great place, that can mean more than $$$ for some individuals. Particularly those of us with kids in school. My recommendation of a e-resume / board type system would look more toward performance than how well someone can write a test. Dare I say that it will be more like the officers promotion system? With a minimum of a two year assignment that would give the individual a time to learn and prove themself at the job before being eligible for advancement. IF someone has completed 4 years and is tour complete, they would be expected to put in for a job at the next higher paygrade. If they are not a particularly good performer, they probobly won't get a job at the next higher paygrade and will have two years at some other place to prove themself. This is more of a "performance based advancement system" then we currently have. I also agree that sea time is a much more arduous duty than the ANT. I have stood enough port and stbd duty at a station that I was thrilled to get back to a ship though. 30 points.... To much. Max it at 10 like awards. IF you want to improve the system though, base it on performance and not on test taking ability.

[BMCS Dennis Endicott (Ret)]

The problem with basing the entire system on performance is subjectivity. I believe that some of the other services do exactly as you recommend. I'd much rather have some control over my advancement in the way of the exam and choice of billets (sea time points) than leave the decision up to an officer that may/may not appreciate my abilities and accomplishments.

[OSCS Jimmy D. Belcher]

I think 30 is way to high. If they are going to do that then do not give the fid to the person who has gained sea time. Like I posted earlier I have 9 years and the permanent cuttermans pin but only a year and a half get counted toward my final multiple. I also like Tony's idea if a person is in an underway rate then maybe gaining the permanent cuttermans pin should be a requirement to advance to E7. Does a person having 5 years underway since 1994 have more qualifications than I do? I do know the points they are accumalating now are going to hurt me and others in the placement list on the next service wide. It did on my last service wide for CPO when I received a 123 raw score and a 106 knocked me backward.

[BMCS Dennis Endicott (Ret)]

Your issue isn't with the sea-time points, it's with when they began to count.

They had to draw the line somewhere.

[OSCS Jimmy D. Belcher]

Okay I can buy that about the when they did it and will suck it up because I am near the end of my career and have to make the decision soon if I put a letter in or not. The rest still remains in effect. Priority one and two personnel wanting the sea points will get the first shot at them getting those 30 real quick to advance. Those at the 4 and 5 level will be sitting there hoping thier high raw score does not get affected by such high reward points.

[MKC Tony Balcer]

Jimmy,
I see your point. But, I think that is the way it should be. Another way to look at is; PRI 1 or 2 will have first crack at that cushy desk job "if they want it". They may very well choose another cutter. That is the way it should be.
The problem here is the folks that want to spend all their time on the beach and still want to be competitive when it comes time for advancement. Hey people! Wake up!
The alternative is not very good. Look at the Navy, where they have a sea/shore rotation. I certainly would not want to see anything like that implemented in the CG. I like the fact that I have some choice in where I go. I just prefer to stay afloat. Come to think of it, I will never go ashore again if I can help it.
As for your opinion about getting the 30 points real quick to advance… What is so quick about 15 years sea time? Isn't that the person you want to advance?
MKC Tony Balcer
abalcer@cgctahoma.uscg.mil

[OSCS Jimmy D. Belcher]

Your right 15 years sea time is a lot and if you make it you should probably receive them but still 30 points is a high reward. Everybody has some good points involved in this discussion but I still feel 30 is excessive.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Just trying to be honest. Let's face it.....not all sea duty is difficult. The most fun I've ever had was while assigned underway. I would also argue that some ANTs work longer hours than some Cutters. As for the test itself....? Until we go to an essay or fill in the blank form of testing, the test will not be determining pure knowledge of the material. As long as we use a multiple guess format, luck can always factor in. I have always said that afloat experiences make better Coasties. I just think that the CG is compensating too much. If they have a problem getting people to take afloat assignments, raise the requirement standards for advancement. The people that don't want to go to sea aren't going to go regardless of what the service does. There are people who have tried to get back to sea and couldn't though. There are also people who have the experience and are only offered afloat billets. I used to think 20 points was too much, 30 points forgetaboutit.

edited to add
On the subject of pure performance......you only have to look at other threads to see where that would lead. We have become a service where some people award people for routinue tasks, marks are over inflated, and few people are willing to write "not recommended". Changing our advancement procedures isn't going to make those people grow a spine, or make their recommendtions any more credible.

[MKC Tony Balcer]

not all sea duty is difficult. The most fun I've ever had was while assigned underway. I would also argue that some ANTs work longer hours than some Cutters.
Senior Chief,
That's a full load of Buck Shot. I don't think I'll be able to sell that to my people while they are getting their asses handed to them in 10-15's for days on end while we are looking for that lost NOAA buoy. Where is this arduous ANT team you are talking about? I want to give them a call and find out what that's all about…. Oh sorry, he's gone home for the day… Please.
That is way too generalized and offends me greatly. This is my 3rd. ship in a row (by choice). It continually amazes me how hard these people work to keep these old battlewagons operational on a day to day basis. With the in ports getting shorter and shorter. Solely because it's their job. They don't do it for points or medals. They are just outstanding Coasties. I think it's about time the service recognizes what it takes to survive in the cutter fleet. Especially for an extended period of time.
I'm not saying that ashore jobs are any less important or difficult. They just operate under a different tempo, and have a lot more resorces at hand.
MKC Tony Balcer
abalcer@cgctahoma.uscg.mil

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

That is way too generalized and offends me greatly.

Tony, your comments were way too generalized, but I don't get offended. I'm on my fifth consecutive cutter, all by choice also. ANT San Juan deploys on the 55' for up to ten days at a time. ANT NY has crews U/W everyday of the year responding to disrepancies so the Cutter's don't have to. WTGBs and WYTLs rarely stay out more than one day at a time. Feel free to call anyone on my crew and ask them if their life is difficult. Call the people at ANT NY and ask them if they would rather be on the HAWSER.

Oh sorry, he's gone home for the day… Please.

Please, he's still out brushing the swamp, and fighting off the snakes and gators. You need to call some of those ANTs before you start knocking them.
Generally speaking.

[OSC Bill Putnam]

I contacted a Chief who is retired now but helped craft this idea. It was part of a much broader study that was looking at ways to make sea duty more attractive since, at that time, we seemingly were having difficulty getting the members of our sea service to go to sea. The retired Chief's response to my query is below. I pass it along.

"Yes - this was from the Sea Duty Initiative Study, that was done in 1997, which among its recommendations, included awarding points for sea duty -- not as much as recognition or an award - but merely to recognize two things -- one, the Coast Guard's primary condition of employment is "going to sea." Those who do, are placed in demanding situations where not only they have to learn and know to do their rating, but their shipboard responsibilities, learning their Watch, Quarter & Station Bill, additional qualifications for inport and underway watchstanding, and mission specific responsibilities (boarding team member is one such example). Secondly, the "reward factor" by awarding sea duty points was to compensate for those individuals who do have to learn by their unit requirements above and beyond what those are required to learn on shore duty.

Please don't tell me that they're trying to do away with this? It would be a travesty if they do. The decision on awarding the points was made with a concise and comprehensive research, not from a whim. If the decision is to take it away, a similar such study should be done to support this move -- although I would argue that the reasons I mentioned above should remain first and foremost as the reasons to keep the points."

[BMCS Jim Madsen]

Speaking soley from my personal experience, not necissarily for the way it is all over the Coast Guard, I can say this. I was on a WPB (110') out of Puerto Rico where I was guaranteed at least 2 weeks per month U/W. I stood 1 in 3 watch while U/W and 1 in 4 to 1 in 6 inport. While U/W we did things like migrant interdictions and narco traffic interdictions. While not on watch I was often doing boardings, driving the small boat, etc. Oh yeah, I did find time to sleep once in a while. Was is hard. Hell yes. Was it worth it. Hell yes. It was a blast. Then I went to a Coastal SAR Station in D-13. Port and Stbd duty. I was home less than I was on the ship. When I was home, it was usually to sleep prior to going back to work. Then I went to a WLIC. We had a difficult time getting 10 days per month U/W. Most WLIC's don't have that problem, but we had a good AOR. It was almost boring at times but was still one of the best units I have ever served at. The point here is not all afloat duty is miserable. Not all shore duty is cake. I am currently at an ANT where we have nice long winters where we have lots of time to so unit maintenance and home maintenance. Then April-Oct consists of long days and at least 4 trips that are several days long. Fact is, there is good and bad in all things. Some ratings may have to learn more on a ship then they would ashore. Not necissarily the same for other ratings. A BM2 on a 378 does not have nearly the quals that a BM2 at a surf stations is required to have. Or a BM2 on a WPB. Some are apples, some are oranges, some are lemons. Maybe sea time points should be on par with sea pay as far as the type ship. More points for the less desirable ships. Just another thought.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Jim, thanks for the view from your personal experience. I also did the 110' in GANTSEC, minus the hell yes it was hard. The same unit could be your best or your worst, depending on your command, the crew, your AOR, or your personal actions. I like the thought of comparing the points to the pay. I'd still lower the max to 10-15 points though.

[BMCM Deane Smith]

Tony said...Where is this arduous ANT team you are talking about? I want to give them a call and find out what that's all about

Tony, it's all relative. There are ANT's, Stations, MSST's, etc that can be considered just as arduous as certain cutters. And, there are some that can't. I hope you can't say with a straight face that the SHACKLE was arduous...it's all relative...

Personally, I will gladly accept any points that the CG is willing to give me for my sea duty (however arduous or not). I have not been one to shy away from sea duty and have never based my decision to go or remain in the cutter fleet because of SWE points. I go because I'm drawn to the job.

The argument is whether 30 points (max) is too high. I think it is. I like the idea of weighting the points based on the class of cutter. (i.e inline with the sea pay chart).

[MKC Tony Balcer]

Senior Chief Smith,
I understand exactly what you are saying and thank you for reiterating my point. There is no way a 65 or an ANT team can compare to a 210 or a 270. Don't get me wrong, BMC Stauffer had us turning two. There is nothing Mark loves more than doing the Coast Guards work. But, the op tempo is completely different. So, this leads me to agree with your last statement. The amount of points one receives could be divided by class just as sea pay is. I think that would be a suitable compromise.
But let me say this;
If you have 15 years of sea time, first of all. Thank you for your support. The salt trail falleth behind your feet. Second, the CG had damn well better let that count for towards advancement.
Another point:
Lets say you have two MKC's competing for MKCS. One has 6 years sea time and the other has 13 year's. Which one do you want to get the Star? For argument sake lets say they have been on the same class of cutters. That would rule out my fast attack tug argument.
As you can tell, I don't have a problem with the 30 points, but I would also like to see people get points for holding command cadre positions. Lets say 2 points a year just like sea time. Do you feel that would even the playing field a little? I know how valuable OIC's/XPO's and EPO's are to this outfit. Good ones are even harder to find.
MKC Tony Balcer
abalcer@cgctahoma.uscg.mil

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

I was enlighted today by someone far wiser than I am, how the Exam is still the great equalizer. Where I thought that the first and last guy on the exam may be seperated by ten or fifteen points, I was shown where it could be more than sixty. The average exam is always given 50 points. Again the number one guy can get 80 points. They need to write much higher than the rest of the pack, but I've spoken with someone who has done it twice already. That puts them thirty points ahead of the average test writer. People lower than the average fall further behind. So where thirty points for sea service is still too many in my opinion, it guarantees nothing when it comes to placement. If you don't write a decent test, you'll get a chance to do better the following year.

[BMC Ken Gouge]

Just a few thoughts on the seatime points. I have a few and am acrueing more as we speak.

For my SWE's to make PO2 and PO1 I lost 3+ years due to the '94 thingy.

Does seatime help someone to be more qualified for advancement? I think it depends on the rate. The HS, SK and YN on my '210 probably don't gain anything from it they couldn't get ashore.

Should they get a "bennie" for having been there? Yes, they also have to do all the drills, and fill billets for other things. Should the benefit be points for advancement? I don't think so.

Lets raise Sea Pay again! You have lower ranking people, or those without as much seatime who lose money going afoat because they are losing BAS! You have people that don't want to go Afloat for THAT reason. Look at all the Bootcampers with cars right off the showroom floor and insurance more than the car payment. Most of them lose their BAH as well if they go afloat.

My last point is this: Has everyone you've ever sailed with been the hard working, uniform perfect, never griped about being there, qualified early and never hurt YOUR watch rotation, cover of the blue-jacket manual sailor? Guess what, one of those that made you work a little harder or carry a little more of the load got the same points as you...

Give us money to cover a few extra phone bills etc. and either remove the SWE points or reduce their impact (10 total like time in grade)

[FSC Jayare Parker (Ret)]

Most of us with lots of Sea Time do it because we enjoy being on a ship. I know there are not many Land Jobs out there that I would like to have listed on MY dream sheet so I choose not to apply for them in my 18.5 years in. I did 11 concecutive years on 6 cutters and have 7 out of 9 units afloat before coming to this land unit. (by the way I now loose $400 a month by giving up my $645 in sea pay just so I can get that BAS coming to a land unit. :( ) The most anyone can have right now in sea points is 24.36 at the .186 per month since the implentation of this in Feb-94 so 30 points for 15 years of sea time I think is fine, by the time anyone will have that 15 years of sea time points it will be Feb-2009.

I know this is a touchy subject with a lot of people so I will end it here, I did have more written but deleated it.

Jayare

[ETC Pat Kaschube]

My two cents. The points are valid. I have eleven. Three 378's and a 210. The underway schedule is rough so it's a nice benny. Also when this whole thing came out there were people basically transfering from one building on a base to a different building on a base. Homestedders. Not that I have an issue with people trying to stay in one area however, everytime I shot for the area I wanted it was grabbed by a homesteader. The Detailers were also having a bear of a time getting people to go to sea. Incentive to go to ships got a lot better when sea time helped on a servicewide. The requirement for advancement I used to think was a good thing untill I got to land. Now my ET2's can't make first unless they short tour which would basically leave me with a shop of unqualified new techs. I have begun to rethink my opinion on the Sea Time for advancement. Give us the points and give us the sea pay. I'm crossing my fingers and hopin for another big white one in three or four years.

[AMTCM John Long]

I don't have much of a dog in this fight but here are some things to ponder.

1. What is being rewarded for going to sea? The experience one might gain or the fact that someone took an afloat billet? Before you say both, think about it! Now ask yourself are the 30 points being rewarded for the right reason? Depending on your conclusion.....you might now say 30 points is too much.

2. Can a person have too much seatime for their particular rating? Again, think about the balance between afloat and ashore PQE's and the required proficiency for the particular rating(s). Would someone with many years seatime be well rounded (technically proficient) at an ashore job or would they be a fish out of water? (sorry....had to say that!)

Hmmmmmmmmm.....................

Unfortunately all my seatime was pre-1994 too.

Maybe next time.....John

[ETCS John Zidek]

I think you guys are looking too big. Most Ratings will never have anyone that hits 15 years of seatime. Those that have a possibility to reach that insane mark IMHO deserve to get those points. If you have 15 Years of Seatime you will most likely have at least 18 - 20 Years in and a love for the sea that none of us can fathom, by that point in your career you should be pretty high up on the food chain, competing for your first or second star on the anchor. Not to mention that those that you are competing against will also have quite a few years floating under their belts.
Let me ask you this would your rather have an CEA on the ship with all that seatime and underway experience or someone that only has the minimum to advance?? Would you rather have a Senior Chief or Master Chief on the beach supporting you that has all that experience underway or someone with the minimum to advance??
Sorry for the tangent......Back to topic now... Is 30 points nearly a guarantee for advancement .... Yes probably...Do 30 points make up for what you miss while underway...Not even a little bit. Yes 30 points is high, but I feel that 15 years away from your family deserves a bit of a boost on the eligibility list.
Would I like to see the system changed...Yes
How about 15 points for a Permanent Cutterman's Pin then 1/2 point a year after that. Or maybe tying the points to the platform?

[GMC Kevin Godwin]

I agree that sea time points are needed to help with the overall package of making it more attractive. I proposed several years ago (to AOFC) and again to LANTAREA during sit down discussions, that instead of increasing the max points, making sea pay permant entitlement for those at 5 years 12.5%, 10 years 25% and over 15 years 50% of the scale at that time. I was told that that step wasn't a cost effective idea and would not keep members at sea. I disagreed then and I still think that it would be an effective tool in keeping the experienced sailors afloat. I know that with 11.5 years at sea I would complete the 15 year mark if I could carry it to the beach with me.

[AMTCM John Long]

John,

I was just talking to our OSCS yesterday, I believe he is up there in the mid-teens on total seatime.

"Let me ask you this would your rather have an CEA on the ship with all that seatime and underway experience or someone that only has the minimum to advance?? Would you rather have a Senior Chief or Master Chief on the beach supporting you that has all that experience underway or someone with the minimum to advance??"


If I'm reading you correctly, I think you're viewing this thru afloat eyes only. IMO, and this is an old arguement........ you have to strike a balance between afloat/ashore to get the best mix of experience. Using your example, if you have a CC/CSC/CMC whose career is mostly underway, does he/she have the experience to discuss shore-side billets with the crew? How about the various shore systems or smallboat systems that are out there? The converse is also true for folks that have never stepped foot on a ship.

"Underway is the only way" might not be the best thing nowadays. Great for SWE points for the individual, maybe not so great for the bigger picture.

Just my 2 cents......John

[FSC Jayare Parker (Ret)]

I think that if you have a certain amount of sea time (say over 5 or 10 years) you should be able to get/keep at least some of that sea pay throughout your career. I mean I have 12.5 years sea time and if I was still on a ship I would be getting around $645.00 in sea pay and when I go to the beach like I am now I loose all that and get that lousy BAS of what $240.00? I have also lost about 1.5 years in sea pay due to pre-comming 3 ships and de-comming 1 ship when you don't get it until the ship is commishined. You are still on the ship and doing everything you do when the ship is commishened before that commishioning. Where is the incentive for me to go to the beach with all that money being thrown away? We are in a sea going service and I like being underway for some crazy reason. Maybe it's because my first unit was a 378 and that is what I was accustom to from the beginning. If everybody was to go to a boat for their first unit then maybe there would be more people interested in ships. Don't most people end up staying with whatever their first unit was in the CG? When you are on a ship you can work some pretty long days for upwards of two months at a time and you don't get a whole lot of study time (depending on your rate) and networking time with all those others on the beach for that next SWE.
Don't the aviaters get to keep their flight pay after a certain amount of time if you maintain your quals when you are on the beach later in their career?

What do you all think?

Jayare

[BMCM Deane Smith]

Don't the aviaters get to keep their flight pay after a certain amount of time if you maintain your quals
when you are on the beach later in their career?

Aren't they ALWAYS on the Beach???

[AMTCM John Long]

"Don't the aviaters get to keep their flight pay after a certain amount of time if you maintain your quals when you are on the beach later in their career?"

Pilots do. They work under a slightly different type of flight pay system. Enlisted folks do not. There's a couple of types, but basically once we're off of flight orders your Flt Pay stops. When we transfer from one unit to the next you go off for a short period then go back on at your new unit. Many of the senior folks choose (or can't) not to fly anymore. The top end flt pay for E7-9 is $240 per month. It goes down from there. Operational AST's do collect some serious $$....Flt Pay and Jump Pay. Someone smarter than me can check on this but I think if they were to deploy they would get Sea Pay also. I'm not sure what the regs say about receiving certain types of pay concurrently.

John

[FSC Jayare Parker (Ret)]

Wow flight pay sucks like BAS. I didn't know it was that little in pay.

When I mentioned them being on the beach it is as in recruiting, housing, company comander etc...

Jayare