But you don’t (or at least, shouldn’t) get professional aviator status unless you are genuinely worth retaining as an aviator, and that won’t be evident until at least three or four tours. Not everyone makes the grade; as I indicated it can be obvious from an early stage. If the RAF ends up offering it to everyone simply to make up the numbers then we really will have stuffed ourselves.

Very few have ever joined with command in mind. I suspect most of us just wanted to fly. But things change, as I tried to get across in my post. Some do indeed set their sights on command and beyond (thankfully: the RAF needs the good ones). Some continue just wanting to fly (we need the good ones of them too). Some pass training but find that the ups and downs of military service aren’t for them. Some find that they’ve enjoyed it but have ‘scratched the itch’ and look for new experiences, or prioritise newly-acquired families. Such changes in perspective with age can and have happened to many who were once as single-minded as you. That is why a strict age limit and relatively swift progress were a good thing when investing millions of pounds in individuals’ training: the RAF stood more chance of getting a decent return before they left.

I’m no expert on this but I suspect the RoS period is probably based on a fairly narrow financial analysis in order to head off any legal challenges. So it probably does reflect the cost. But the reality is that a new front-line pilot is a burden on the system as a whole for at least 2 or 3 years: a net ‘consumer’ of supervision rather than a ‘producer’ of it. If you have a high turnover of junior pilots then the supervisors do lots of supervising (which has some benefit, but only in narrow areas of expertise) instead of developing or maintaining the more advanced skills which a capable force requires. So financial cost of keeping the RAF manned with pilots, probably yes. Capability cost of high turnover, I’m not so sure...

The system can cope with some people leaving after 6 years’ RoS. As I suggested in my first post that sometimes made sense for both the RAF and the individual. But it couldn’t cope at the expected level of capability if everyone left at their RoS. The crossover point between coping and not coping is somewhere in between. The difference now is that a much higher proportion of pilots will find themselves at that RoS point as life choices need to be made. The proportion leaving is creeping up and the stresses are showing; the question is whether it continues to creep up as the holding generation takes stock.

That only works if you lower the entry bar to PAS to encourage waverers to stay. That could be done, perhaps, but it might not be in the RAF’s best interests. The supervisors need to be suitably capable as well as experienced.

For someone who apparently ‘just wants to fly’ you seem to be very interested in the long-term financial considerations associated with it, and the management problems facing future commanders too! Certainly to a depth beyond anything OASC will question you on. I knew nothing of the finer points of PAS (etc) when I went, and have never seen such topics mentioned in the interviews I’ve been fortunate enough to observe as a guest in the course of my duties. Time for action rather than more research?

You dont know what you missed !!

No. You are not exaggerating, for some. But It was never like that for me and my s i law, a TC on 787 for BA, has an excellent life style which provides him with a much better salary than the CAS.

Depends on the standard of living, combined with job satisfaction one aspires to !

An airline life, flying a nice big jet around the world. combined with the opportunity and time to run one’s own business is something I can heartily recommend !!

Dont know, but I did !! ( actually a lot more as a senior captain and CEO of my own business );

This conversation is an illustration of a basic axiom...’horses for courses’. There are some such as Beagle who relished the military flying, and others for whom the allure of the airlines was too great, and they will have their own reasons for this point of view. For some it will be money, for others it will be lifestyle. Neither are wrong in their choices.
I have noticed, in this current thread drift on retention, that it concentrates on flying posts. I just want to highlight the fact there are a lot of positions in civvy street, particularly outside the UK, which are based outside the cockpit, and which pay huge rewards.
I was PA, Senior Instructor, CFS staff etc. (I was a Rotary guy) I left after 22 great years. I loved it all. I never had a ground tour, saw the world, and made friends for life. It was brilliant.

Joining the RAF was the best thing I ever did. The 2nd best thing I ever did was leaving.

I now work for an international defence contractor. I work daily with military customers from around the world. I am regularly in a cockpit but my role is not flying. I do not have a licence. My salary is significantly more than double that of the highest paid pilot at BA, and I have hired 2 ex RAF Rotary guys and 1 ex RN into similar roles. We are based in North America and life is just awesome.

My point is simple - when people talk about retention and why people leave, they need to stop focusing on airlines as there are far better jobs, with much higher pay, out there. Senior military pilots have an extremely valuable skill set, and in an airline this means nothing - the self improver (no criticism!) who joined the day before you will always be senior to you. However, there are defence contractors willing to pay for your knowledge and skills in another level entirely.

The airline factor will always be an issue for military retention I agree, but there is a far bigger and more lucrative world out there. People should remember that.