ADF flying pay review
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: australia
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ADF flying pay review
Does anyone know the outcome of the ADF flying pay review? I have not seen anything official, but have heard that status quo remaining (no change).
If that is indeed the case, were to from here? When is the next review?
If that is indeed the case, were to from here? When is the next review?
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe the oucomes were roughly as follows ;
Pilots, Navs - effectively no change to current pay scales and allowances. The review team determined that the present renumeration is adequate and appropriate. If retention is a problem in the future, they will issue retention "bonuses" as was the case in the past.
Other crew (Loadmasters, Flight Engineers, AEA, AEOs) - an increase of the disability (or Q/S) benefit by 15%.
Pilots, Navs - effectively no change to current pay scales and allowances. The review team determined that the present renumeration is adequate and appropriate. If retention is a problem in the future, they will issue retention "bonuses" as was the case in the past.
Other crew (Loadmasters, Flight Engineers, AEA, AEOs) - an increase of the disability (or Q/S) benefit by 15%.
Nunc est bibendum
Market forces at work I guess. Airline pilot pay not going up so not many pilots leaving so military pay can stay lower because no need for retention! Who would have thunk it! 
No market forces Keg, its run by the guvmint. If the guvmint is happy to keep training pilots at reputedly $1mill a pop then status quo remains. Completely inefficient and unsustainable without chucking retention bonuses at the aircrew every 10 years.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 1,219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Market forces at work I guess. Airline pilot pay not going up so not many pilots leaving so military pay can stay lower because no need for retention! Who would have thunk it!
The proof will be in the retention rate not to mention an analyse of the costs. The military (as mentioned above) spends in excess of $1 million to train pilots. The problem is it's very difficult to get military trained pilots with experience to replace one who leaves. You'll never see a banner ad here on pprune searching for "Wanted: Qualified F/A-18 pilots for immediate start"
Time will tell if they have gauged the demand for military trained pilots by other groups in aviation. Of course the other factor is what work military pilots do as well as flying to earn their money. I know many people who have left even though the pay is less or will be for a substantial amount of time because they don't have to do the secondary duties etc. that a military officer does. These are the choices on pay and conditions I've always talked about. People vote with their feet.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Victoria
Age: 62
Posts: 984
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not really surprised by the flying pay review (well, I was a little surprised they didn't reduce it!).
Since this thread is creeping anyway.........
Why doesn't Defence (i.e. RAAF) have a BIG re-think about retention? T'would not only save lots in training new pilots, but would also increase the corporate experience in the units. The RAAF have this mindset that all pilots want to be the Chief of the Air Force, therefore are hell bent on promoting guys out of flying jobs (usually just at the point when their experience is starting to pay dividends!).
If a pilot wants to stay a FLTLT in a flying unit for the rest of his/her serviceable days why not let them? There are always those who want to climb the rank ladder - let them do that as well.
Funnily enough this is one of the big factors in RAAF pilots resigning - not remuneration.
Since this thread is creeping anyway.........
Why doesn't Defence (i.e. RAAF) have a BIG re-think about retention? T'would not only save lots in training new pilots, but would also increase the corporate experience in the units. The RAAF have this mindset that all pilots want to be the Chief of the Air Force, therefore are hell bent on promoting guys out of flying jobs (usually just at the point when their experience is starting to pay dividends!).
If a pilot wants to stay a FLTLT in a flying unit for the rest of his/her serviceable days why not let them? There are always those who want to climb the rank ladder - let them do that as well.
Funnily enough this is one of the big factors in RAAF pilots resigning - not remuneration.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 1,219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I remember getting a brief from DPO a couple of years ago. This was what they were aiming at:
* Keep recruiting and training pilots through 2FTS at an unchanged rate, regardless whether anyone leaves that year or not.
* You get a 4 year initial tour, 2 year ground job or instructing, then 2 year second tour at SQN. After that - you get promoted, leave or can do ground jobs for the rest of your career as a FLTLT.
* They expect 50% attrition at the end of ROSO.
I pointed out I thought that I thought it was an expensive way of doing business to keep the flood gates open , and wave goodbye to 50% after 10 years. Was met by blank faces then a CO (towing company line as he has too!) saying "No no that's not what they meant"... when everyone was sitting there thinking - that's exactly what they meant and said!
They think the solution is to keep the cattle moving through the dairy. I thought (after seeing it myself) the real problem always is when 5-10 experienced guys leave a SQN over a short period of time because airlines around the world are recruiting. I know from my area guys have been going to Dragon Air, Cathay etc, as well as QF and The Virgin that blew.
* Keep recruiting and training pilots through 2FTS at an unchanged rate, regardless whether anyone leaves that year or not.
* You get a 4 year initial tour, 2 year ground job or instructing, then 2 year second tour at SQN. After that - you get promoted, leave or can do ground jobs for the rest of your career as a FLTLT.
* They expect 50% attrition at the end of ROSO.
I pointed out I thought that I thought it was an expensive way of doing business to keep the flood gates open , and wave goodbye to 50% after 10 years. Was met by blank faces then a CO (towing company line as he has too!) saying "No no that's not what they meant"... when everyone was sitting there thinking - that's exactly what they meant and said!
They think the solution is to keep the cattle moving through the dairy. I thought (after seeing it myself) the real problem always is when 5-10 experienced guys leave a SQN over a short period of time because airlines around the world are recruiting. I know from my area guys have been going to Dragon Air, Cathay etc, as well as QF and The Virgin that blew.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PAF is correct. The RAAF does not particularly care about pilot retention. They have an established training system that can (and must) train up to 100 pilots a year. The system seems to expect to lose roughly the same number each year. Consequently, the status quo is maintained and there is no "perceived" problem with pilot numbers (officially). Of course, such a process is grossly inefficient and costs the defence department (and the tax payer) millions every year, as well as bleeding experience in all areas.
The frustration occurs when you realise that the pilots aren't asking for much. They just want locational stability and to stay flying. If they stay flying at the units, you don't lose valuable experience (improving safety, efficiency etc) and you don't have this requirement to spend millions training up new pilots to replace them.
Seems simple, however when the defence department is involved, the simple solution never seems to be the final solution.
The frustration occurs when you realise that the pilots aren't asking for much. They just want locational stability and to stay flying. If they stay flying at the units, you don't lose valuable experience (improving safety, efficiency etc) and you don't have this requirement to spend millions training up new pilots to replace them.
Seems simple, however when the defence department is involved, the simple solution never seems to be the final solution.
