Typhoondriver
Yes, that’s a fair set of points too. I’ve never been in Manning (or Career Management as it’s now called) or had my brain removed at Swindon Military Polytechnic. My thoughts come from my experience as an Aircrew mate of 30+ plus years vintage, having seen a lot of change and a lot of things come around 2-3 times.
SwitchMonkey makes a good point too, Level 35 is adrift and should be closer to £95k rather than the current £85k - this 10-15% ‘in effect’ pay drop (since 2003 actually - when PAS first came in) has slowly chipped away at the deal. However, there are parts of the Flt Lt/Sqn Ldr cadre currently in their 30s that have fared better with the new RRP(F) and the £70k lump sum than their counterparts from 10-20 years ago. It’s not just the last 10 years, the slow drip-drip cut in the offer has been ongoing for the 30-odd that I’ve been in. Also, the shortages on the FL and the issues in the Fg Trg Systems have been the same too during that time. So what makes things different now, to the past 30 years? I believe it’s because we need to GROW for the first time in my 30-odd years - that’s the real difference. We had always just managed the decline in numbers, but with Typhoon sqns 7 & 8, the expansion for Protector, the new Poseidons and a new Wedgetail inbound then that is why we are now starting to squeal - it’s because we have ignored the Personnel and Trg DLODs since we decided to grow from SDSR15 that we find ourselves in a bit of a pickle. Add to that the slow drip-drip ‘death by a thousand cuts’ and you find yourself at the centre of a perfect storm.
There is a PAS and RRP(F) review due for AFPRB reports in 2021 and 2022 (1-2 years away) that might provide a mechanism to fix that. Prior to that, trying to fix the non-remunerative things might assist the ‘quality of life’ issues. But here is the real question - would everyone sooner have £5k-£10k in their pocket before tax, or have a bunch of worker assistance on the Sqns and in work to help with the trivia? It would be interesting to survey for such an answer as I’m sure it would produce a split answer. Here is an article on the USAF problem and as you can see it’s not really about salaries and more about what Gen Goldfien calls the “Value Proposition” - fly more, less trivia (by getting help), allowing innovation and ensuring families are happy:
https://www.usnews.com/news/national...pilot-shortage and here
https://www.airforcetimes.com/opinio...sses-the-mark/
The Rand study identifies money as the root of the retention problem, and as such, recommends solutions based on material benefits to the pilot community. Offering more material benefits is an attractive proposal because it is simple and quantifiable. But ultimately it is not a real solution. This materialistic approach is not working now, and there is no reason to believe it will provide a fix in the future.
The long-term solution is to reform the structural problems plaguing the system. As the Mitchell Institute has reported, most former pilots “were critical of efforts made by their chain of command to reduce or postpone service demands that were affecting family and marriage stability, ability to remain collocated with working spouses, and other factors more prescient than in past generations of Air Force pilots.”
The RAF or even the UK Mil’s aviation arms are not the only ones suffering - even the mighty US war machine is having “aviator troubles”. The USAF have piled money at the problem and that hasn’t really worked. It’s not just a money problem - it’s a complex self-generated issue with lots of individuals that all have their eye on something different. I suspect it was ever thus? Just like something else going on at the moment in politics, trying to unpick 40+ years of a system is going to take a while. But on that subject, if I were a young person again, I don’t believe I would rush outside to the airline industry right now - it’s not the stable place it once was and from what I hear the crews are being worked harder and harder for less perks, as the market becomes more and more competitive.