Rand study on USAF pilot retention

[UInavy]

From the conclusions :
Our analysis shows that, from a personnel cost perspective, it is more cost-effective for the
USAF to increase S&I pay and retain pilots than to expand the training pipeline to sustain a
given pilot inventory. In short, these results are driven by the high cost of training pilots, which
is determined by the current curricula, policies, capacities, and technologies used to train USAF
pilots. Changes in how the USAF trains pilots could decrease training cost, although the decrease
would have to be sufficiently large to reverse our results and make expanding the training
pipeline more cost-effective than expanding AvB. Future research should explore where training
cost savings might be found (e.g., perhaps through alternative training technologies) without
jeopardizing USAF capability and readiness.

Is It More Cost-Effective to Retain Pilots or Train New Ones?

Instead of relying on retaining its current pilots, the U.S. Air Force could hypothetically find and train new ones. But expanding the pilot training pipeline is costly. What is the best way for the Air Force to allocate its resources and sustain its number of pilots?

www.rand.org

 

[Brett327]

They needed RAND to do a study to come up with that blinding flash of the obvious? That seems like conventional wisdom to me.

 

[scoolbubba]

Offer a couple bonuses like docs and surgeons get and I bet a lot more guys will stick around. I might have even taken the devil's money for 100K a year for 5 years. It still doesn't touch airline pay, but it changes the math quite a bit.

 

[Jim123]

RAND isn't the only consultant to ever make money off this problem. If only this wasn't the first time the services had to deal with it.

 

[Brett327]

That would require a change to the law, unfortunately.

 

[scoolbubba]

That would require a change to the law, unfortunately.

Then it will either continue to be a problem or the service chiefs will advocate for a way to compete financially with their biggest competition.

Until then, they're just putting bandaids on a heart attack.

 

[Brett327]

I don’t disagree, but there are structural barriers to that end that the services do not control, and their powers of persuasion in Congress are not infinite.

 

[sevenhelmet]

Thanks for telling us, RAND. Too bad that money they made couldn't be used for up jets...

Hiring and the economy goes in cycles. A lot of people are saying this is like the 90s, with everyone running to the airlines. I was just a kid for that, but it's my observation that the hiring and military retention issues are less tied to the economy this time around. I think there are differences that make this a longer "wave" in the cycle, and the vagaries of Pentagon budgets and national ping-pong policy make that particularly hard on the military.

However, I think it's going about things the wrong way to try and compete directly with the airlines on a financial basis. Military service as a pilot has a lot to recommend it, particularly the camaraderie, the kind of flying a pilot gets to do, and (for now, at least) the lure of a full retirement. On the flip side, a guy who wants more quality of life typically isn't going to stick around even to make the same money he could make at a major airline. Money-wise, at O-4, I'm making enough that I can support my family fairly comfortably and still save for the future. Don't get me wrong, making more would (will?) be great, but I'm not leaving active duty because of the money.

 

[RedFive]

You guys might say it's obvious and we didn't need a study -- and to us, perhaps, yes. I would counter with two things: first, the people making decisions are often out-of-touch, and second, at least the AF is trying to do something about it. They might not be making much headway, but they're trying. Nothing in the news or msg traffic tells me the Navy is doing anything. That is the stark difference. That is why yesterday I was in a room full of JOs and half of them said they should have joined the USCG and the other half the AF. So, yeah, the Navy might need RAND to help facilitate because if our JOs have that sort of attitude, maybe they need help getting to the bottom of it. Just sayin' ?‍♂️

 

[Jim123]

Make your own veteran-owned LLC and tender a bid to study it. There's money to be made in consulting!!

 

[Hair Warrior]

Impartial third party studies are often required or “highly suggested” by various senior leaders at JCS, OSD, OMB, and Congressional levels. Sometimes you gotta spend a dollar to save a dollar.

 

[scoolbubba]

You guys might say it's obvious and we didn't need a study -- and to us, perhaps, yes. I would counter with two things: first, the people making decisions are often out-of-touch, and second, at least the AF is trying to do something about it. They might not be making much headway, but they're trying. Nothing in the news or msg traffic tells me the Navy is doing anything. That is the stark difference. That is why yesterday I was in a room full of JOs and half of them said they should have joined the USCG and the other half the AF. So, yeah, the Navy might need RAND to help facilitate because if our JOs have that sort of attitude, maybe they need help getting to the bottom of it. Just sayin' ?‍♂️

If I had it to do all over again with the sole goal of flying in the military, I’d join the USCG. If I knew I was going to bail for the airlines, I’d have joined the ANG.

 

[Brett327]

You guys might say it's obvious and we didn't need a study -- and to us, perhaps, yes. I would counter with two things: first, the people making decisions are often out-of-touch, and second, at least the AF is trying to do something about it. They might not be making much headway, but they're trying. Nothing in the news or msg traffic tells me the Navy is doing anything. That is the stark difference. That is why yesterday I was in a room full of JOs and half of them said they should have joined the USCG and the other half the AF. So, yeah, the Navy might need RAND to help facilitate because if our JOs have that sort of attitude, maybe they need help getting to the bottom of it. Just sayin' ?‍♂️

Honest question - Other than hire RAND to do a study, what has the USAF actually done to address pilot retention that the USN hasn't? Things I'm aware of are offering to take retired folks back on AD and structuring a longer term (10 year) bonus.

 

[pelexecute]

They upped the fighter bonus to $35k per year, and have some crazy idea of replacing hours in trainers with virtual reality training, but that's about it. The AF has stated that their policy is not to keep pilots, but to try and train enough to replace everyone who is leaving. They don't have the capacity to train enough just to make the numbers work, let alone the experience they're losing. Bottom line, they've announced a few things, but none have the ability to actually fix the problem.

 

[SlickAg]

Honest question - Other than hire RAND to do a study, what has the USAF actually done to address pilot retention that the USN hasn't? Things I'm aware of are offering to take retired folks back on AD and structuring a longer term (10 year) bonus.

I think the SECAF and general officers publicly admitting there's a problem is a great start.

I've personally been in the room with PERS 43(s) and several flags and even the Air Boss, on separate occasions (so not Hook) who've all said "we don't have a problem because we're meeting our fleet DH seats."

Cool. Do they give two hoots when orange and white guys get out? Absolutely not. You become a broken toy immediately upon receipt of VT orders. But when you have even post-DHs and Training Officers leaving at the rate they are, I find it insane that high-level leadership is still telling the ready rooms who are watching guys bail left and right that there isn't a problem.

I should mention too that leadership doesn't care about the culture of Naval Aviation. They don't care about making it fun, or special. So yeah, if meeting fleet DH seats is their sole definition of success, they're doing a bang up job. But they're screwing the guys coming behind them, and they're making life miserable for everyone who's not them.

But hey, in the words of a current flag officer: "if you don't like it, then you can get the f**k out [of the Navy]".