NEWS Air Force leadership talks frankly about pilot retention

[Gatordev]

What is a bug smasher?

A pipe-dream in this fiscal climate.

 

[Griz882]

What is a bug smasher?

As I recall, they were old radial-engine aircraft. I can't remember if they were Bearcats or Trojan's. Back then, the term was used for anything that was considered slow and out-dated but capable of building flight time at a low cost.

 

[Flash]

It always amazes me these discussions never focus on flight time. When my dad was flying toward the end of his career and F-8 Crusader hours got a little pricey, his squadron got three "bug mashers" to keep the aviators amused. It worked quite well and this was during the hey day of airline hiring.

That was actually a common topic amongst the Prowler pilots in my squadron a few others when fleet issues were cutting short flight hours a few years ago. They often dreamed about having T-45's or even T-34's assigned to the wing to keep up flight time, just like the U-2 and B-2 wings have T-38's assigned to them. It came up because the USAF pilots were sent off to get some T-38 time in the middle of the RAG just to keep their flight pay.

 

[ChuckMK23]

In the 80's Oceana had a number of T-34C's just for that purpose. They flew the crap out of them - but incredibly well maintained and shiny blue paint job!

 

[Gatordev]

In the 80's Oceana had a number of T-34C's just for that purpose. They flew the crap out of them - but incredibly well maintained and shiny blue paint job!

They weren't (and still aren't) there for bagging extra hours. They're there to support the Weapon School (who then uses them to support the fleet). There's lots of arguments about whether they're just a "good deal" or they actually provide value. I'm not going to get into that argument here, but they're used all the time. They aren't just in Oceana, but also at other sites. We even had them here for a while after the S-3s gave them up when they shut down. It was a blast to take them down to the Bahamas to support HARP dets down there.

While their CPFH is significantly less (which is why they are used), the overall expense of both a gray aircraft and then also a T-34C makes the idea of using them to just bag hours not really work fiscally with what Grizz was talking about.

 

[FlyingTrunkMonkey53]

From each of your perspective how do you see this airline pilot shortage effecting Navy pilot slots?
If not soon, when do you think we will see an increase in the need for 1310's?
Which platform/community will be hurting for bodies first?
Below is my timeline and Im just trying to get an idea of what I have ahead of me. (Im currently enlisted, riding in the back of 53's.)
-Finish Degree - Middle of 2018
-OCS - End of 2018
-IFS/API/Primary - Hopefully start at the begining of 2019

 

[zippy]

From each of your perspective how do you see this airline pilot shortage effecting Navy pilot slots?
If not soon, when do you think we will see an increase in the need for 1310's?
Which platform/community will be hurting for bodies first?
Below is my timeline and Im just trying to get an idea of what I have ahead of me. (Im currently enlisted, riding in the back of 53's.)
-Finish Degree - Middle of 2018
-OCS - End of 2018
-IFS/API/Primary - Hopefully start at the begining of 2019

Navy pilot accession will remain the same in the short- medium term (5-10 years) expect longer commitments, stop loss/ continuation as tools to keep folks from leaving to slow the bleeding of folks, and perhaps bigger bonuses. Accession and retention are two different issues. Attrition for O-4s isn't driving O-1 accessions for example.

Tacair is already hurting for bodies and it will only get worse. VP/VQ after that due to the nature of their type of flying/ platforms. Helos last, but even that will increase as the airlines expand their Helo to Hero programs and regional pay increases.

The Major Airlines are set to retire 30k+ pilots in the next 20 years... retention is going to be an issue as long as the airlines are hiring to replace those folks.

 

[RadicalDude]

Second order effects: We will continue to select sub-par department heads and squadron COs, as their more desirable and employable peers flee to greeener pastures. It's not always the case, but I've definitely seen the whole "unemployable outside of the navy" thing working for many officers. Especially the ones who have too many kids and not enough money. Guys I know who took the bonus on day one weren't usually the cream of the crop...

The last 24 months have seen some truly shocking revelations at DH selection boards, and more recently, CO boards. Anyone with a pulse is making O-4.

They're literally pulling people off the bench to fill squadrons, sometimes. Tacair side of the house, there are multiple DHs (and a CAG) in the fleet who were never selected for that job by a board.

I can't see this situation getting any better anytime soon. Informal polling at the pointy-nose FRSs and VTs leads me to believe the Navy is going to continue to see quality people leaving in droves. Some to the airlines, many to MBA programs, and others elsewhere (ANG/contracting/etc...)

 

[Griz882]

They weren't (and still aren't) there for bagging extra hours. They're there to support the Weapon School (who then uses them to support the fleet). There's lots of arguments about whether they're just a "good deal" or they actually provide value. I'm not going to get into that argument here, but they're used all the time. They aren't just in Oceana, but also at other sites. We even had them here for a while after the S-3s gave them up when they shut down. It was a blast to take them down to the Bahamas to support HARP dets down there.

While their CPFH is significantly less (which is why they are used), the overall expense of both a gray aircraft and then also a T-34C makes the idea of using them to just bag hours not really work fiscally with what Grizz was talking about.

I can't reference modern accounting methods and I absolutely realize that things have changed, but that was the policy back in my old man's days. Nothing like that existed in my time and I guess does not today. I started all of this by noting that I think it is odd that the military sees the pilot shortage as a matter of money while most of the military pilots I talked too said it was not enough flying. A simple reference point, I know, but worth asking.

 

[hscs]

Second order effects: We will continue to select sub-par department heads and squadron COs, as their more desirable and employable peers flee to greeener pastures. It's not always the case, but I've definitely seen the whole "unemployable outside of the navy" thing working for many officers. Especially the ones who have too many kids and not enough money. Guys I know who took the bonus on day one weren't usually the cream of the crop...

The last 24 months have seen some truly shocking revelations at DH selection boards, and more recently, CO boards. Anyone with a pulse is making O-4.

They're literally pulling people off the bench to fill squadrons, sometimes. Tacair side of the house, there are multiple DHs (and a CAG) in the fleet who were never selected for that job by a board.

I can't see this situation getting any better anytime soon. Informal polling at the pointy-nose FRSs and VTs leads me to believe the Navy is going to continue to see quality people leaving in droves. Some to the airlines, many to MBA programs, and others elsewhere (ANG/contracting/etc...)

What is your metric for 'sub par'? Am guessing that it is rather subjective.

I think you might also want to confine your O-4 / DH pulse argument to VFA world - not so the case on the helo side.

 

[Pags]

I can't reference modern accounting methods and I absolutely realize that things have changed, but that was the policy back in my old man's days. Nothing like that existed in my time and I guess does not today. I started all of this by noting that I think it is odd that the military sees the pilot shortage as a matter of money while most of the military pilots I talked too said it was not enough flying. A simple reference point, I know, but worth asking.

Not enough flying IS a matter of money. No bucks no buck rogers.

 

[RadicalDude]

What is your metric for 'sub par'? Am guessing that it is rather subjective.

I think you might also want to confine your O-4 / DH pulse argument to VFA world - not so the case on the helo side.

I qualified by saying pointy nose. My experience is not confined to the VFA side.

I defined subpar as well. I'm sure it's subjective as well.

Glad to hear you guys are so healthy. Probably because your JOs don't get drafted to Kingsville and no one can jump to the airlines at MSR...

 

[Brett327]

We will continue to select sub-par department heads and squadron COs, as their more desirable and employable peers flee to greeener pastures.

Meh. That assumes that everyone going to the airlines is "more desirable." I know from personal experience that some of those folks who are bailing to the airlines aren't necessarily our EP players. Bottom line, I think it's a wash from that particular issue. That doesn't mean that the fact that lots of folks are leaving isn't a problem, just not in the way you describe.

 

[Griz882]

Not enough flying IS a matter of money. No bucks no buck rogers.

Well said. To be clear, I wonder if most military pilots would like to have more flight hours rather than a fatter airline paycheck?

 

[Gatordev]

Well said. To be clear, I wonder if most military pilots would like to have more flight hours rather than a fatter airline paycheck?

It will, in part, depend on where they are at in their career and what level of administrative overhead is currently in effect (which obviously changes/cycles over time).