exCAFguy said:The reality here is this is not an RCAF specific problem, it’s happening throughout the entire CAF.
One of the biggest factors for everyone I’ve talked to that released (myself included) was salary. Having said that, I understand that is out of the CAFs control and it is what it is really.....nothing they can do about that.
What they CAN do to help with retention, in my opinion, is to not treat their people like garbage. The other major factor from friends who’ve all released recently (myself included) is “leadership”. In the 13 years I was in before releasing, I noticed a massive nose dive in the competence as well as quality level of human beings in the higher ups. The toxicity from higher from when I left compared to when I joined is unreal in how much it’s elevated. Perhaps it’s due to the fact that in the Afghan days, higher ups were too busy with real work, whereas these days it seems like they have nothing else to do so they implement some of the worlds dumbest decisions in an attempt to make their PER look more attractive.......which in turn drives people away.
Add to that the postings for the sake of postings, out of trade positions, the atmosphere of going to work and wondering if today is the day an OP Honour witch hunt is going to target you, and it’s plainly obvious to anyone below the rank of Col, it seems, why the CAF is having such retention and recruiting issues.
To be honest, I don’t think this problem is going to get better before it gets worse.
Pay may not be the reason some people are leaving, but it can make up for a lot, and the bases aren’t changing any time soon. For pilots, First Officers get paid well compared to civi side, Aircraft Commanders, not so much.CTD said:I don't think pay is going to do much to retain people. Honestly spec pay is pretty decent. For those who don't think it is need to look at the work others do to get the same. I don't think pay would solve much. Location of work is the main issue. A close second would be treatment. It's time to get back to Leadership and away from managers.
Related to the topic, RCAF states they have only managed to get 9 pilots to come back as part of an initiative to bring former pilots back. Of those 9, only 4 are full time, RCAF is still short over 140.
SupersonicMax said:The problem is rooted much deeper than compensation. Paying people may keep them for the short term but it will not keep people in the long run. There are issues with trust in the CoC (can the CoC do what it says it does?), quality of life (how long can you sustain 12-hour days, often including weekends, without breaking your family, nevermind enjoy life?), lack of vision (where will the Air Force be in 5, 10, 15, 20 years?) and purpose (what actually is the Air Force purpose? Project force abroad to defend our interest or merely wave the flag when it suits the government?)
Once there are satisfactory answers to those issues, you may see people sticking it out more than the minimum 13 years and stay for the long term.
Related to the topic, RCAF states they have only managed to get 9 pilots to come back as part of an initiative to bring former pilots back. Of those 9, only 4 are full time, RCAF is still short over 140 pilots.
Given how many pilots are out of jobs right now I sure hope they are trying to recruit experienced commercial pilots to the RCAF.
daftandbarmy said:I assume being perpetually exiled to places like Cold Lake (the hint is in the name) has had no impact on retention?
Dimsum said:From what I hear, you have to request fast jets. So, Pilots generally volunteer for Cold Lake (maybe not the SAR Griffon squadron there though).
The techs though? Not so much.
MilEME09 said:Talking with a MSE Op that was posted to cold lake, keeping Log Os and senior staff is particularly challenging as people never want to cone back if they leave, and only do come back if it is a career requirement.
daftandbarmy said:Beats me why they don't shift them all to Comox. Would our NORAD commitments be null and void or something if we did that?
Dimsum said:Edmonton would make more sense, since it's closer to the range and any NORAD commitment up that way. But they tore up the old runways on base, so unless EIA is willing to let the sqns use their infrastructure, good luck.
Re: Range access - the Australians don't base their aircraft near their big ranges. In the diagram below, they TD them up for exercises in the ranges (blue circles) as needed, but generally they're near the major cities (red circles) with the exception of RAAF Tindal up north. RAAF Pierce in Western Australia is essentially their Portage/Moose Jaw, while RAAF East Sale is their 1CFFTS equivalent - no combat aircraft are there. The RAAF also tend to base all of one type of aircraft in one place (C-17s, Super Hornets, A330s, and Growlers at RAAF Amberley near Brisbane, Hercs and C-27s at RAAF Richmond near Sydney, P-8s at RAAF Edinburgh near Adelaide, etc) except for the fighters, and even then that's only because the Classic Hornets (and soon F-35s) will be at both Tindal and Williamtown.
All this to say that aside from political reasons, I don't understand why we are so tied to being close to CLAWR.