兰德-The-Relative-Cost_73页_1mb

Summary of the Report: The Relative Cost-Effectiveness of Retaining Versus Accessing Air Force Pilots

Core Content

This report by the RAND Corporation examines the cost-effectiveness of retaining Air Force pilots through special and incentive (S&I) pays, specifically Aviation Bonus (AvB) and Aviation Incentive Pay (AvIP), versus expanding the training pipeline to maintain a given pilot inventory. The study is motivated by the need to make informed decisions about pilot retention and training in the U.S. Air Force (USAF), especially in light of changes in the commercial airline industry and the discretionary nature of S&I pay programs.

Main Points

• AvB and AvIP: These are S&I pays used by the USAF to influence pilot retention and sustain the size of the pilot force. AvB is a financial incentive for pilots who have completed their active duty service obligations (ADSOs) to stay in service for an additional period, while AvIP is a monthly payment based on years of aviation service (YASs).

• Cost of Training Pilots: Training costs vary significantly by aircraft platform. The study estimates that training a basic qualified pilot can range from $1.1 million (for C-17 pilots) to $10.9 million (for F-16 pilots), with fighter pilots (F-22 and F-35A) having the highest training costs.

• Dynamic Retention Model (DRM): RAND extended its DRM to analyze pilot retention behavior across different specialties and platforms. The model was used to simulate how changes in AvB and AvIP affect pilot retention and the associated costs.

• Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: The study concludes that, from a personnel cost perspective, increasing AvB and AvIP to retain pilots is more cost-effective than expanding the training pipeline to sustain a given pilot inventory. This is due to the high cost of training and the relatively lower marginal cost of retention when AvB is increased.

Key Findings

• Training Cost per Pilot:

  • Fighter pilots: $5.6 million to $10.9 million.
  • Bomber pilots: $7.3 million to $9.7 million.
  • Mobility pilots (e.g., C-130J, C-17): $1.1 million to $2.5 million.
  • Command, Control, Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (C2ISR) pilots (e.g., RC-135): ~$5.5 million.

• Per Capita Cost Analysis:

  • As AvB increases, the per capita cost of maintaining a pilot inventory decreases because fewer pilots need to be trained and those who are trained stay longer.
  • The decline in per capita cost is nonlinear, with a steeper decline when AvB is between $0 and $40,000.
  • The efficient level of AvB to minimize per capita cost is $100,000 for fighter pilots, though this may lead to a more experienced force than desired.

• Retention vs. Accession Trade-Off:

  • Retaining pilots through AvB and AvIP is more cost-effective than increasing the number of pilots trained, especially when training costs are high.
  • Increasing AvB leads to a more experienced force, which may be more desirable than increasing the number of pilots in the training pipeline.
  • The efficiency of increasing AvB depends on the USAF's requirement for experienced pilots.

• Simulation Results:

  • The study used simulations to show how per capita cost changes with AvB and how the experience mix of the force evolves over time.
  • Figures S.1 and S.2 illustrate the steady-state retention profiles and per capita cost changes for fighter pilots under different AvB caps.

Key Information

• Methodology:

  • The study used the Air Force Total Ownership Cost (AFTOC) data and longitudinal personnel data from the Defense Manpower Data Center (DMDC).
  • Training costs were calculated per flying hour and broken down by training stage.
  • The dynamic retention model was extended to include specialty and platform-specific data.

• Implications:

  • The high cost of training pilots means that increasing retention incentives can be more efficient in sustaining pilot inventory.
  • The USAF should consider the trade-off between training costs and retention costs when deciding on S&I pay levels.
  • Future research should explore potential training cost savings without compromising readiness and capability.

Conclusion

The report concludes that from a personnel cost perspective, it is more cost-effective for the USAF to increase S&I pays and retain pilots than to expand the training pipeline to sustain a given pilot inventory. This is driven by the high cost of training and the relatively lower marginal cost of retention when S&I pay is increased. The findings suggest that the USAF should consider increasing AvB to at least $100,000 to retain midcareer fighter pilots efficiently, though this may affect the experience mix of the force. The study also highlights the importance of specialty-specific analysis and the potential for cost savings through alternative training technologies.