The Relative Cost-Effectiveness of Retaining Versus Accessing Air Force Pilots
The United States Air Force (USAF) faces a challenging decision: is it more cost-effective to retain experienced pilots through incentives, or to access and train new ones? The RAND Corporation study titled “The Relative Cost-Effectiveness of Retaining Versus Accessing Air Force Pilots” by Michael G. Mattock, Beth J. Asch, James Hosek, and Michael Boito, delves into this issue. The report provides a comprehensive analysis, highlighting the cost implications and efficiency of using special and incentive (S&I) pays to retain pilots compared to the high costs associated with training new pilots.
Understanding the USAF Pilot Retention Dilemma
The USAF relies on two primary incentive programs—Aviation Bonus (AvB) and Aviation Incentive Pay (AvIP)—to encourage pilot retention. These programs have become crucial as the commercial airline industry aggressively recruits military pilots, offering attractive compensation packages. However, expanding the training pipeline to produce new pilots is also an option. This report examines the cost trade-offs between these two approaches to determine the most cost-effective strategy for maintaining the pilot force.
Key Findings from the RAND Study on Pilot Cost-Effectiveness
High Training Costs for Air Force Pilots
The RAND study found that the cost of training a basic qualified pilot is substantial across different platforms. For instance, training costs range from $5.6 million for an F-16 pilot to $10.9 million for an F-22 pilot. Bomber pilot training costs are similarly high, ranging from $7.3 million for a B-1 pilot to $9.7 million for a B-52 pilot. These significant training costs make retaining existing pilots an attractive option compared to the high investment required to train new ones.
Simulation Results: Retention vs. Training Costs
Using a dynamic retention model (DRM), the study simulated the impact of varying AvB amounts on pilot retention. It found that increasing AvB is generally more cost-effective than expanding the training pipeline. The simulations indicated that retaining mid-career pilots through higher AvB results in a more experienced force, which is beneficial for the USAF. For example, when the AvB cap was increased from $25,000 to $35,000, fewer new accessions were required, and the overall cost per pilot decreased due to the reduced need for expensive training.
Analyzing the Trade-Offs: Retaining Pilots vs. Training New Ones
The Conceptual Framework
The report presents a conceptual framework to understand the trade-offs between retaining pilots and training new ones. It highlights that while increasing AvB leads to a more experienced force, which is more costly in terms of personnel expenses, it significantly reduces training costs. Conversely, lower retention incentives lead to a less experienced force and higher training costs due to the need for more new pilots.
Impact of Training Costs on Retention Decisions
The high cost of pilot training is a critical factor in the analysis. The study shows that even with increased personnel costs due to higher AvB, the overall cost per pilot remains lower compared to the cost of training new pilots. For example, per capita cost falls as AvB increases when training costs range from $5.6 million to $10.9 million per fighter pilot. The study concludes that it is more cost-effective for the USAF to focus on retaining experienced pilots rather than expanding the training pipeline.
Recommendations for the USAF
Based on the analysis, the RAND study recommends that the USAF consider increasing the AvB cap to at least $100,000 to retain mid-career pilots, particularly for fighter pilots. This approach is more efficient in maintaining a steady-state pilot inventory and ensures a more experienced force. However, the study also cautions that the experience mix of the pilot force may become more senior than desired, which could have implications for force management.
Conclusion: Retention as a Strategic Priority
The findings of this RAND study provide compelling evidence that retaining experienced pilots is more cost-effective than training new ones, particularly given the high cost of pilot training. By strategically using AvB and AvIP, the USAF can maintain its pilot inventory more efficiently. Future research should explore potential cost savings in training methods and technologies to further enhance the cost-effectiveness of pilot retention strategies.
Comments