Aviation Continuation Pay (ACP - The Bonus)

[StoleIt]

1 hour ago, Danger41 said:

Sorry for what I’m sure is a duplicate question, but I couldn’t find it. 
 

If I’m on a bonus but want to pursue Palace Chase, what would happen to the remainder of that bonus? E.G. I’m on a 3 year bonus and if I were to get a 1 year PC, what’s the math on that?

Will they even approve a PC from a bonus? Isn't that a SECAF level approval with no delegation lower?

[Danger41]

3 minutes ago, StoleIt said:

Will they even approve a PC from a bonus? Isn't that a SECAF level approval with no delegation lower?

That’s a good piece of info. I have no idea if that’d get approved but I think I’ll pursue it.

[Majestik Møøse]

38 minutes ago, StoleIt said:

Will they even approve a PC from a bonus? Isn't that a SECAF level approval with no delegation lower?

Jeebus, why? We’re so dumb. What if O-6s could decide which of their guys get paid more. Like the entire rest of the world.

[pawnman]

2 hours ago, Danger41 said:

Sorry for what I’m sure is a duplicate question, but I couldn’t find it. 
 

If I’m on a bonus but want to pursue Palace Chase, what would happen to the remainder of that bonus? E.G. I’m on a 3 year bonus and if I were to get a 1 year PC, what’s the math on that?

I don't see it getting approved, but in the unlikely event it works out, pretty sure you owe back whatever part of that bonus you haven't "earned" through the service commitment. Including taxes.

[FlyingWolf]

On 4/28/2021 at 5:39 PM, FourFans130 said:

Regardless, having seen behind the curtain now, I can speak with authority when I say "don't take the bonus".

...and I did.  I got out as soon as I could...right in the middle of a global pandemic, at 17 years of service, while non-current in an airplane, and I haven't regretted that decision even once.  So I say again: don't take the bonus.

Would you mind expanding on your perspective here?  What did you see behind the curtain? 

I appreciate your insight, feel free to PM.

[FourFans]

On 6/18/2021 at 2:40 PM, FlyingWolf said:

Would you mind expanding on your perspective here?  What did you see behind the curtain? 

I appreciate your insight, feel free to PM.

Multiple thoughts on this topic.  I'll go objective to subjective.

Financially: the 'bonus' is still 25,000 to 35,000 dollars.  It was introduced in the 1990s, yet has not substantially changed since then.  in 2015 when I took mine (25,000 for 5 years), it should have been at least 37,000 to account for inflation alone.  I didn't do my homework.  I recommend others do theirs before deciding.  By comparison, if you separate at 12 years of service and join an airline, a part 135 operator (think flying twin otters or -8's in hot places), a cargo carrier, or even a cargo carrier feeder to a major cargo carrier, you will make more money in the following 8 years than you would have in the Air Force. 

Moreover, the Air Force continues to insult their pilots with the need for a bonus and the option to take it...and sometimes no bonus at all...while GIVING doctors, surgeons, and dentists professional pay that exceeds the aviation bonus while not requiring a "take"...in the AIR FORCE.  Not the dental force, or the medical force, the Air Force.  This year, as a reservist pilot, I will not get an aviation bonus because it was not offered to pilots in my air frame at my base, because clearly the air force is good on pilots...while medical professionals get an automatic bump to account for the money they aren't making on the outside.  Objectively the USAF demonstrates that it does not value it's pilots and is unwilling to truly push for retention improvements.  The fellas at RAND have routinely updated their data that shows retaining a USAF pilot at 12-15 years for another 3 years using a $100,000 per year bonus is more cost effective than producing new pilots.  Just like big blue, we'll completely ignore the safety improvements of retaining experienced pilots in one of the most complicated and dangerous corners of the aviation world.  No, the USAF simply continues to accept the shackles that congress places on it regarding the restricted pilot bonus instead of pushing HARD for a professional pay similar to the medical career fields.  That lack of effort shows me all I need to see.

However that financial analysis ignores the quality of life items, right?  Unfortunately a QoL analysis only puts more nails in the coffin.  For example, pilots are likely to marry spouses in a like-status, like-education-level, and like-earning potential bracket.  In short, we choose to partner within our peer group.  Yet the Air Force completely ignores this fact and continues to move us every three years, thereby negating our life partners the opportunity to professionally put down roots and create a career, thereby stifling their earning potential.  Yes, the air force has claimed new programs to improve this problem by letting pilot homestead, but they are largely lip service programs that have shown to kill career progression.  Take a look at how well the career pilot program went...for the four individuals that got accepted.  Or perhaps AFPAK HANDS, which I watched get used as a "force shaping tool" to force 8 senior MAF MWS IPs decide to separate instead of taking that as their next assignment (circa 2016).  That trend has not changed.

The senior leaders of the USAF refuse to force the middle leadership to abide by the simple rules of organizational excellence: Train and equip and prepare your people so well that they could leave and be hired by any other organization immediately, and treat them in such a manner that they don't want to.

My own story included an advisory that my last three years before hitting 20 would include a PCS (I'd been in my API-6 'flying' non-flying desk job for 2 years) and a 1 year deployment...because 2.5 years in the desert and 4.5 years total gone from home in 17 years wasn't enough.  When I asked for special consideration as the job I was filling is difficult to fill, I was flatly told no.  So I voted with my feet.  Then the USAF promoted me 3 months before my separation date...and I still separated (promotion carries no ADSC).

But let's shift gears and assume I decided to apply to be commander a staffer or whatever career progression track big blue would advise me to take.  The peek behind that curtain reveals nothing but another curtain.  I've been close personal friends with enough commanders to have learned that becoming a commander, an aide de camp, or attaining some other advancement position does not actually allow you access to change, fix, or improve the system as we all secretly hope to do if given that opportunity.  Instead, you are rewarded with a PCS, school, or lateral move every 1-2 years.  Moreover, you get the exposure to discover that the senior GS and SES community as well as the bad O-7s (there are good ones, but the bad ones abuse their influence and tend to poison the well far beyond the abilities of the good ones to fix) and their staff sycophants continue to perpetuate the self-promoting trend of the USAF.  That leaves the hard working 'good guy' O-6s and O-7s swimming very much upstream if they want to institute sincere and good changes.  I know several of these excellent men and women, and I pray their influence changes the USAF.  I realized that fighting that battle was not in my blood, so I couldn't continue on that road.

What's that have to do with the bonus?  In short, those who were going to stay would have done so anyways.  Those taking it for the money factor only may not have done their homework to realize they could make much more elsewhere.  So it's not really a retention bonus, it's a 'thanks for staying, we want to lock you in and take away your power to say "no" pay'.

Hence I say, unless you know you and your family want to stay at the whim of the you-are-nothing-but-a-number AFPC assignment process until the end of whatever commitment you are 'offered', don't take the bonus.

[SurelySerious]

Multiple thoughts on this topic.  I'll go objective to subjective.
Financially: the 'bonus' is still 25,000 to 35,000 dollars.  It was introduced in the 1990s, yet has not substantially changed since then.  in 2015 when I took mine (25,000 for 5 years), it should have been at least 37,000 to account for inflation alone.  I didn't do my homework.  I recommend others do theirs before deciding.  By comparison, if you separate at 12 years of service and join an airline, a part 135 operator (think flying twin otters or -8's in hot places), a cargo carrier, or even a cargo carrier feeder to a major cargo carrier, you will make more money in the following 8 years than you would have in the Air Force. 
Moreover, the Air Force continues to insult their pilots with the need for a bonus and the option to take it...and sometimes no bonus at all...while GIVING doctors, surgeons, and dentists professional pay that exceeds the aviation bonus while not requiring a "take"...in the AIR FORCE.  Not the dental force, or the medical force, the Air Force.  This year, as a reservist pilot, I will not get an aviation bonus because it was not offered to pilots in my air frame at my base, because clearly the air force is good on pilots...while medical professionals get an automatic bump to account for the money they aren't making on the outside.  Objectively the USAF demonstrates that it does not value it's pilots and is unwilling to truly push for retention improvements.  The fellas at RAND have routinely updated their data that shows retaining a USAF pilot at 12-15 years for another 3 years using a $100,000 per year bonus is more cost effective than producing new pilots.  Just like big blue, we'll completely ignore the safety improvements of retaining experienced pilots in one of the most complicated and dangerous corners of the aviation world.  No, the USAF simply continues to accept the shackles that congress places on it regarding the restricted pilot bonus instead of pushing HARD for a professional pay similar to the medical career fields.  That lack of effort shows me all I need to see.
However that financial analysis ignores the quality of life items, right?  Unfortunately a QoL analysis only puts more nails in the coffin.  For example, pilots are likely to marry spouses in a like-status, like-education-level, and like-earning potential bracket.  In short, we choose to partner within our peer group.  Yet the Air Force completely ignores this fact and continues to move us every three years, thereby negating our life partners the opportunity to professionally put down roots and create a career, thereby stifling their earning potential.  Yes, the air force has claimed new programs to improve this problem by letting pilot homestead, but they are largely lip service programs that have shown to kill career progression.  Take a look at how well the career pilot program went...for the four individuals that got accepted.  Or perhaps AFPAK HANDS, which I watched get used as a "force shaping tool" to force 8 senior MAF MWS IPs decide to separate instead of taking that as their next assignment (circa 2016).  That trend has not changed.
The senior leaders of the USAF refuse to force the middle leadership to abide by the simple rules of organizational excellence: Train and equip and prepare your people so well that they could leave and be hired by any other organization immediately, and treat them in such a manner that they don't want to.
My own story included an advisory that my last three years before hitting 20 would include a PCS (I'd been in my API-6 'flying' non-flying desk job for 2 years) and a 1 year deployment...because 2.5 years in the desert and 4.5 years total gone from home in 17 years wasn't enough.  When I asked for special consideration as the job I was filling is difficult to fill, I was flatly told no.  So I voted with my feet.  Then the USAF promoted me 3 months before my separation date...and I still separated (promotion carries no ADSC).
But let's shift gears and assume I decided to apply to be commander a staffer or whatever career progression track big blue would advise me to take.  The peek behind that curtain reveals nothing but another curtain.  I've been close personal friends with enough commanders to have learned that becoming a commander, an aide de camp, or attaining some other advancement position does not actually allow you access to change, fix, or improve the system as we all secretly hope to do if given that opportunity.  Instead, you are rewarded with a PCS, school, or lateral move every 1-2 years.  Moreover, you get the exposure to discover that the senior GS and SES community as well as the bad O-7s (there are good ones, but the bad ones abuse their influence and tend to poison the well far beyond the abilities of the good ones to fix) and their staff sycophants continue to perpetuate the self-promoting trend of the USAF.  That leaves the hard working 'good guy' O-6s and O-7s swimming very much upstream if they want to institute sincere and good changes.  I know several of these excellent men and women, and I pray their influence changes the USAF.  I realized that fighting that battle was not in my blood, so I couldn't continue on that road.
What's that have to do with the bonus?  In short, those who were going to stay would have done so anyways.  Those taking it for the money factor only may not have done their homework to realize they could make much more elsewhere.  So it's not really a retention bonus, it's a 'thanks for staying, we want to lock you in and take away your power to say "no" pay'.
Hence I say, unless you know you and your family want to stay at the whim of the you-are-nothing-but-a-number AFPC assignment process until the end of whatever commitment you are 'offered', don't take the bonus.

Quoted for truth, one of the best summaries out there.

[brabus]

The irony of the pro pay is pilots could go work for a major and make roughly the same as an MD (but without the 100s K in debt and 24 hr shifts in ERs). So how do they justify pro pay for docs, and not for pilots? Nonsensical. 

[HossHarris]

35 minutes ago, brabus said:

The irony of the pro pay is pilots could go work for a major and make roughly the same as an MD (but without the 100s K in debt and 24 hr shifts in ERs). So how do they justify pro pay for docs, and not for pilots? Nonsensical. 

Because being a doc is the same really regardless of who you’re working for. 
 

military flying is different. Not a lot of places you can fly a fighter. Or do the things they do with fatties (?). 
 

airline flying is boring as shit. It should not be the pinnacle of your flying career. 

[brabus]

30 minutes ago, HossHarris said:

Because being a doc is the same really regardless of who you’re working for. 
 

military flying is different. Not a lot of places you can fly a fighter. Or do the things they do with fatties (?). 
 

airline flying is boring as shit. It should not be the pinnacle of your flying career. 

I’m not saying it should be, just pointing out the purely financial side of retaining critical skills in the mil as it relates to earning potential in the civ world. 

[pawnman]

32 minutes ago, HossHarris said:

Because being a doc is the same really regardless of who you’re working for. 
 

military flying is different. Not a lot of places you can fly a fighter. Or do the things they do with fatties (?). 
 

airline flying is boring as shit. It should not be the pinnacle of your flying career. 

Is that why fighters have the best manning?  Oh, wait...

[SocialD]

37 minutes ago, HossHarris said:

Because being a doc is the same really regardless of who you’re working for. 
 

military flying is different. Not a lot of places you can fly a fighter. Or do the things they do with fatties (?). 
 

airline flying is boring as shit. It should not be the pinnacle of your flying career. 

 

 

Meh, after the newness wears off, everything becomes just a job.  Flying fighters is still cool, but the all the asspain involved to do it slowly overpowers the coolness.  If they're one of those types whose identity is is defined by wearing a G-suit, they can go Guard or contract red air.  In the end, money talks...as we're seeing today. 

Edited June 29, 2021 by SocialD

[jazzdude]

The irony of the pro pay is pilots could go work for a major and make roughly the same as an MD (but without the 100s K in debt and 24 hr shifts in ERs). So how do they justify pro pay for docs, and not for pilots? Nonsensical. 

One difference could be that doctors take the financial risk up front while military pilots don't, do that puts them in a better negotiating position.

Doctors can essentially lateral over into the military, and then back over to civilian practice. A pilot can't really do that (though it'll be interesting to see what becomes of the UPT pipeline for heavies bringing in commercial pilots on reduced training timelines).

Just for reference, a doctor takes on around $400k in debt to graduate medical school, after which there are multiple points over the 3-6 years after graduation they can wash out and be stuck with the debt.

Meanwhile, a military pilot, particularly a fighter pilot, receives a significant investment from the employer (AF) for training, for which the price paid is time.

My bet is the AF knows that most pilots in the "rage quit AD to go to the airlines" will also try to go guard or reserve to temper the variability of the airline business, so the AF doesn't really lose the talent, just keeps it for much cheaper (both from a bonus standpoint and from straight pay/benefits)

Also, what would pro pay be based on? Pay at the big 5? All major airlines? 121 airlines?

All that being said, dropping the "normal" bonus from $35k back down to $25k unless you take a stupid long commitment (or just not offering a bonus like to 11R) is a slap to the face.

The other issue is highlighted in the promotion thread, the AF only knows how to manage by year groups, and there's no technical career track (ie fly only track). Pro pay makes a lot of sense if fly only guys capped out at captain, and got paid extra to retain their experience, which is essentially what we do for doctors.

[pawnman]

1 hour ago, jazzdude said:

Also, what would pro pay be based on? Pay at the big 5? All major airlines? 121 airlines?

All that being said, dropping the "normal" bonus from $35k back down to $25k unless you take a stupid long commitment (or just not offering a bonus like to 11R) is a slap to the face.

The other issue is highlighted in the promotion thread, the AF only knows how to manage by year groups, and there's no technical career track (ie fly only track). Pro pay makes a lot of sense if fly only guys capped out at captain, and got paid extra to retain their experience, which is essentially what we do for doctors.

I don't think pro pay is an unsolvable problem.  I mean, how do we figure it out for doctors?  Private practice?  Biggest hospitals?  Survey of all doctor salaries?  I don't know what the magic formula is, but the bean-counters at the Air Force figured out some kind of formula.

[jice]

2 hours ago, pawnman said:

I don't think pro pay is an unsolvable problem.  I mean, how do we figure it out for doctors?  Private practice?  Biggest hospitals?  Survey of all doctor salaries?  I don't know what the magic formula is, but the bean-counters at the Air Force figured out some kind of formula.

Serious question: is there a labor economist who works for the Air Force on these things? “How much do we pay to get X result” given a set of circumstances,  is a pretty mature field of study.  Where do they sit? Why don’t we hear from them? 

[Majestik Møøse]

We’ll never be able to afford to mass enough pilots on AD for a just-in-case peer fight. Or jets, for that matter. Entire AF force structure should be inverted, with a smaller amount of highly-bonused AD guys and a larger amount of guard/reserve ready to spin up when needed.

Modern jets and pilots can’t be cranked out at WW2 speeds, so I can’t see how having a larger reserve force isn’t the best way. It keeps experience around, gets us out of the constant upgrade cycle, saves jet hours, and lets pilots go out and make money for the economy rather than being a personnel drain. Not to mention the great deterrent of having a huge combat force on standby, chomping at the bit for some action.

It’ll take an act of Congress, but so what.

[FourFans]

50 minutes ago, jice said:

Serious question: is there a labor economist who works for the Air Force on these things? “How much do we pay to get X result” given a set of circumstances,  is a pretty mature field of study.  Where do they sit? Why don’t we hear from them? 

They sit at RAND.  Big Blue and Congress decided not to listen.

https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR2415.html

[jazzdude]

I don't think pro pay is an unsolvable problem.  I mean, how do we figure it out for doctors?  Private practice?  Biggest hospitals?  Survey of all doctor salaries?  I don't know what the magic formula is, but the bean-counters at the Air Force figured out some kind of formula.

It's not unsolvable, but the solution may not be one the line pilot wants.

TLDR- The bean counters probably figured out the formula, and that's why we see the compensation that we do, to include the reduced bonuses this past FY. Also, not sure if pro pay would stop a significant number of pilots from going to the airlines anyways.

With doctors it's a 1:1 comparison between military and civilian, and my bet is they use national averages for each specialty to set their pro pay. If the military offers competitive pay, they can hire a doctor off the street, send them through OTS and have an O-3/4/5/6 doctor as fast as they can get them into the service. So the doctor pro pay isn't a retention tool, it's a *recruitment* tool.

Closest parallel for military pilots are ACMI carriers and airlift, at least looking at mission sets. 121 scheduled service would be an easy argument to make though to include with pay comparisons. Unlike the doctors, the AF can't (won't?) hire an airline captain and make them an airlift AC right away, and definitely can't just make them a 4FL in a fighter. That lateral transfer only goes one way and it's not in the AF's favor.

The AF doesn't have a pilot recruitment problem, it has a pilot manpower problem, which can either be solved through retention or production.

Pretty much no matter how you cut it, the AF is on the hook to train pilots to be AF pilots. So it becomes a balancing act between pay and bonuses, training costs, and Congressional perceptions on what is "fair" pay.

Congress thinks we're worth an extra $35k/year. That's not going to budge until the defense committees get new members. The AF thinks we're worth less unless you commit for a long time, which works in the AF's favor.

The hard truth is the AF seems to have accepted that it will grow it's way out of the shortage, lean heavier on (AD) CGOs to fly the line, and bet experienced pilots wanting off AD will go guard/reserve which keeps the experience in house for the potential high end fight. We've gotten by without pilots on staff for so long that those positions might not come back and be eliminated (making the shortage smaller). And the AF likely has a business case showing that the rate of bleeding is acceptable, so there's no need to offer more money. Enough people are staying with the compensation being offered, so why pay pilots more? Also remember the AF budget is essentially a zero sum game-that extra pay means something else the AF can't buy.

Hypothetically, if there was a fly only track and those pilots were paid a pro pay to put them on par with major airlines pay, how does the AF manage the number of pilots? Do you keep a 21 year major over a 9 year captain if you have to force shape? How do you determine which pilot is "better?" A seniority system might work for the airlines, but it can create significant drawbacks in a military environment since our mission is more complex. While the 21 year major may be more experienced and "better" in many ways, they can also quit at anytime. So how does the AF make that call? A1 doesn't know enough to weigh in, but if you put it all on commanders, they can play favorites (well, Maj X flies okay, but they planned the holiday party and tackle queep without complaining, while Maj Y flies better but doesn't do anything else to help the sq run...)

Even if the money was the same as legacy pay, I'd bet you'd still have plenty of people punch from the AF anyways for QOL goals (sure, AF might pay me $300k a year to be a military pilot, but I could go to the airlines and make that much and not have to deploy while working significantly less than AD, so why should I stay past my initial commitment?) The AF loses in that scenario, because the extra money it spent wouldn't have the desired effect. People make the same argument for the bonus-many of those people would've stayed anyways, so that's just wasted money. Though having a longer bonus commitment (like 5 years) makes that investment worth while over a pro pay to the AF since the pilot loses the option to say no to assignments for a period of time, which the AF wouldn't get with pro pay.

[ThreeHoler]

Odd. Other countries (UK, Aussies, Canucks) seem to have figured out the pilot pro pay. A Capt on flight pay who stayed flying the line makes more than a staff Maj (and some Lt Col).


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

[jazzdude]

Odd. Other countries (UK, Aussies, Canucks) seem to have figured out the pilot pro pay. A Capt on flight pay who stayed flying the line makes more than a staff Maj (and some Lt Col).


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

But do they make as much as an airline pilot? A continued captain who takes the bonus makes as much as a major (though at the cost of an ADSC). I'm not sure if those flight LTs have a contract (similar to an enlistment contact), as that changes some of the calculus.

Would their command structure work if scaled up to our AF's size?

Would we culturally accept a flight LT that only has a high school education?

Not saying it couldn't work, but it'd be a huge shift in how we structure ourselves.

[Springer]

16 hours ago, HossHarris said:

airline flying is boring as shit. It should not be the pinnacle of your flying career. 

After retiring from airline flying @59, I consider flying my RV-8 3 times a week the pinnacle of my flying career.

 

Edited June 30, 2021 by Springer

[Magellan]

So if we just make the pay comparable to the airlines and fix none of the other BS that pilots hate how does that help exactly?  Because if the money is the same and airlines are less BS don't the airlines still win for all of the other reasons mentioned?

That said I know folks on all sides of the fence who were:

1. "f'this noise I'm out" as soon as their ADSC was up

2. Palace chase ASAP to get a line number then pick up AGR orders

3.  Airline & TR

4. Stay on AD with no bonus to have free agent status with regard to assignments

5.  All in bonus takes that are ride or die Air Force.

The only demographic I see winning/gaining anything under a "pro pay" system is the folks who are all in Air Force already.

It seems to me like the system has those camps modeled as it is doing what it can to apply the bonuses given the constraints (imposed by congress) they are under.  Also, Springer has life figured out.  I take as much pride in flying the aircraft that I own and/or rent as I do anything the USAF has put me in.  Plus it can be just as much or more fun.  In my case I just married well to a woman that agreed to buy me an airplane with her salary!  But I know plenty of AD guys that can afford to own planes and fly a ton even on the AD salary.  Everything is just a tradeoff.

Edited June 30, 2021 by Magellan

[Smokin]

On 6/29/2021 at 9:37 AM, jazzdude said:

Just for reference, a doctor takes on around $400k in debt to graduate medical school, after which there are multiple points over the 3-6 years after graduation they can wash out and be stuck with the debt.

Meanwhile, a military pilot, particularly a fighter pilot, receives a significant investment from the employer (AF) for training, for which the price paid is time.

The AF puts people through Med school on scholarship and they commission with as much student debt as an average military pilot.  But those Drs still get their rock star pro pay while the pilot starts out with a laughably low flight pay.

If we're making a purely civilian comparison, the average civilian flight university to airline pilot track likely involves a similar investment.  Their school may only leave them with half the debt of a Dr, but the pilot gets paid peanuts for the next decade as he builds time and creds for that airline job.  I think the career investment and income are more comparable than you let on.

[Bigred]

I’m not sure if it’s obvious but a mil doctor doesn’t get their super high pro pays until done with residency. They get an intern/in residency pay that is akin to flight pay. They also aren’t eligible for the massive retention bonuses until all service commitments are complete AND also residency complete. Right now service commitments run 10 years for a dr that goes through USUHS and year for year on the HPSP. The HPSP has some weird quirks in it too about payback. 

For comparison, my roommate from the Academy went the medical route, chose orthopedic surgery as his speciality, and wouldn’t be fully qualified till about 11 years after graduation. He was also already planning to get out. 

That said, once fully board certified in their specialty mil drs get some serious money, it  just might not come until much later in their careers. The dr bonuses are actually geared more towards drawing fully qualified doctors into the service. 

[jazzdude]

The AF puts people through Med school on scholarship and they commission with as much student debt as an average military pilot.  But those Drs still get their rock star pro pay while the pilot starts out with a laughably low flight pay.
If we're making a purely civilian comparison, the average civilian flight university to airline pilot track likely involves a similar investment.  Their school may only leave them with half the debt of a Dr, but the pilot gets paid peanuts for the next decade as he builds time and creds for that airline job.  I think the career investment and income are more comparable than you let on.

There's more demand for doctors across the board, and they take longer to make than a pilot...

The air force trains a pilot and gets a 10 year ROI via the ADSC. And there's no shortage of young Americans that want to fly jets.

The AF gets a 1:1 return for the doctors who take the scholarship money to pay for their medical school, so at best a 4 year ROI. Then again, the AF only pays about $400k to get a doctor, while the cheapest pilot (C-17) is $800k in direct training plus roughly $200k in pay/allowances, so the payback is about the same ($100k per year old ADSC)

It takes roughly 2 years to have a basic pilot trained, and roughly 2-4 years to become an AC/IP/4FL, so 4-6 years to get a "fully qualified" pilot. It takes 4 years med school plus 1-6 years in residency, so 5-10 years to get a certified doctor who can practice.

Not all doctors get rock star pay either. https://www.dfas.mil/militarymembers/payentitlements/Pay-Tables/HPO4/
If they don't sign a retention bonus, many get paid about the same after they complete their residency as a pilot on the bonus after their initial commitment ($43k for most medical specialties, compared to the $12k+35k=$47k for a pilot, though the pilot has a multi year ADSC the doctor does not have). The big money goes to certain specialties, and those spots to get into those specialties are competitive nationwide (mil and civ).

One thing the doctors on scholarship give up is their selection of specialty: no matter how good they match to residencies, they are still needs of the AF. So even if they scored well enough to go to say anesthesiology to make the big bucks ($300k+ a year on the outside in a major city), if the AF needs flight docs that year, well, they are going to go be flight docs/general practice. Even if there's an anesthesiologist residency position in the military, all med school graduates can compete for that spot, not just the ones on military medical scholarships. This also essentially locks them into that specialty for the rest of their career, and switching specialties means recompeting for a residency match (which again are limited, and competing against the new med school grads), and then completing the new residency at resident pay (1-6 years at $25k-50k/year working 60-80 hours a week.

That last part is why my brother decided not to take an offer for a military medical scholarship-there's a loss of control over your career at a critical point, the initial residency match, which has a significant impact on your career earnings potential.