|
USAF Out of Ideas
Looks like the USAF has run out of ideas to retain pilots. So, they've turned to amorphous HR gibberish to describe the issue and propose a "solution"...based on...gibberish. "...work beyond the fringes of the problem.“ ? Really ?:
“Any solution to the pilot retention problem needs to focus on morale, not money.” “Rand evidently views the personnel system as a challenge too daunting to tackle.” “It is time for the Air Force to work beyond the fringes of the problem.“ https://www.airforcetimes.com/opinio...sses-the-mark/ |
Well good luck with that Air Force! Maybe if you create a synergistic value-added metric for corporate double-speak moving forward....
Or you can just admit that pilots don't join up to fly a desk. |
Don't they have a minimum term of service?!
|
Originally Posted by rudestuff
(Post 10258734)
Don't they have a minimum term of service?!
|
If this is their option, I have an alternative. Simply extend the WO program up past CW4 to CW6 or CW7. This would address both issues. First, the monetary problem of being maxed out in pay at the equiv of a Major, but extending the non-careerist pilot up into the similar pay grade as full Col, or BG. Second for those who truly do want the management career, it will open up more slots for them to work into commander positions.
I had a crew chief back in the day who was in his 30s and was a Spec-7. He got promoted to Spec-8 while I was with him, and was hoping for Spec-9 before retirement. Not the exact same thing, but from a pilot side, works for me. |
rudestuff touched on an aspect that crossed my mind a time or two: length of service for pilots.
Of course, my opinion is worth what you paid for it (maybe even less) but we often hear that the cost of flight training is prohibitive and a barrier to a pilot career for many. I wonder if they shortened the commitment to 5 or 6 years if they'd get more takers. I'm pretty sure it used to be 5 years and I'm not sure when they upped it to wings + 10. Of course, the USAF will say (and have said) that's too short to get people fully trained for some types of flying...but they did it before...so why not now ? If people wouldn't have to make such a long commitment before they were able move on to a civilian flying career, more people might be interested. Just a thought... |
A decade ago during the economic crisis, when I was in the Air Force, there were many pilots who said that they would never work for the airlines. Many opted to stay for 20 years or beyond, and quite a few looked for government jobs or contract jobs, often times outside of flying after their stint in the Air Force. Now that market forces have changed, and the airlines look appealing, the Air Force QOL just does not match. Those same airline naysayers are at the airlines. I am not sure that the Air Force could do much apart from offer flying only tracks, more pay, more days off and QOL improvements, but they really can't compete with the QOL and money that a major airline career now offers in the US. Another economic downturn could change things overnight though.
|
Originally Posted by bafanguy
(Post 10258782)
IIUC, 10 years after getting their wings so ~12 years start to finish...for active duty. Not sure how guard and reserves work.
|
QOL is an enormous factor.
The finest tent technology, telecommunications setups, and ersatz American kitsch at an overseas base doesn't overcome the simple geographical fact that you're in the sandbox and your family is stateside. The airline life is simply superior for these pilots. Also, paying a drone operator is cheaper. |
The Navy is taking a run at the attrition problem:
https://www.aviationpros.com/news/12...tention-crisis |
Well, the money idea isn't working all that well:
“Mobility pilots are declining aviation retention bonuses in alarming numbers, despite the the Air Force’s attempt to keep them in uniform with an infusion of cash.” https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/y...k-up-slightly/ |
Originally Posted by bafanguy
(Post 10258373)
Looks like the USAF has run out of ideas to retain pilots. So, they've turned to amorphous HR gibberish to describe the issue and propose a "solution"...based on...gibberish. "...work beyond the fringes of the problem.“ ? Really ?:
“Any solution to the pilot retention problem needs to focus on morale, not money.” “Rand evidently views the personnel system as a challenge too daunting to tackle.” “It is time for the Air Force to work beyond the fringes of the problem.“ https://www.airforcetimes.com/opinio...sses-the-mark/ |
Originally Posted by A Squared
(Post 10334901)
...it should be pointed out that the article you quoted is an opinion of one single air force officer who does not seem to be commenting in any official capacity...
Yep, I guess you're right about that. However, the retention stats appearing in quite a few articles on the subject (and coming from USAF sources) appear to support the allegation that the retention efforts are falling short. If lifestyle changes are enough to stem the manpower loss, that remains to be seen...if such changes are made or even can be made. A major airline career is a real siren song. |
Originally Posted by bafanguy
(Post 10335091)
AxA,
Yep, I guess you're right about that. However, the retention stats appearing in quite a few articles on the subject (and coming from USAF sources) appear to support the allegation that the retention efforts are falling short. |
They're hangin' in there...giving it the old college try:
https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/y...ck-in-the-air/ |
They could try by opening up the cockpit to folks with only high school education, rather than the degree currently required. It does work, my course (foreigner) did their training with the USN in Pensacola, all only had a high school education, at least one had just finished high school upon entry, and quite a number received the "Student of the Week" award. One went on some years later, with his high school education, to successfully complete the USN test pilot course at Pax River. Of the forty or so students involved no one failed, one dropped out voluntarily and one given the heave ho due personal issues with our national senior officer. Lad refused to give up his off duty skydiving activities.
|
Originally Posted by megan
(Post 10344028)
They could try by opening up the cockpit to folks with only high school education, rather than the degree currently required. It does work, my course (foreigner) did their training with the USN in Pensacola, all only had a high school education, at least one had just finished high school upon entry, and quite a number received the "Student of the Week" award. One went on some years later, with his high school education, to successfully complete the USN test pilot course at Pax River. Of the forty or so students involved no one failed, one dropped out voluntarily and one given the heave ho due personal issues with our national senior officer. Lad refused to give up his off duty skydiving activities.
Right now, the problem is keeping talented officers in the military who are already rated pilots. I think that only an economic downturn combined with airline hiring coming to a halt could save the USAF staffing problem. I remember back in 2009, many Air Force Pilots were saying that they would never work for the airlines and that they would rather do a government job or a contractor job after retiring. Conditions have changed and people see the different in QOL and $$$. |
Not suggesting they be WO's, saying remove the requirement for a degree so they cast a wider net. You don't need a degree to occupy a cockpit, it's jokingly said in airline conversation all you need to know maths wise is your three times table. Young lad I know in the Navy just graduated with his wings, high school education, dux of his course, and given the offer to swap to the Air Force with the promise of F-18 if he does as an inducement, but he wants to fly choppers, so staying Navy. Flown with many a high school educated US Army WO and only one out of the lot I would have torn the wings from, needed to have the fact that Daddy was a Colonel knocked out of him.
|
Originally Posted by megan
(Post 10344119)
Not suggesting they be WO's, saying remove the requirement for a degree so they cast a wider net.
Sometime in recent memory, the USAF explored this idea by running a handful of enlisted through UPT as some kind of experiment; it was reported in one of the Air Force Times articles. Then IIRC, decided against doing that as a solution to their headhunting woes. If they don't intend doing more of that, why do it in the first place ? |
Megan, are you saying that the Air Force should remove the university degree requirement for officers who fly? That will never happen. |
Originally Posted by zondaracer
(Post 10344059)
I remember back in 2009, many Air Force Pilots were saying that they would never work for the airlines
|
Originally Posted by ItnStln
(Post 10344368)
That’s no longer true from what I hear. |
They are not having recruiting issues. They are having issues retaining pilots. Getting a pilot slot is still very competitive so why would you lower the standards. |
Originally Posted by Sailvi767
(Post 10344440)
They are not having recruiting issues. They are having issues retaining pilots.
Retention and recruiting are two sides of the same coin: proper size of the USAF pilot group. |
I know it could be contrary tothe service, however moving a guy with a family every 6 months-2 years would be hard on a marriage, and kids. Maybe shorter tdy's, and guaranteed stays in a base would help |
Originally Posted by megan
(Post 10344119)
Young lad I know in the Navy just graduated with his wings, high school education, dux of his course, and given the offer to swap to the Air Force with the promise of F-18 if he does as an inducement, but he wants to fly choppers, so staying Navy.
|
Originally Posted by Airbubba
(Post 10344963)
I don't think the U.S. Navy has given anyone without a four-year degree aviator wings for decades now. He was promised F-18's if he would switch to the Air Force? Somehow, I have to wipe my shoes after hearing this one... ;)
|
Originally Posted by zondaracer
(Post 10344988)
Must have been a foreign military. Looking at Megan’s use of English, and referencing Air Force F-18s, my guess is Australia. |
Australia it is.
|
Originally Posted by megan
(Post 10345012)
Australia it is.
|
One point of view, USAF is the only US service I've not worked with, so can't comment.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/04/24...ership-crisis/ Counter view. https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/05/04...ilot-shortage/ |
Originally Posted by bafanguy
(Post 10344446)
Yep, the retention rate is a problem so they have to recruit and train quite a few. They've said they're increasing the training capacity but aren't where they need to be. The quoted numbers are in some of the Air Force Times articles. I think they said they're up to training 1100/year but need to have 1400/yr...or something like that. If I weren't so lazy, I'd go back through the articles and find the quotes.
Retention and recruiting are two sides of the same coin: proper size of the USAF pilot group. |
Originally Posted by megan
(Post 10344119)
Not suggesting they be WO's, saying remove the requirement for a degree so they cast a wider net. You don't need a degree to occupy a cockpit, it's jokingly said in airline conversation all you need to know maths wise is your three times table. Young lad I know in the Navy just graduated with his wings, high school education, dux of his course, and given the offer to swap to the Air Force with the promise of F-18 if he does as an inducement, but he wants to fly choppers, so staying Navy. Flown with many a high school educated US Army WO and only one out of the lot I would have torn the wings from, needed to have the fact that Daddy was a Colonel knocked out of him.
|
Originally Posted by Sailvi767
(Post 10345062)
Not sure where your story came from but it’s wrong. The Navy is not putting non college graduates in flight school. If he has a degree and just got his wings he would have been in the Helo pipeline and is not qualified for fighters. He would need to go through the entire jet pipeline first. Last point is the AirForce does not have any F-18’s. |
Originally Posted by Sailvi767
(Post 10345059)
The issue is still not recruiting. It’s the constraints of how many pilots the pipeline can produce. They are having zero issues putting pilots into the pipeline. The pipeline needs to be bigger.
“Last September, Air Education and Training Command head Lt. Gen. Darryl Roberson said that the Air Force hoped to increase the pilot training pipeline to 1,400 within a few years. But, he warned, even maxing out pilot production capacity at 1,400 wouldn’t be enough, and the Air Force needed to train 1,600 new pilots annually.” https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/y...vere-shortage/ |
Originally Posted by megan
(Post 10345012)
Australia it is.
|
Out of curiosity, is there a current "best" option for someone looking to earn a military pilot slot? (Chance of getting a slot, maximum flying time, etc.)
|
Originally Posted by mateuszb
(Post 10346143)
Out of curiosity, is there a current "best" option for someone looking to earn a military pilot slot? (Chance of getting a slot, maximum flying time, etc.)
https://forums.jetcareers.com/forums...ary-pilots.11/ |
Australia has an Airforce? 😜 |
Originally Posted by mateuszb
(Post 10346143)
Out of curiosity, is there a current "best" option for someone looking to earn a military pilot slot? (Chance of getting a slot, maximum flying time, etc.)
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 07:03. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.