US Military critical pilot shortage

[Trafalgar]

Good article regarding the 'raiding' of the US military by the US airlines, who are desperate to replace the many thousands of retiring airline pilots. You would think CX management would be smart enough see the coming tidal wave of options for pilots. Oh, wait....

Stop-Loss an Option for Air Force to Keep Departing Pilots (http://www.rollcall.com/news/policy/stop-loss-option-air-force-keep-departing-pilots)

[Freehills]

Well, I guess they know that trainers will keep on training the retirees' replacements, so CX is still a better option than, say, Air Asia for people without US passports/ green cards

[bafanguy]

Good article regarding the 'raiding' of the US military by the US airlines, who are desperate to replace the many thousands of retiring airline pilots.


My, my, my...the general is gettin' a little testy ?

"The goal of the meeting will be to find ways to solve the exodus of Air Force pilots to the industry in a way that is mutually acceptable for the U.S. military and the airlines — without the Air Force having to resort to 'stop-loss,' a means of forcing Air Force personnel to stay in the service beyond the period of their commitment.

Everhart said he has already told airline executives that stop-loss is an option. 'I said to the industry … if we can’t meet the requirements, the chief could drop in a stop-loss — and you need to understand that,' he said."

:-))))

[Sam Ting Wong]

Trafalgar, please remind me. Since when do you see a major pilot shortage just about to happen?
Is it 5 or 10 years?

[mngmt mole]

Read the article Sam. The US general says that they are already suffering from a crisis, and the US airlines say that within a few years they will not be able to fill enough of their seats after taking into account retirements. What is your point?

[goathead]

Traf
Their will be never a crisis at cx for pilots, standards just get lower and lower and you will keep on training them up !
Simples

[cxorcist]

Traf
Their will be never a crisis at cx for pilots, standards just get lower and lower and you will keep on training them up !
Simples

Not me, don't lump me in with the trainers trying to take zero (or near zero experience) pilots into the right seat of widebodies. That will never happen with my help. An A320 or 737 is one thing, this is entirely different. B747s should not be flown by those with double or triple digit flight hour experience. Period. Full stop. The notion that these neophytes belong in these cockpits is absurd. Any arguments to the contrary are truly fake news.

[Codpiece]

Not me, don't lump me in with the trainers trying to take zero (or near zero experience) pilots into the right seat of widebodies. That will never happen with my help. An A320 or 737 is one thing, this is entirely different. B747s should not be flown by those with double or triple digit hour flight experience. Period. Full stop. The notion that these neophytes belong in these cockpits is absurd. Any arguments to the contrary are truly fake news.

On what grounds do you base inexperience being more dangerous in a 747 than an A320 or 737? Is it the lack of sectors in a wide body?

[juliet]

Having flown both widebody and narrow body I would much rather see a low hour pilot go into the wide body. That said with the proper training I don't see the issue with either.

What exactly makes a narrow body a better place for these low hour pilots?

[Planet Basher]

The politicians would claim that the problem is too many military aircraft.

[cxorcist]

Having flown both widebody and narrow body I would much rather see a low hour pilot go into the wide body. That said with the proper training I don't see the issue with either.

What exactly makes a narrow body a better place for these low hour pilots?

More responsiveness on short final for starters. Less inertia for easier correction of handling errors.

Put it simply. What's easier?
Cessna 172 or PA-44?
PA-44 or DHC-8?
DHC-8 or B737?
B737 or B747?

Pretty simple math, my lady. Sure, full automation might be easier on larger and more complex aircraft, but aside from that, the job gets harder, not easier.

[JY9024]

A330 vs A321??

[oriental flyer]

The other issue that everyone has missed is narrow bodies tend to have short sectors and often fly during the day when the capt is wide awake . We fly 5-7 sectors on heavy freighters most of which are back of the clock for HK crews
Landing a heavy 744 after a 12 hour flight is a very different animal to a 737 after a 2 hour flight

[juliet]

And I would argue that I've been more tired flying domestic narrow body flights than long haul. Each to their own I guess.

[cxorcist]

And I would argue that I've been more tired flying domestic narrow body flights than long haul. Each to their own I guess.

Uh, yeah. You must be new to this, Juliet. Keep at it for a few more years. Have a few kids, become RQ, maybe a failed marriage and/or financial pressure, sleep less easily as you get older; then tell me which flying creates more fatigue. You come across as very young.

[JammedStab]

And I would argue that I've been more tired flying domestic narrow body flights than long haul. Each to their own I guess.


How about, when you are landing three times a day, you build your proficency more quickly than when landing three times a month. Then your total time really means something besides hours spent sleeping and reading.

[juliet]

Jesus you guys are defensive. I've got a different viewpoint, doesn't make either of us right or wrong.

Unfortunately I've had the divorce, have the usual financial pressures, have the kids and been doing this for over 20 years now so frankly I do know what I'm talking about. Long haul, short haul and military, I have enough experience to know what makes me fatigued. Others will be different, but for me short haul narrow body ops has been the worst.

If some of you did a bit more listening and were open to other views you might find it beneficial.

[juliet]

How about, when you are landing three times a day, you build your proficency more quickly than when landing three times a month. Then your total time really means something besides hours spent sleeping and reading.

Agree entirely. The other side of course is you are more exposed and have less time to devote to planning each sector. I find on long haul we were able to cover more eventualities during the course of the flight so that we had everything planned out. Less ability to do that on short haul but of course you end up flying, as you said, more often and into the same airports more frequently.

I found my systems and SOPs knowledge was better long haul, but my operational manipulation skills were better short haul. Maybe it all balances out.

[juliet]

Absolutely, fair point. I'm just trying to highlight that short haul, narrow body ops are generally busier. Again, personally I would take a single 12 hour sector over a 4-5 sector 11 hour duty day. Each to their own though.

[bafanguy]

My, my, my...the general is gettin' a little testy ?

"The goal of the meeting will be to find ways to solve the exodus of Air Force pilots to the industry in a way that is mutually acceptable for the U.S. military and the airlines — without the Air Force having to resort to 'stop-loss,' a means of forcing Air Force personnel to stay in the service beyond the period of their commitment.

Everhart said he has already told airline executives that stop-loss is an option. 'I said to the industry … if we can’t meet the requirements, the chief could drop in a stop-loss — and you need to understand that,' he said."

And now the general appears to have had a change of heart ? Or maybe it was a steep increase in his pilots submitting separation papers to beat the threatened "stop-loss" that would interfere with their chance of hitting the big US hiring surge on the upswing ? Amusing...

"The Air Force moved quickly last week to quell concerns that it would force pilots to stay in uniform beyond their agreed-to separation dates."

Stop-Loss Rejected By Air Force - AVweb flash Article (http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/Stop-Loss-Rejected-By-Air-Force-228864-1.html)

A bit more. Gee, do ya really think so ?:

"The Air Force feels that implementing a stop-loss policy would cause pilots to flee the Air Force before the door closed, and they won't stick around to see if things improve."

https://www.airforcetimes.com/articles/air-force-stop-loss-is-not-on-the-table-in-effort-to-retain-pilots

[JammedStab]

And now the general appears to have had a change of heart ? Or maybe it was a steep increase in his pilots submitting separation papers to beat the threatened "stop-loss" that would interfere with their chance of hitting the big US hiring surge on the upswing ? Amusing...

"The Air Force moved quickly last week to quell concerns that it would force pilots to stay in uniform beyond their agreed-to separation dates."

Stop-Loss Rejected By Air Force - AVweb flash Article (http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/Stop-Loss-Rejected-By-Air-Force-228864-1.html)

A bit more. Gee, do ya really think so ?:

"The Air Force feels that implementing a stop-loss policy would cause pilots to flee the Air Force before the door closed, and they won't stick around to see if things improve."

https://www.airforcetimes.com/articles/air-force-stop-loss-is-not-on-the-table-in-effort-to-retain-pilots

Just do it as a policy effective immediately. So no one has a chance to leave. The taxpayers paid for your chance to fly the really cool stuff. You are going to do it for a long time. There will still be plenty of recruits.

[Freehills]

I think the difference is that the contract allows for stop loss orders, so it isn't a unilateral contract change, rather it would be the USAF exercising their rights under the contract. Again, I don't know the details of US military contracts, but my guess is that it can only be challenged under USMC and military courts, not via the civil court process

Using it in peace time is counter productive I agree. But I guess with the new aggression coming out of the US, they are preparing for the worst...

[bafanguy]

And that's why that general quickly reversed his stance, and he actually cares about solving the problem properly.

CR,

If you're referring to the USAF general quoted in several of these articles, I'm sure he's keenly interested in solving HIS problem. And his problem is not pilot supply in the private sector; I doubt he could care any less about that. He's only talking to the airline industry because that's a big source of HIS problem.

All the articles I've seen on this issue mention discussions between the airline industry and the military in an attempt to come to some agreement about military pilot attrition. There are opposing motives at work here: the military doesn't want to lose pilots...and the airlines want every one of the military's pilots...EVERY one of 'em ! Those differences are so wide I can't imagine what a compromise would be....other than interesting.

Pilot "sharing" ? They've been doing that as long as I've been aware via the reserves and national guard units with MLOA given to pilots as needed. I'd like to hear what the airline industry has to say about "part time" pilots under some sharing arrangement beyond the extent of what's already in place.

I also suggest that retention bonuses won't quite do it either unless they total in the millions (unlikely).

Of course, I'm merely an interested observer and my opinion is only worth what you paid for it (or maybe even less !).

[JammedStab]

How nice of you to encourage unilateral contract changes detrimental to the employees' careers, family life, and in this case, their actual probability of remaining alive. And by imposing a "policy" just like that - how convenient. Sound familiar?

Military pilots sign away many years of their lives in exchange for pilot training. For most, those many years (much longer than any other officers' contractual commitment in most countries, as far as I know) also comes with the very real risk of not being alive at the end (due to things like the more dangerous flying environment/style (high speed/low level/formation/extreme maneuvering/flying towards each other/etc.), the high performance/risky flying, and the high likelihood of real combat action - which also comes with the risk of imprisonment and/or torture and/or execution, etc.).

Military pilots also sign away their rights to decide where they and their family members will live, when they move, which type of work and flying they will do, which also affects the spouses' ability to work/earn/progress/be happy, kids' childhoods and educations, as well affecting everything else for everyone, from tv to sports to groceries to climate to friendships to - everything.

With most military pilots locked in at a young age to a lengthy, very binding contract, with severe penalties for breaking their contracts (serious imprisonment) and a multitude of additional rules, regulations and laws (military laws) long before they even complete flying/operation training (not knowing if they will fly, or what they will fly - which is much, much more significant to their work/family/futures/lifestyles/survival than whether they are 777/747/A50/etc. pilots - they have not just honored/honoured their side of the agreement, they have done so while graciously serving their countries, at great personal risk and sacrifice by them and their families, even with the "cool stuff" included for some (many get no cool stuff at all, just a raw deal).

How about just having both sides stick to the contract, and if one side needs help from the other side, then they can negotiate/offer an improvement instead of just unilaterally imposing changes that suit them at the moment, just because they think they can get away with it and it is cheaper. Sound familiar?

If the military demonstrates that it will cancel contracts unilaterally and simply impose far-reaching changes that are detrimental to the careers, lifestyles, livelihoods, families, futures and actual lives of its pilots (sound familiar?) then they can expect to have a real hard time getting the best candidates to apply, much less agree to join. This means that the military tradition and desire to select and recruit the best, top notch, top choice and top quality applicants from highly motivated, well educated, intelligent, desirable pools of wannabes with the most potential will still happen, but the new "top" picks will be seriously different in the new, degraded pool of wannabes consisting of a new, much lower overall quality of recruits going forward, forever. Sound familiar?

If the military improves the deal to the point where current pilots want to stay, then the problem will self-correct. For example, how many F-15 pilots would stay (vs. be racing to get their airline seniority number) if the military paid them $1M USD per year to stay after their contractual requirement, and guaranteed them $250K/year in retirement at some point after that? Too much/not enough? Then the market will determine the necessary numbers. The military could also allow its pilots to get hired at airlines, then assist and compensate those airlines (with $$$) and its pilots for resuming military service on short extensions while maintaining their airline seniority (something which already happens in the US to a great extent via the reserves/ANG, but could be better organized/formalized/etc.). Or the military could do nothing to retain pilots, or they could threaten/action contractual changes to benefit only their side, or they could continue to expect extreme service from their pilots while treating them as easily disposable/replaceable employees, and then they would get nowhere fixing their problem they need to solve. Sound familiar?

The mutually agreeable solution is mostly quite simple in most cases. But, it costs a lot of money to attract and retain top quality pilots, particularly the most valuable ones: the older/longer serving/most experienced/most qualified ones...unless they just don't want to attract and retain those pilots anymore - although that choice also comes with a very high, often (but not always) intangible cost too. Sound familiar?

Don't like it, don't join(and trust me, you did it to fly the cool stuff as a primary reason). But in reality, you are still there to defend the nation. If they need you, you should have thought about what it means to sign up. And if things get really bad, there is conscription.

Lots of reservists who thought it would be cool to drive a tank on once a month discovered reality when they ended up in Iraq.

Ask not what your country can do for you...ask what you can do for your country.

[drfaust]

That's all well and good, but do not screw with a contract. A deal is a deal.

Should you want someone to go above and beyond, you can always ask. Should a real war present itself I have no doubt all those retired pilots still fit and able would answer their call of duty. But that's not the case at the moment now, is it?

[JammedStab]

That's all well and good, but do not screw with a contract. A deal is a deal.

Should you want someone to go above and beyond, you can always ask. Should a real war present itself I have no doubt all those retired pilots still fit and able would answer their call of duty. But that's not the case at the moment now, is it?

Keeping the peace requires the peacetime call of duty. You are preventing lives lost and it is much appreciated. Thank you.

[JayTee777300]

In addition to Curtain Rod's comment... Having read pages and pages of comments from guys leaving the military... Most of the reasons have little to do with money.

Most have quoted bad leadership with no loyalty from their bosses, just ****ty managers looking for their next promotion. Poor career management. Decreasing conditions with poor work life balance. And finally the organization itself is poorly managed by numpties who waste money on stupidity whilst telling you to be more efficient. All Sound familiar?

To quote one of the comments I read... "You've taken the best job in the world and made it suck." Sound familiar?
:(

[JayTee777300]

Of course yes... Throwing money at the problem can help people ignore these issues. Unfortunately CX wants to take the money as well.

[JammedStab]

In addition to Curtain Rod's comment... Having read pages and pages of comments from guys leaving the military... Most of the reasons have little to do with money.

Most have quoted bad leadership with no loyalty from their bosses, just ****ty managers looking for their next promotion. Poor career management. Decreasing conditions with poor work life balance. And finally the organization itself is poorly managed by numpties who waste money on stupidity whilst telling you to be more efficient. All Sound familiar?

To quote one of the comments I read... "You've taken the best job in the world and made it suck." Sound familiar?
:(

If the job sucks so bad, then don't join, just like at an airline.

That being said, I am available to fly the really cool airplanes in the US military on a part time basis. C-5, B-52, C-17 and some carrier landings for the navy are some of my preferences. Please don't call me for the boring stuff like a Metro.