Recruitment V Retention: discuss
Inter Arma Enim Silentius Lex Legis
Join Date: May 2000
Location: England
Posts: 733
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
trap one
Welcome back nice to see you... Hope our drivers are being nice to you?
You are concurring with a post I made two years ago about the greatest enemy in Thumrait??
TG
Welcome back nice to see you... Hope our drivers are being nice to you?
You are concurring with a post I made two years ago about the greatest enemy in Thumrait??
TG
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Bladders, I'll try some numbers.
Suppose for an air force of 50,000 they need 100 recruits in to training for a given speciality. Now suppose it is anticipated that there will be a downsize to 25,000 it follows that they would only need 50 recruits.
If the recruit tap was left open there would be an input of 50 extra per year which would mean additional redundancies of 50 per year. This would alter the experience balance but equally cost more.
The staff needed to train 100 recruits would still be required and there would be additional redundancy payments required.
This stop-start process has been running as long as I can remember and when they can the recruiters have tried to slow the flow of recruits in anticipation of cuts. Sometimes the stop to much, other times not enough.
Suppose for an air force of 50,000 they need 100 recruits in to training for a given speciality. Now suppose it is anticipated that there will be a downsize to 25,000 it follows that they would only need 50 recruits.
If the recruit tap was left open there would be an input of 50 extra per year which would mean additional redundancies of 50 per year. This would alter the experience balance but equally cost more.
The staff needed to train 100 recruits would still be required and there would be additional redundancy payments required.
This stop-start process has been running as long as I can remember and when they can the recruiters have tried to slow the flow of recruits in anticipation of cuts. Sometimes the stop to much, other times not enough.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unfortunately, reality and retention conflict. Yes wouldn't it be lovely to retain all our trained staff, after all it is cheaper to keep the qualified Harrier/Apache pilot then to train new ones - or is it?
From an accounts point of view, a newly trained pilot is cheaper than an experienced pilot (PA spine, enhanced rate fly pay)!
Reality is the Forces rely on through put of personnel - as long as their is someone out there after the job (new recruit) then the system works. When vacancies appear then retention and only then, may retention be cheaper?
From an accounts point of view, a newly trained pilot is cheaper than an experienced pilot (PA spine, enhanced rate fly pay)!
Reality is the Forces rely on through put of personnel - as long as their is someone out there after the job (new recruit) then the system works. When vacancies appear then retention and only then, may retention be cheaper?
Motivator : The fact that a PA spine chap might get paid twice as much as a new chap is pittance compared to the £ it costs to put the new chap through flying training. If you can retain each older chap for one extra tour it reduces the throughput needed and thus training costs substantially.
Motivator,
While your arguement is superficially correct, it is flawed for a couple of reasons.
First of all, as pba says, there are the training costs. Take this example:
All figures are very broadbrush, and ignore inflation. Let us look at providing a single FJ pilot from 2010-2040:
Scenario A:
Pilot X joins the RAF in 2010. He incurrs £10M in training costs, and serves until 2040, eventually on the PA spine, with associated pay costs.
Scenarion B:
Pilot X joins the RAF in 2010. He incurrs £10M in training costs, and serves until 2025, with associated pay costs. He then leaves. Pilot Y joins the RAF, replacing pilot X in 2025. He incurrs £10M in training costs, and serves until 2040, with associated pay costs, at which point he leaves.
The costs in Scenario A and B from 2010 to 2025 are identical. From 2025 to 2040 the pay costs of pilot Y are lower than pilot X. Lets say pilot Y costs on average £33,333 a year less than pilot X. A very generous figure, but it makes the sums easy. So, from 2025-2040 pilot Y costs £33,333 x 15 = £0.5M less than pilot X would have.
So, overall costs are:
Scenario A = £10M + 30 years pay
Scenario B = £10M + £10M + 30 years pay - £0.5M
You work out which is more cost effective!!
Then there is the second arguement. From "an accounts point of view" are newer pilots actually cheaper than experienced ones?
I haven't checked the pay tables, but let us look at a hypothetical example, using simple round figures which I don't claim to be accurate. Pilot A is in his 40s, and gets paid £50,000 a year. He has qualified for a pension on immediate retirement. Pilot B is in his late 20s, and gets paid £37,000 a year but hasn't qualified for a pension. Obviously pilot B is cheaper! Or is he?
What if pilot A has a pension worth £15,000. He is paid £50,000 a year to fly, but he would be paid £15,000 to do nothing if he left. So, you could argue that to get him to fly in the RAF is actually only costing an extra £35,000, as he would get paid the other £15,000 even if he left. So, your 20 something pilot costs £37,000 to go flying, your 40 something pilot costs £35,000 to go flying. I believe, but no doubt will be corrected, that military pensions are paid for by the MOD.
Which "from an accounts point of view" is actually cheaper to employ? Interesting concept.
While your arguement is superficially correct, it is flawed for a couple of reasons.
First of all, as pba says, there are the training costs. Take this example:
All figures are very broadbrush, and ignore inflation. Let us look at providing a single FJ pilot from 2010-2040:
Scenario A:
Pilot X joins the RAF in 2010. He incurrs £10M in training costs, and serves until 2040, eventually on the PA spine, with associated pay costs.
Scenarion B:
Pilot X joins the RAF in 2010. He incurrs £10M in training costs, and serves until 2025, with associated pay costs. He then leaves. Pilot Y joins the RAF, replacing pilot X in 2025. He incurrs £10M in training costs, and serves until 2040, with associated pay costs, at which point he leaves.
The costs in Scenario A and B from 2010 to 2025 are identical. From 2025 to 2040 the pay costs of pilot Y are lower than pilot X. Lets say pilot Y costs on average £33,333 a year less than pilot X. A very generous figure, but it makes the sums easy. So, from 2025-2040 pilot Y costs £33,333 x 15 = £0.5M less than pilot X would have.
So, overall costs are:
Scenario A = £10M + 30 years pay
Scenario B = £10M + £10M + 30 years pay - £0.5M
You work out which is more cost effective!!
Then there is the second arguement. From "an accounts point of view" are newer pilots actually cheaper than experienced ones?
I haven't checked the pay tables, but let us look at a hypothetical example, using simple round figures which I don't claim to be accurate. Pilot A is in his 40s, and gets paid £50,000 a year. He has qualified for a pension on immediate retirement. Pilot B is in his late 20s, and gets paid £37,000 a year but hasn't qualified for a pension. Obviously pilot B is cheaper! Or is he?
What if pilot A has a pension worth £15,000. He is paid £50,000 a year to fly, but he would be paid £15,000 to do nothing if he left. So, you could argue that to get him to fly in the RAF is actually only costing an extra £35,000, as he would get paid the other £15,000 even if he left. So, your 20 something pilot costs £37,000 to go flying, your 40 something pilot costs £35,000 to go flying. I believe, but no doubt will be corrected, that military pensions are paid for by the MOD.
Which "from an accounts point of view" is actually cheaper to employ? Interesting concept.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Biggus, while retention certainly seems cheaper it raises other issues.
If you start with the following profile ages:
A - 20-30
B - 30-40
C - 40-50
And you arrange the balance for a pyramidal rank structure say 3A - 2B - C to give the total force level.
Now you increase retention but try and maintain the same 3-2-1 structure you get:
A - 20-35
B - 35-45
C - 45-55
At some point you need to slice off the B/C and input more A to avoid the situation of A - 2B - 2C and so on. We have had these periodic redundancy purges as long as I can remember.
A continual feed at the bottom is necessary to maintain that all important rank/career balance and of course catch the odd pearl that will make senior rank. PA spines, branch officers and chief techs are the necessary fat to retain experience against the need to charge the training machine.
The whole is more artistic and alchemy than science.
If you start with the following profile ages:
A - 20-30
B - 30-40
C - 40-50
And you arrange the balance for a pyramidal rank structure say 3A - 2B - C to give the total force level.
Now you increase retention but try and maintain the same 3-2-1 structure you get:
A - 20-35
B - 35-45
C - 45-55
At some point you need to slice off the B/C and input more A to avoid the situation of A - 2B - 2C and so on. We have had these periodic redundancy purges as long as I can remember.
A continual feed at the bottom is necessary to maintain that all important rank/career balance and of course catch the odd pearl that will make senior rank. PA spines, branch officers and chief techs are the necessary fat to retain experience against the need to charge the training machine.
The whole is more artistic and alchemy than science.
PN
Despite my comments in post 2 of this thread, which was written over 2 years ago, I was not trying to advocate in post 26 that retention was the holy grail or only option.
I was simply trying to point out the financil benefits of retention over recruitment. I fully appreciate the need to recruit, to bring in new blood, etc.
Out of interest, with regard to my latter comments in post 26, I looked at my own situation today. I used the MOD pension calculator to work out how much my pension would be if I retired next month (on AFPS75 terms). I took this figure away from my current pay, to see how much I am effectively being paid for being in the RAF rather than retired at home. I then looked at the AFRB report for 2010 to see who was on this "effective" pay figure.
The result - a level 4 (out of 10) Flt Lt on the initial rate of flying pay. So the RAF is effectively getting my services for the cost of an early 1st tourist on a flying Sqn. Anyone more experienced or senior is more expensive to run than I am......
At least that is one way of looking at it.
Despite my comments in post 2 of this thread, which was written over 2 years ago, I was not trying to advocate in post 26 that retention was the holy grail or only option.
I was simply trying to point out the financil benefits of retention over recruitment. I fully appreciate the need to recruit, to bring in new blood, etc.
Out of interest, with regard to my latter comments in post 26, I looked at my own situation today. I used the MOD pension calculator to work out how much my pension would be if I retired next month (on AFPS75 terms). I took this figure away from my current pay, to see how much I am effectively being paid for being in the RAF rather than retired at home. I then looked at the AFRB report for 2010 to see who was on this "effective" pay figure.
The result - a level 4 (out of 10) Flt Lt on the initial rate of flying pay. So the RAF is effectively getting my services for the cost of an early 1st tourist on a flying Sqn. Anyone more experienced or senior is more expensive to run than I am......
At least that is one way of looking at it.
