Military Personnel: Strategy Needed to Improve Retention of Experienced Air Force Aircraft Maintainers

Air Force aircraft maintainers are responsible for ensuring that the Air Force's aircraft are operationally ready and safe for its aviators—duties critical to successfully executing its national security mission. With more than 100,000 maintainers across the Air Force's active and reserve components, according to Air Force officials, aircraft maintenance is the Air Force's largest enlisted career field—accounting for about a quarter of its active duty enlisted personnel.

The conference report accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 included a provision for GAO to review the adequacy of the Air Force's aircraft maintainer workforce. This report assesses the extent to which, from fiscal years 2010 through 2017, the Air Force (1) had aircraft maintainer staffing gaps, (2) experienced attrition of maintainers and took steps to help retain maintainers, and (3) met its annual technical school completion rate goals for maintainers.

GAO analyzed aircraft maintainer staffing levels, loss and reenlistment rates, and technical school completion rates from fiscal years 2010-2017, the most recent data available; conducted five non-generalizable discussion groups with maintainers; and interviewed aviation industry, Department of Defense, and Air Force officials.

The Air Force has reduced overall aircraft maintainer staffing gaps, but continues to have a gap of experienced maintainers. The Air Force reduced the overall gap between actual maintainer staffing levels and authorized levels from 4,016 maintainers (out of 66,439 authorized active component positions) in fiscal year 2015, to 745 in fiscal year 2017 (out of 66,559 positions). However, in 7 of the last 8 fiscal years, the Air Force had staffing gaps of experienced maintainers—those who are most qualified to meet mission needs and are needed to train new maintainers. Maintainers complete technical school as 3-levels and initially lack the experience and proficiency needed to meet mission needs. Following years of on-the-job training, among other things, maintainers upgrade to the 5- and 7-levels. In fiscal year 2017, the Air Force had gaps of more than 2,000 5-level and 400 7-level maintainers, and a surplus of over 1,700 3-levels. Air Force officials anticipate that staffing gaps will continue off and on through fiscal year 2023.

Over the past 8 fiscal years, the Air Force has increasingly lost experienced aircraft maintainers, and it does not have goals and a strategy to help retain maintainers. While overall maintainer loss rates have remained generally stable, loss rates of 5-levels increased from 9 percent in fiscal year 2010 to 12 percent in fiscal years 2016 and 2017 (see figure). Air Force officials expect 7-level loss rates to also increase. Air Force officials stated that they need to retain more maintainers to help address experience gaps, but the Air Force has not developed annual retention goals for maintainers. In addition, while the Air Force has increased its use of retention bonuses since fiscal year 2015, according to Air Force officials, it does not have a strategy to improve retention. Without goals to measure progress and a retention strategy to guide efforts, the Air Force could face further challenges in managing its maintenance workforce, including ensuring there are enough experienced maintainers to meet mission needs.

The Air Force consistently met technical school completion rate goals for aircraft maintainers from fiscal years 2010 through 2017. In fiscal year 2017, about 9,600 active component maintainers completed technical school, an increase from about 5,700 in fiscal year 2015. This increase in completions has helped to address overall staffing gaps, but cannot immediately resolve experience imbalances, due to the time and training needed to reach the 5- and 7- levels.

GAO recommends that the Air Force develop annual retention goals and a retention strategy for aircraft maintainers. The Air Force concurred with both recommendations.

Air Force aircraft maintainers are responsible for ensuring that the Air  Force’s aircraft are operationally ready and safe for its aviators—duties  that are critical to ensuring that the department is able to successfully  execute its national security mission. Maintainers at the squadron-level  perform a wide range of duties, including conducting inspections before  and after flights, diagnosing and repairing system malfunctions, and  loading and unloading munitions and explosives on aircraft, among many  others. With more than 100,000 maintainers across the Air Force’s active  and reserve components, according to Air Force officials, aircraft  maintenance is the Air Force’s largest enlisted career field—accounting  for about a quarter of its active duty enlisted personnel.

In September 2016, we reported that the Air Force cited aircraft  maintainer staffing gaps—actual staffing levels that are lower than  authorized levels—as a factor limiting its ability to produce the number of  aircraft required to meet certain annual training requirements and that,  while the Air Force was taking steps to address these gaps, it could take  several years to improve aircraft availability rates. The conference report  accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year  2018 included a provision for us to review the adequacy of the Air Force’s  aircraft maintainer workforce. This report addresses, from fiscal years  2010 through 2017, the extent to which the Air Force: (1) had aircraft  maintainer staffing gaps, (2) experienced attrition of aircraft maintainers,  including any effects of competition with the commercial aviation industry,  and took steps to help retain maintainers, and (3) met its annual technical  school completion rate goals for aircraft maintainers.

For our first objective, we compared staffing levels authorized by the Air  Force for enlisted aircraft maintainers—for the active and reserve  components—with the actual number of maintainers available to staff  those positions for fiscal years 2010 through 2017. We selected this  timeframe to capture staffing levels before and after the Air Force’s fiscal  year 2014 reduction in end strength, and fiscal year 2017 was the most  recent year for which complete data were available at the time of our  review. Specifically, we analyzed the data to identify overall maintainer  staffing gaps as well as any gaps by maintenance specialty and skill level.  In addition, we compared maintainer personnel requirements to  authorized staffing levels—the number of those requirements that were  funded. To assess the reliability of the Air Force’s requirements,  authorized staffing levels, and actual staffing levels, we reviewed related  documentation; assessed the data for errors, omissions, and  inconsistencies; and interviewed officials. We determined that the data  were sufficiently reliable to describe the Air Force’s aircraft maintainer  staffing levels and associated gaps from fiscal years 2010 through 2017.  Additionally, we conducted interviews with relevant Air Force, Air National  Guard, and Air Force Reserve Command officials to identify reasons for  staffing challenges and actions the Air Force has taken to address them.

For our second objective, we calculated maintainer loss rates—the  number of maintainers who leave the career field or the Air Force within  the fiscal year over the number of maintainers at the start of the fiscal  year—for the active and reserve components from fiscal years 2010  through 2017. We also analyzed overall aircraft maintainer reenlistment  rates—the number of maintainers reenlisting each fiscal year over the  number of maintainers eligible to reenlist—for the active component for  fiscal years 2010 through 2017. To assess the reliability of the Air Force’s  maintainer loss and reenlistment rate data, we reviewed related  documentation; assessed the data for errors, omissions, and  inconsistencies; and interviewed officials. We determined that the data  were sufficiently reliable to describe both the Air Force’s aircraft  maintainer loss and reenlistment rates from fiscal years 2010 through  2017. In addition, we reviewed the Air Force’s 2015 and 2017 aircraft  maintainer retention survey analyses and conducted five discussion  groups with a non-generalizable sample of aircraft maintainers to obtain  their views on factors affecting maintainer retention, on-the-job training  capacity, and commercial aviation industry opportunities, among other  things.

We also reviewed the state of the commercial labor market for aircraft  mechanics and aerospace engineers. We analyzed data from the  Department of Labor’s Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Current Population  Survey on the unemployment rate, employment, and median weekly  earnings from 2012 through 2017, in accordance with economic literature.  We chose this period because we previously reported on the data from  2000 through 2012. We reviewed documentation about the Bureau of  Labor Statistics data and the systems that produced them, as well as our  prior report, and determined the data were sufficiently reliable for the  purposes of our indicator analysis. In addition, we conducted interviews  with four commercial aviation industry stakeholders regarding any  imbalances in aircraft mechanic demand and supply. We selected three  of these organizations based on our previous work and one based on a  recommendation from one of the three organizations. To determine what  is known about the effects of the commercial aviation industry on the Air  Force’s aircraft maintainer workforce, we conducted a literature search  and review. We chose fiscal year 2010 as a starting point to match the  timeframe for which we analyzed Air Force maintainer loss rates. We  identified and screened 49 studies using a multi-step process to gauge  their relevance and evaluate their methodology. We identified 1 study that  had reliable and relevant information and we discuss the associated  findings of this study below.

To assess the extent to which the Air Force has taken steps to help retain  maintainers, we analyzed the number and total costs of selective  retention bonuses (retention bonuses) that the Air Force awarded by  maintenance specialty and skill level from fiscal years 2010 through 2017  for the active and reserve components. To assess the reliability of the Air  Force’s retention bonus data, we reviewed related documentation;  assessed the data for errors, omissions, and inconsistencies; and  interviewed officials. We determined that the data were sufficiently  reliable to describe the number and total costs of the Air Force’s aircraft  maintainer retention bonuses from fiscal years 2010 through 2017. In  addition, we conducted interviews with relevant Air Force officials  regarding retention goals and monetary and non-monetary incentives to  improve maintainer retention. We compared this information to Standards  for Internal Control in the Federal Government related to monitoring  activities and key principles of strategic workforce planning that we have  identified in our prior work, such as developing strategies that are tailored  to address gaps in numbers of people, skills, and competencies.

For our third objective, we calculated technical school completion rates— the number of aircraft maintainers completing technical school compared  to the number of programmed or expected completions—for the active  component for fiscal years 2010 through 2017. We compared those  completion rates to the Air Education and Training Command (AETC)  established completion rate goal for the active component. For the Air  National Guard and Air Force Reserve Command, we compared  programmed completions to actual completions to determine their ability  to meet training needs. To assess the reliability of the technical school  completion data, we assessed the data for errors, omissions, and  inconsistencies, and interviewed officials. We determined that the data  were sufficiently reliable to describe the Air Force’s aircraft maintainer  technical school completion rates from fiscal years 2010 through 2017,  rounded to the nearest hundreds up to fiscal year 2013, and more- precisely from fiscal years 2014 and beyond. In addition, we observed  maintainer technical school training at Sheppard Air Force Base in Texas  and Eglin Air Force Base in Florida. We selected these locations because  they are two of the primary locations where aircraft maintainer technical  school training occurs. Finally, we conducted interviews with technical  school instructors about the training process, as well as AETC, Air  National Guard, and Air Force Reserve Command officials about training  challenges and programmed training needs. Our scope and methodology  is described in detail in appendix I.

We conducted this performance audit from April 2018 to February 2019 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain  sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that  the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives.

Air Force Aircraft Maintenance Specialties

Air Force aircraft maintainers are assigned to a specific maintenance  specialty and, in some cases, also to a specific aircraft on which they are  qualified to perform maintenance. As of April 2018, the Air Force had 37  enlisted maintenance specialties, each designated by an Air Force  Specialty Code. See table 1 for examples of various Air Force  maintenance specialties and examples of aircraft specific to those  specialties, if applicable.

Maintainer Training Process and Skill Level Advancement

According to officials, following basic training, most airmen assigned to  the aircraft maintenance career field attend some portion of technical  school at Sheppard Air Force Base in Texas. Depending on the  maintenance specialty, some maintainers may continue their technical  training at a second location. For example, maintainers specializing on  the F-35 complete additional training at Eglin Air Force Base in Florida  after completing initial courses at Sheppard Air Force Base. Maintainers  spend anywhere from 23 to 133 academic days in technical school  learning about aircraft maintenance fundamentals and their specific  maintenance specialties through a mix of classroom instruction and  hands-on training. Hands-on training is conducted on both partially- functioning components of aircraft—called “trainers”—that replicate tasks  on working aircraft, and on ground instructional training aircraft. Figure 1  shows various training equipment used by maintainers during technical  school.

Air Force aircraft maintainers complete technical school as 3-levels, or  apprentices. Maintainers are eligible to advance to the 5-level  (journeyman) after completing additional coursework and a minimum of  12 months of on-the-job training. According to Air Force data, depending  on the maintenance specialty, it takes an average of 1 to 2 years to  advance to the 5-level. Maintainers are eligible to enter upgrade training  to advance to the 7-level after being selected for the rank of Staff  Sergeant. According to Air Force officials, the average time in service for  promotion selection is 4.4 years. The 7-level is achieved by completing  additional coursework, and completing a minimum of 12 months of on- the-job training. Depending on the maintenance specialty, it takes  maintainers an average of 1 to 2 years after entering upgrade training to  advance to the 7-level. Figure 2 shows an overview of the Air Force’s  aircraft maintainer training process and skill-level advancement.

Air Force Process for Determining Maintainer Positions

Department of Defense (DOD) Directive 1100.4 states that staffing  requirements are driven by workload and shall be established at the  minimum levels necessary to accomplish mission and performance  objectives. In addition, assigned missions shall be accomplished using  the least costly mix of personnel (military, civilian, and contract)  consistent with military requirements and other needs of DOD as  prescribed in Title 10, United States Code. Air Force officials reported  that they fill their requirements based on the number of those  requirements that are funded—called authorized staffing levels—and the  number of trained and qualified personnel available to be staffed to those  positions. In this report, we refer to the number of maintainers available to  fill authorized staffing levels as actual staffing levels.

The Air Force uses the Logistics Composite Model to determine  maintainer staffing requirements. The model is a statistical simulation  that estimates monthly labor-hours and personnel required to accomplish  direct maintenance tasks. According to an Air Force official, locations are  staffed according to the worldwide average for each particular  maintenance specialty. For example, if the crew chief maintenance  specialty worldwide is staffed at 88 percent, the Air Force would staff  each overseas Major Command at 88 percent and distribute those  resources to ensure the bases are staffed at that worldwide average,  followed by domestic locations. An Air Force official stated that there are  a number of reasons why a particular location may be staffed below or  over the worldwide average, such as early releases from tours.

Commercial Aviation Industry and Airframe and Power Plant Certificates

Maintainers in the commercial aviation industry are commonly employed  by commercial air carriers, corporate flight departments, repair stations,  or manufacturers of aircraft or aircraft components. Aircraft mechanics  inspect, service, and repair aircraft bodies (airframe) and engines (power  plant). Aircraft mechanics can earn a mechanic certificate from the  Federal Aviation Administration with an airframe rating, power plant  rating, or combined airframe and power plant rating, and are referred to  as certificated mechanics. According to Federal Aviation Administration  data, almost all certificated mechanics hold airframe and power plant  ratings. Certification is not necessary to work as an aircraft mechanic;  however, without it, a mechanic cannot approve an aircraft for return to  service and must be supervised by a certificated mechanic. Certificated  mechanics that hold airframe and power plant ratings generally earn a  higher wage and are more desirable to employers than mechanics who  are not certificated, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

For an applicant to be authorized to take the mechanics examination for  the combined airframe and power plant rating, the applicant must either  (1) complete a Federal Aviation Administration-certificated aviation  maintenance technician school, and demonstrate and document relevant  airframe and power plant work experience gained through on-the-job  training, or (2) demonstrate and document work experience or some  combination of work experience and education gained through the military  working with airframes and engines.

Since 2002, the Community College of the Air Force has administered the  Federal Aviation Administration-approved Joint Services Aviation  Maintenance Technician Certification Council (the Joint Services Council)  program that, upon completion, confers a certificate of eligibility— equivalent to a training program diploma—to take the airframe and power  plant exam. According to Community College of the Air Force officials,  although the airframe and power plant certificate is not required for Air  Force maintainer work, it does benefit maintainers’ potential career  prospects. The Joint Services Council’s program is available to members  of all services who have attained minimum requirements in aviation  maintenance—typically after 3 years of experience in a related position— and includes three self-paced courses taken online in addition to on-the- job training. Additionally, the Air Force has established its Credentialing  Opportunities On-Line program to help airmen find information on  certifications and licenses related to their jobs. The program requires that  the courses be accredited and be sought after within their industry or  sector as a recognized, preferred, or required credential. The program  also provides some funding assistance in obtaining airframe and power  plant certificates.

The Air Force Has Significantly Reduced Overall Aircraft Maintainer Staffing Gaps but Continues to Lack Experienced Maintainers

Since fiscal year 2016, the Air Force has taken steps to significantly  reduce the gap between actual aircraft maintainer staffing levels and  authorized levels, a gap which exceeded 4,000 maintainers in fiscal year  2015. However, gaps remain for experienced maintainers—those at the  5- and 7-levels who are most qualified to meet mission needs. The Air  Force’s reserve component has also experienced aircraft maintainer  staffing gaps over the past 8 fiscal years, although the Air National  Guard’s gaps have been more consistent and significant than those of the  Air Force Reserve Command.

The Air Force Has Made Significant Reductions to Overall Aircraft Maintainer Staffing Gaps

Since fiscal year 2016, the Air Force has taken steps to significantly  reduce overall enlisted aircraft maintainer staffing gaps. According to our  analysis of Air Force data, for all aircraft maintenance specialties  combined, the Air Force reduced the gap between actual staffing levels  and authorized levels from a peak of 4,016 maintainers (94 percent of  authorized levels filled) in fiscal year 2015 to 745 maintainers (99 percent)  in fiscal year 2017. In addition to a reduction in overall gaps, the number  of maintenance specialties experiencing staffing gaps also decreased  over this period. Specifically, while 12 maintenance specialties had actual  staffing levels that were less than 90 percent of authorized levels in fiscal  year 2015, only 4 did in fiscal year 2017. Additionally, in fiscal year  2017, actual staffing levels for 18 of the Air Force’s maintenance  specialties met or exceeded authorized levels.

While the Air Force had a surplus of 1,705 maintainers in fiscal year 2010  (103 percent of authorized levels filled), actual staffing levels decreased  to 99 percent of authorized levels in fiscal year 2011, and continued to  decrease through fiscal year 2015. Air Force officials attributed these  staffing gaps to an increase in authorized positions—due to the  acquisition of the F-35 and increased maintenance needs for legacy  aircraft, such as the F-15, F-16, and B-52—and a decrease in actual  staffing levels, due to a reduction in end-strength from fiscal years 2014  through 2015. These officials stated that the Air Force reduced its actual maintainer staffing levels through involuntary separations and reduced  accessions due, in part, to the planned divestiture of the A-10 and other  aircraft. However, these officials stated that the divestiture did not occur,  which contributed to further staffing gaps.

Since fiscal year 2016, the Air Force has taken a number of steps to  reduce aircraft maintainer staffing gaps, such as increasing accessions  and, beginning in fiscal year 2017, contracting out some maintenance  positions. The Air Force also issued memorandums in August 2016 and  September 2017 that restricted the ability of certain maintainers to retrain  to a career field outside of aircraft maintenance. Additionally, from fiscal  years 2016 through 2018, through the High Year of Tenure Extension  Program, the Air Force extended the maximum number of years that  maintainers in certain maintenance specialties could remain on active  duty. According to October 2018 testimony, the Secretary of the Air Force  stated that the Air Force planned to eliminate the overall maintainer  staffing gap by December 2018. Air Force officials acknowledged that  while staffing levels have started to improve since the reduction in end- strength, they anticipate that the Air Force will continue to experience  maintainer staffing gaps off and on through fiscal year 2023, when the  gap is projected to be about 500 maintainers, due, in part, to an increase  in F-35 maintenance requirements. According to these officials, this  estimate is based on recruitment cycles and retention trends, and could  change if there are any programmatic changes, such as the addition or  divestment of any aircraft types.

Over the past 8 fiscal years, the Air Force has accepted some level of risk  in deciding how much of its maintainer requirements to fund. For  example, according to our analysis, from fiscal years 2010 through 2017,  the Air Force authorized or funded 95 to 97 percent of its maintainer  requirements across maintenance specialties—that is, about 1,800 to  3,900 requirements were not funded each year. According to DOD  officials, across all Air Force specialties decisions have to be made about  how to fund requirements, and it is not uncommon for authorized levels to  fall below requirements. Figure 3 compares the Air Force’s active  component aircraft maintainer staffing levels, authorized levels, and  requirements for all maintenance specialties combined over the past 8  fiscal years.

Air Force officials acknowledged that when taking into account increases  in requirements—due in part to aging aircraft systems—maintainer  staffing gaps have been higher than reported. Specifically, while the gap  between actual and authorized staffing levels exceeded 4,000  maintainers in fiscal year 2015, when considering the number of  requirements that were not funded, the gap was about 5,800 maintainers.  Moreover, while maintainer requirements increased by about 1,200  between fiscal years 2015 and 2017, the number of authorized positions  only increased by 120.

The Air Force Continues to Have Staffing Gaps of Experienced Aircraft Maintainers

Our analysis of Air Force data found that the Air Force has had staffing  gaps of experienced aircraft maintainers—those at the 5- and 7-levels—in  7 of the past 8 fiscal years. While the Air Force’s actual maintainer  staffing levels were 99 percent of authorized levels in fiscal year 2017, 3- level maintainers were the only skill level without a staffing gap.  Specifically, in fiscal year 2017, the Air Force had a gap of 2,044 5-level  maintainers (94 percent of authorized levels filled) and a gap of 439 7- level maintainers (97 percent). However, the Air Force had a surplus of  1,745 3-level maintainers (112 percent). Figure 4 compares, by skill level,  actual aircraft maintainer staffing levels with authorized levels for all  active component maintenance specialties combined over the past 8  fiscal years.

In fiscal years 2015 and 2016, the Air Force had significant gaps of 3- level maintainers—3,536 and 2,401, respectively—due to a decrease in  accessions as part of its reduction in end strength. Air Force officials  stated that these previous staffing gaps of 3-level maintainers have  contributed to the current staffing gap of 5-level maintainers, since  maintainers who were at the 3-level in fiscal years 2015 and 2016 would  have likely upgraded to the 5-level by fiscal year 2017. These officials  stated that, similarly, the current staffing gap of 5-level maintainers is  expected to contribute to an increase in the size of the 7-level maintainer  staffing gap over the next few fiscal years.

In fiscal year 2017, certain maintenance specialties and aircraft faced  greater experience gaps than others. For example, the advanced fighter  aircraft integrated avionics specialty had a gap of 140 7-level maintainers  (70 percent of authorized levels filled) and a gap of 56 5-level  maintainers—all specifically trained on the F-35 (78 percent). In  contrast, the aerospace ground equipment specialty had a surplus of 28  7-level maintainers (104 percent). Table 2 shows authorized versus  actual staffing levels for select active component maintenance specialties  and aircraft, by skill level, in fiscal year 2017.

Air Force officials stated that it is important to have a balance of  maintainer experience levels, but noted that current experience  imbalances cannot be corrected as quickly as overall staffing gaps  because rebuilding experience takes time. As previously discussed,  depending on the maintenance specialty, the average time to upgrade  from a 3-level to a 5-level ranges from 1 to 2 years, and the average time  to upgrade from a 5-level to a 7-level after entering upgrade training is 1  to 2 years. Air Force officials highlighted that there is no substitute for  experience.

Noting that new 3-level maintainers will initially lack the experience and  proficiency needed to meet mission needs—and will require supervision  to oversee their technical progression—the Air Force has taken steps to  ensure that experienced maintainers are assigned to maintenance roles  that will improve operational readiness and influence the growing  workforce. Specifically, the Air Force Deputy Chief of Staff for Logistics,  Engineering and Force Protection issued a memorandum in July 2016 to  all of the Major Command Vice Commanders noting the importance of  maximizing utilization of experienced maintenance personnel in mission  generation and repair network jobs. Air Force officials stated that it is  critical that experienced maintainers be in the field training the surplus of  new 3-level maintainers and getting them the experience they need. In  addition, beginning in fiscal year 2017, in order to retrain 600 experienced  maintainers on the F-35, the Air Force contracted some aircraft  maintenance for three legacy aircraft in certain locations. These  maintenance contracts are to run from fiscal years 2017 through 2020.

The Air National Guard Has Had Consistent Aircraft Maintainer Staffing Gaps, While Air Force Reserve Gaps Have Been Smaller

Over the past 8 fiscal years, the Air Force’s reserve component has also  experienced aircraft maintainer staffing gaps; however, the Air National  Guard’s gaps have been more consistent and significant than those of the  Air Force Reserve Command. Figure 5 compares actual aircraft  maintainer staffing levels with authorized levels for the Air National Guard  and the Air Force Reserve Command over the past 8 fiscal years.

According to our analysis, the Air National Guard has had consistent  aircraft maintainer staffing gaps from fiscal years 2010 through 2017— ranging from 84 percent to 89 percent of authorized levels filled. In fiscal  year 2017, the Air National Guard had a staffing gap of 3,219 maintainers  (87 percent of authorized levels filled), which was primarily spread evenly  across 5- and 7-level maintainers. The Air National Guard’s staffing gaps  have remained despite a significant decrease in authorizations over this  period. Specifically, the Air National Guard’s authorized positions  decreased from 28,654 in fiscal year 2010, to 24,198 in fiscal year 2017.  Air National Guard officials stated that the decrease in authorizations is a  result of mission and aircraft changes—in particular, while the Guard has  increased its use of unmanned aerial systems, it primarily relies on  contract maintenance for those systems, reducing the need for Air Force  maintainers.

In comparison, the Air Force Reserve Command experienced smaller  maintainer staffing gaps over the past 8 fiscal years. According to our  analysis, the percent of authorized levels filled ranged from a low of 95  percent in fiscal year 2010 (a gap of 733 maintainers), to a high of 103  percent in fiscal year 2013 (a surplus of 514). In fiscal year 2017, the Air  Force Reserve Command had an overall staffing gap of 374 maintainers  (97 percent of authorized levels filled), which primarily consisted of 7-level  maintainers. Specifically, in fiscal year 2017, the Air Force Reserve  Command had a gap of 777 7-level maintainers (89 percent of authorized  levels filled), and a surplus of 566 5-level maintainers (108 percent).

Officials from both the Air National Guard and the Air Force Reserve  Command stated that aircraft maintainer staffing levels differ by wing and  location. For example, Air Force Reserve Command officials noted that  maintainer requirements have recently increased at certain Air Force  bases due to the arrival of fifth-generation fighter aircraft, and that while  those locations are working to increase their maintainer staffing levels,  they are currently below authorized levels. Air Force Reserve Command  officials identified a strong economy with multiple civilian employment  opportunities, disparities in active duty versus technician pay, and long  hiring processes as factors affecting its full-time maintainer staffing levels.  As a result, these officials noted that that they are looking at ways to  improve maintainer retention. Air National Guard officials stated that any  maintainer-specific recruitment or retention challenges would be identified  and addressed at the local level and that, as a result, they were unable to  describe challenges Air National Guard-wide.

The Air Force Has Increasingly Lost Experienced Aircraft Maintainers and Does Not Have Goals and a Strategy to Improve Retention

The Air Force has had challenges retaining experienced maintainers, with  loss rates of 5-level maintainers increasing over the past 8 fiscal years.  While the commercial aviation industry is experiencing similar staffing  challenges, the effects of these challenges on the Air Force’s maintainer  workforce are unknown. In addition, since fiscal year 2015, the Air Force  has increased retention bonuses to improve retention among certain  critical maintenance specialties, but the Air Force does not have retention  goals or an overall strategy to help retain maintainers and sustain recent  staffing level improvements.

Air Force Losses of Experienced Maintainers Have Increased since Fiscal Year 2010

The Air Force monitors maintainer retention through loss rates—the  percentage of maintainers who leave the career field or the Air Force  during a given fiscal year for reasons such as separation or retirement— and reenlistment rates, according to Air Force officials. Our analysis of Air  Force data found that overall enlisted aircraft maintainer loss rates have  remained relatively stable over the past 8 fiscal years. Specifically, overall  loss rates ranged from 9 to 10 percent—mirroring overall enlisted loss  rates across the Air Force—with the exception of fiscal year 2014, when  the loss rate was 13 percent due, in part, to reductions in end strength.  Air Force officials stated that they need to retain more maintainers than in  past fiscal years to help address experience gaps. However, gaps of  experienced maintainers—those at the 5-level—have increased.  Specifically, loss rates among 5-level maintainers increased from 9  percent in fiscal year 2010 to 12 percent in fiscal years 2016 and 2017.  Loss rates of 7-level maintainers were 8 and 9 percent in fiscal years  2016 and 2017, respectively. Figure 6 compares, by skill level, active  component maintainer loss rates with loss rates for all Air Force enlisted  personnel over the past 8 fiscal years.

While loss rates of 7-level maintainers were comparable to overall  maintainer loss rates in fiscal years 2016 and 2017, Air Force officials  expect those rates to increase over the next few fiscal years due to  changes in reenlistment behaviors and the current staffing gap of 5-level  maintainers. According to our analysis of Air Force data, overall  reenlistment rates for aircraft maintainers have generally decreased since  fiscal year 2010, from a peak rate of 82 percent in fiscal year 2011, to a  low of 73.4 percent in fiscal year 2017—similar to reenlistment rates for  all Air Force enlisted personnel. Over this period, reenlistment rates  decreased most significantly for maintainers making their first  reenlistment decision—from 70.5 percent in fiscal year 2010, to 58.3  percent in fiscal year 2017. Reenlistment rates at the second reenlistment  decision point decreased as well—from 88 percent in fiscal year 2010, to  81.3 percent in fiscal year 2017. Table 3 provides reenlistment rates for  active component aircraft maintainers over the past 8 fiscal years.

In 2015 and 2017, the Air Force conducted aircraft maintenance retention  surveys in order to identify areas of opportunity to improve career  experiences, job satisfaction, and to understand retention drivers. Air  Force officials stated that these surveys and reports are used as  informational tools, but that they are researching methods to further dive  into specific concerns. Maintainers who responded to the 2017 survey  cited job stress, overall job satisfaction, and satisfaction with the career  field as top factors influencing them to leave the Air Force. Survey  respondents also stated that military benefits, the retirement program,  and job security were the top reasons to remain in the Air Force. The  survey also found that mid-tier enlisted personnel—Senior Airmen, Staff  Sergeants, and Tech Sergeants—reported lower levels of satisfaction  with leadership than did higher enlisted ranks.

Participants in all five of our discussion groups with maintainers cited job  dissatisfaction as a factor affecting their reenlistment decisions.  Specifically, participants discussed the stress of the job, physical toll of  the work, heavy workload, and undesirable working conditions. In  addition, participants in all discussion groups noted challenges in  providing on-the-job training to the large number of 3-level maintainers  arriving at their squadrons due to staffing gaps of 5- and 7-level  maintainers—who are needed to supervise that training. Participants  stated that the lack of experienced maintainers has increased workloads  and stress levels, which they stated may negatively affect reenlistment  decisions. Some participants in all five discussion groups were interested  in retraining into other specialties outside of aircraft maintenance as a  way to continue their Air Force careers. However, as previously  discussed, since 2016, the Air Force has placed certain restrictions on  retraining to non-maintenance career fields in an effort to address  maintainer staffing challenges.

Hiring Difficulties May Exist in the Commercial Aviation Industry, but Its Effects on the Air Force’s Maintainer Workforce Are Unknown

According to our analysis of Bureau of Labor Statistics data from 2012  through 2017, unemployment rate, employment, and wage earnings for  the aircraft mechanic and service technician, and aerospace engineer  occupations were consistent with the existence of hiring difficulties. While  no single metric can be used to say whether a labor shortage exists, it is  possible to look at certain “indicators” in conjunction with views of  stakeholders. Specifically, we previously found that according to  economic literature, if a job shortage were to exist, one would expect (1) a  low unemployment rate signaling limited availability of workers in that  profession, (2) increases in employment due to increases in demand for  that occupation, and (3) increases in wages offered to draw people into  that profession. Table 4 shows these specific indicators from 2012 to  2017, since we last reported, measured using the Bureau of Labor  Statistics’ Current Population Survey.

As table 4 indicates, the direction of all three of these indicators is  consistent with difficulty in hiring of both aircraft mechanics and  aerospace engineers. However, the indicators should be viewed with  appropriate caveats. First, from 2012 to 2017, median wages for  aerospace engineers and aircraft mechanics increased at a greater  percentage than wages for all occupations, approximately 1.5 and 2.0  percent per year, respectively, compared to about 1 percent for all  occupations. However, while median wages increased for aerospace  engineers and aircraft mechanics during this entire period, it did not  increase in every year, and it exhibited swings by as much as 13 percent.  Second, from 2012 to 2017, employment for aerospace engineers and  aircraft mechanics increased by approximately 1.3 and 1.2 percent per  year, respectively. In comparison, for all occupations, employment  increased by about 2 percent per year over this period. Finally, over this  period, the average unemployment rate for aerospace engineers and  aircraft mechanics was approximately 1.5 and 2.5 percent on average,  respectively, compared to about 6 percent for all occupations.

In addition, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics Occupational  Outlook Handbook, overall employment of aircraft and avionics  equipment mechanics and technicians is projected to grow 5 percent from  2016 to 2026, about as fast as the average for all occupations. Job  opportunities are expected to be good because there will be a need to  replace those workers leaving the occupation. Industry stakeholders we  spoke with anticipate similar growth in demand for labor, and cited ways  companies were recruiting maintainers into the industry, such as raising  wages, incorporating additional training, and paying maintainers during  their airframe and power plant certificate coursework.

The effects of the commercial aviation industry’s hiring difficulties on the  Air Force’s maintainer workforce are unknown. Air Force officials stated  that the Air Force has not assessed the effects, and that while some  maintainers will leave the Air Force to work for the commercial aviation  industry, they do not believe it is an overarching issue. However, Air  National Guard and Air Force Reserve Command officials noted that a  base’s location, in particular its proximity to commercial aviation industry  opportunities, may affect its ability to recruit and retain maintainers. While  the industry stakeholders we spoke with noted that military maintainers  are attractive to the commercial aviation industry because of their  previous training, work ethic, and discipline, they also noted challenges in  recruiting military maintainers. Specifically, one stakeholder stated that  many military maintainers require similar training for private sector  positions as their non-military peers, citing to the specificity of training  military maintainers receive compared to the broader approach taken by  the commercial aviation sector.

Only one study we identified through our literature search examined the  potential effects of the commercial aviation industry—specifically the  commercial airlines—on Air Force aircraft maintainer staffing levels. This  study, published in 2016 by RAND and reviewing data from fiscal years  2004 through 2013, did not estimate the effect of any specific  development in the commercial aviation industry on the Air Force.  However, it identified several factors that suggest that the effects, if any,  are likely to be limited. It found this based on four indicators: (1) the Air  Force kept steady maintainer retention rates while the airline maintainer  population fluctuated over the same period of time; (2) the Air Force  offered competitive maintainer salaries compared with several airlines,  making it unlikely that maintainers would separate or retire for better  earnings potential alone; (3) few Air Force maintainers seemed to be  pursuing airframe and power plant certification, which is often a  prerequisite to employment in the airline industry; and (4) on average,  there were considerably more qualified Air Force maintainers separating  or retiring than projected airline maintenance jobs available. However, the  report focused only on the commercial airlines. Air Force officials stated  that they are more likely to experience outside recruitment of maintainers  from defense contractors than from commercial airlines.

Participants in four of our five discussion groups with maintainers cited  better pay as a reason to transition from the Air Force to the commercial  aviation industry. They also noted consistent schedules, 8-hour work  days, and overtime pay as additional benefits. However, participants in all  of our discussion groups also discussed an interest in careers outside of  aircraft maintenance, such as police work, firefighting, cyber security,  information technology, and real estate, among others.

For maintainers who want to pursue a career in the commercial aviation  industry upon separation or retirement from the Air Force, DOD has  undertaken several actions to facilitate airframe and power plant  certification of its servicemembers. For example, as previously discussed,  since 2002 the Community College of the Air Force has administered the  Federal Aviation Administration-approved Joint Services Council program  that, upon completion, confers a certificate of eligibility to take the  airframe and power plant exam. According to Community College of the  Air Force data, in fiscal year 2017, there were 95 graduates from the Joint  Services Council’s airframe and power plant preparation program. Table  5 shows the number of Air Force personnel that enrolled in and graduated  from the Joint Services Council’s airframe and power plant program from  fiscal years 2010 through 2017.

Air Force officials noted a decrease in enrollments since fiscal year 2015  due to additional enrollment requirements, including completing initial  coursework. From fiscal years 2015 through 2017, about 900 personnel  used Air Force funding for airframe and power plant certificates through  the Air Force Credentialing Opportunities On-Line program, which was  established in fiscal year 2015.

The Air Force Has Increased Its Use of Retention Bonuses for Some Maintenance Specialties, but Does Not Have Retention Goals or a Maintainer Specific Strategy to Improve Retention

The Air Force has increased its use of retention bonuses since fiscal year  2015 to help retain critical maintenance specialties. Per DOD Instruction  1304.31, the secretary of a military department may use service retention  bonuses to obtain the reenlistment or voluntary extension of an enlistment  in exchange for a military service member’s agreement to serve for a  specified period in at least one of the following categories: a designated  military skill, career field, unit, or grade; or to meet some other condition  of service. In fiscal year 2015, the Air Force awarded 1,590 bonuses to  aircraft maintainers in certain specialties, totaling more than $60 million.  Bonuses increased in fiscal year 2016—with 2,415 bonuses awarded at a  total cost of more than $87 million. Bonuses decreased slightly in fiscal  year 2017—with 1,797 bonuses awarded primarily to 5-level maintainers,  at a total cost of over $65 million. Figure 7 shows the increases in the number and total costs of Air Force active component retention bonuses  awarded to aircraft maintainers over the past 8 fiscal years.

According to Air Force officials, retention bonuses remain a critical  incentive for reenlistment. Participants in four of our five discussion  groups with maintainers highlighted retention bonuses as a motivating  factor to remain in the Air Force. Some participants stated that they were  a major factor in their decision-making, while others were unsure of the  availability or amount of bonuses, making it difficult to appropriately  consider them in their decisions.

Air Force officials have stated that they need to retain more maintainers  than in past fiscal years to help address experience gaps, but the Air  Force has not established retention goals for maintainers. Standards for  Internal Control in the Federal Government states that management  should establish and operate monitoring activities and evaluate the  results. In addition, the Standards provide that, in reviewing actual  performance, management tracks achievements and compares them to  plans, goals, and objectives. While the Air Force has mechanisms to  monitor the health of the maintenance career field, such as through loss  and reenlistment rates, it has not developed annual retention goals for  maintainers. As a result, the Air Force cannot identify how many 5-level  and 7-level maintainers it needs to retain to support new 3-level  maintainers in training and certification of flight line work. Given increases  in losses of experienced maintainers and decreasing reenlistment rates,  the Air Force faces challenges in managing the overall maintenance  workforce, including ensuring that there are enough experienced  maintainers to fulfill mission and training needs. Without annual retention  goals—for both loss and reenlistment rates—the Air Force cannot assess  how many maintainers it needs to retain each year, by skill level, to  sustain recent staffing level improvements and, ultimately, to ensure the  health of its maintenance workforce.

The Air Force also lacks a retention strategy to focus its efforts in  retaining maintainers. As previously discussed, the Air Force has  conducted aircraft maintenance retention surveys to gauge the health of  the workforce and identify opportunities to improve the career field, but Air  Force officials have stated that these surveys are currently used only for  informational purposes. In addition, while the Air Force offers retention  bonuses for certain maintenance specialties—and has extended the  maximum number of years maintainers in certain specialties can remain  on active duty through the High Year of Tenure Extension Program— according to Air Force officials, it does not have a maintainer specific  strategy or other initiatives (either monetary or non-monetary) that  address the factors the Air Force has identified through its biennial  surveys as negatively influencing maintainer retention. A key principle of  strategic workforce planning is developing strategies that are tailored to  address gaps in number, deployment, and alignment of human capital  approaches for enabling and sustaining the contributions of all critical  skills and competencies.

Without a retention strategy—including initiatives that are tailored to the  specific needs and challenges of maintainers—the Air Force may be  missing opportunities to retain experienced 5- and 7-level maintainers,  who are needed to train the recent increase of new 3-level maintainers in  the field. According to participants from our discussion groups with  maintainers, increases in 3-level maintainers could negatively affect  retention of experienced maintainers if this increase continues to affect  their workloads. While the Air Force has some tools in place to monitor  retention and identify factors affecting reenlistment decisions, such as its  retention surveys, without a retention strategy to address concerns raised  in these surveys, and goals against which to measure progress, it may  not be able to sustain recent staffing level improvements or improve the  overall health of the maintenance workforce as effectively.

The Air Force Has Consistently Met Technical School Completion Rate Goals for Aircraft Maintainers

Over the past 8 fiscal years, the Air Force has consistently met overall  aircraft maintainer technical school completion rate goals. However, after  technical school, additional on-the-job training is required to produce a  fully qualified maintainer. In addition, the Air Force reserve component’s  programmed technical school completions have consistently exceeded  actual completions over this period.

The Air Force Has Met Overall Technical School Completion Rate Goals for Aircraft Maintainers Since Fiscal Year 2010

Our analysis of Air Force data found that the Air Force consistently met  technical school completion rate goals from fiscal years 2010 through  2017. According to Air Education and Training Command (AETC)  officials, AETC established a maintainer technical school completion rate  goal for the active component of 90 percent—that is, the number of actual  technical school completions compared to the number of programmed or  expected completions. According to AETC officials, the goal is not  documented, but it has been in place since at least fiscal year 2010 and is  intended to measure the health and well-being of the training program. In  fiscal year 2017, the completion rate was 97 percent, with all but two  maintenance specialties meeting their goals. According to AETC  officials, there are a number of reasons a particular maintenance  specialty may not meet its technical school completion rate goals, such as  low technical school entry rates, security clearance delays, and  challenging course topics. Figure 8 shows the Air Force’s active  component technical school completion rates for all maintenance  specialties combined over the past 8 fiscal years.

In fiscal year 2017, approximately 9,600 active component maintainers  completed technical school, an increase from about 7,200 and 5,700 in  fiscal years 2016 and 2015, respectively. While increased technical  school completions help to address overall aircraft maintainer staffing  gaps, they cannot immediately resolve staffing imbalances across  experience levels. Air Force officials noted that while they track the  number of maintainers they are producing by technical school  completions (the number of new 3-level maintainers), maintainers are not  fully qualified for the job until they are 5-levels, which requires, as  previously discussed, at least a year of on-the-job training, among other  things. Technical school instructors agreed that while technical school is  important for teaching basic concepts, on-the-job training is what  produces a fully-qualified maintainer.

AETC officials stated that the technical schools continue to have the  capacity to meet completion rate goals even with the increase in students,  but that they have experienced significant challenges in recent years  receiving enough instructors in a timely manner—both civilian and  military—and getting them qualified to teach. These officials stated that  this is a result of issues with the formula that determines instructor  staffing needs, the instructor staffing process for military personnel, and  civilian hiring delays, among other things. According to AETC officials,  they have been able to consistently meet completion rate goals despite  these challenges by waiving some course requirements for multiple  instructors (except when there are safety concerns), contracting some  instruction, and assigning temporary duty personnel to serve as  instructors. These officials noted that while those actions have allowed  them to continue to meet their mission, they have also masked the  severity of the instructor staffing challenges and increased existing  instructors’ stress and workloads. This was confirmed by the technical  school instructors with which we spoke. Additionally, AETC officials noted  challenges with aging infrastructure and hangars, and in obtaining high  fidelity, realistic aircraft and trainers. However, they did highlight a recent  success in acquiring updated avionics trainers.

Over the past few fiscal years, AETC has conducted annual field  interviews with technical school graduates and graduate supervisors to  evaluate the technical school training program. Specifically, AETC uses  the interviews to gauge satisfaction with the graduates’ abilities to perform  tasks required in the career field, and to identify areas to improve training  quality or revise training standards. In the memorandum resulting from  the fiscal year 2017 field interviews, AETC made a number of  recommendations to improve maintainer technical school training, such  as improving knowledge and task retention by increasing hands-on  repetition and decreasing delays between technical school and a  maintainer’s first assignment, reexamining aspects of the technical school  training curriculum, and improving instruction related to maintenance  forms and technical orders.

The memorandum also noted that while there are initiatives that the  technical schools can undertake to increase overall satisfaction, there are  some disconnects between supervisor expectations in the field and the  training program that should be resolved. Technical school instructors  agreed that there is a disconnect between what students learn in  technical school and what their supervisors in the field expect them to  have learned in technical school versus on the job. The memorandum  identified opportunities to clarify these expectations, such as workshops  to identify training requirements.

The Air Force Reserve Component’s Programmed Technical School Completions Have Consistently Exceeded Actual Completions

Over the past 8 fiscal years, the Air Force reserve component’s  programmed technical school completions for aircraft maintainers have  consistently exceeded actual completions. Specifically, according to our  analysis, from fiscal years 2010 through 2017, the Air National Guard’s  actual technical school completions, as compared to programmed  completions, ranged from about 60 to 95 percent. Similarly, the Air Force  Reserve Command’s completion rates ranged from about 50 to 85  percent. The highest completion rate for both was in fiscal year 2017.  According to Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve Command  officials, they do not have technical school completion rate goals like the  active component since they also recruit prior servicemembers, as  discussed below. Table 6 compares the Air Force reserve component’s  programmed versus actual technical school completions over the past 8  fiscal years.

According to an AETC official, it is common for the reserve component to  have significantly more programmed completions than actual technical  school completions in a given fiscal year. For example, this official stated  that the Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve Command program  their training spaces 2 to 3 years in advance and it can be difficult to  anticipate training needs. Specifically, Air National Guard officials stated  that the number of training spaces requested each year are to fill  vacancies and that those vacancies are filled by both prior  servicemembers (who may have already attended maintainer technical  school and do not need to do so again) and non-prior servicemembers  (who will need to attend technical school). An AETC official noted that the  number of personnel that will fall into each category each year is difficult  to anticipate. For example, according to Air Force Reserve Command  officials, the number of non-prior service accessions has decreased over  the past 8 fiscal years, accounting for about 33 percent of accessions in  fiscal year 2017, a decrease from about 43 percent in fiscal year 2010. Air  National Guard officials stated that if they do not program enough training  spaces, it can be difficult to add spaces later.

Air National Guard officials stated that they have been conservative in  programming training spaces since fiscal year 2016—to minimize unfilled  spaces—which, along with high maintainer turnover, is reflected in  increased completion rates. Specifically, in fiscal year 2017, the Air  National Guard programmed 1,528 completions and the number of actual  completions was 1,418, amounting to a completion rate of 93 percent—its  highest rate over the past 8 fiscal years. Air National Guard officials noted  that the training spaces it did not fill over the past 2 fiscal years were  generally due to last minute cancellations for health, family, or civilian  employment issues. AETC officials stated that they can fill unused  reserve component training spaces with active duty maintainers or  students from international partners, which has provided AETC more  flexibility to increase active duty maintainer training over the past few  fiscal years.

The Air Force has significantly reduced overall aircraft maintainer staffing  gaps since fiscal year 2016, in part by increasing accessions. While the  Air Force has consistently met its technical school completion rate goals  for newly accessed aircraft maintainers, it continues to have staffing gaps  of experienced maintainers—who are needed to supervise and provide  on-the-job training to those new maintainers following technical school.  Air Force officials have highlighted the need to retain more aircraft  maintainers to help address experience gaps, but losses of experienced  maintainers have increased since fiscal year 2010, and the Air Force  expects losses to continue to increase for certain maintainers over the  next few fiscal years. While the Air Force has increased its use of  retention bonuses for some critical maintenance specialties, it does not  have annual retention goals for aircraft maintainers or a maintainer- specific retention strategy to help it meet such goals and to sustain recent  staffing level improvements. As a result, the Air Force may continue to  face challenges in managing its largest enlisted career field and may miss  opportunities to retain a sufficient number of experienced maintainers to  meet mission needs.

We are making the following two recommendations to DOD:  The Secretary of the Air Force should develop annual retention goals for  aircraft maintainers by skill level—for both loss and reenlistment rates—in  alignment with authorized levels. (Recommendation 1)

The Secretary of the Air Force should develop an aircraft maintainer  retention strategy, including initiatives that are tailored to the specific  needs and challenges of maintainers to help ensure that the Air Force  can meet and retain required staffing levels. (Recommendation 2)

In written comments on a draft of this report, the Air Force concurred with  both of the recommendations. The Air Force also noted initial actions it  has taken to develop an aircraft maintainer retention strategy. The Air  Force’s comments are reprinted in appendix III.

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional  committees, the Acting Secretary of Defense, and the Secretary of the Air  Force. In addition, this report is available at no charge on the GAO  website at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any questions regarding this report, please  contact me at (202) 512-3604 or farrellb@gao.gov. Contact points for our  Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on  the last page of this report. GAO staff who made significant contributions  to this report are listed in appendix IV.

To assess the extent to which the Air Force had aircraft maintainer  staffing gaps, we compared staffing levels authorized by the Air Force for  enlisted aircraft maintainers—for the active and reserve components— with the actual number of maintainers available to staff those positions for  fiscal years 2010 through 2017. We selected this timeframe to capture  staffing levels before and after the Air Force’s fiscal year 2014 reduction  in end strength, and fiscal year 2017 was the most recent year for which  complete data were available at the time of our review. Specifically, we  analyzed the data to identify overall maintainer staffing gaps, as well as  any gaps by maintenance specialty and skill level. In addition, we  compared maintainer personnel requirements to authorized staffing  levels—the number of those requirements that are funded—for the overall  maintainer population, each maintenance specialty, and each skill level.  To assess the reliability of the Air Force’s requirements, authorized  staffing levels, and actual staffing levels (for both the active and reserve  components), we reviewed related documentation; assessed the data for  errors, omissions, and inconsistencies; and interviewed officials. We  determined that the data were sufficiently reliable to describe the Air  Force’s aircraft maintainer staffing levels and associated gaps from fiscal  years 2010 through 2017. Additionally, we conducted interviews with  relevant Air Force, Air National Guard, and Air Force Reserve Command  officials to identify reasons for staffing challenges and actions the Air  Force has taken to address them.

To assess the extent to which the Air Force experienced attrition of  aircraft maintainers, we calculated maintainer loss rates—the number of  maintainers who leave the career field or the Air Force within the fiscal  year (for reasons such as separation or retirement) over the number of  maintainers at the start of the fiscal year—for fiscal years 2010 through  2017. We calculated loss rates for the overall maintainer population as  well as by skill level and maintenance specialty for the active and reserve  components. We also analyzed overall aircraft maintainer reenlistment  rates—the number of maintainers reenlisting each fiscal year over the  number of maintainers eligible to reenlist—for the active component for  fiscal years 2010 through 2017. To assess the reliability of the Air Force’s  maintainer loss and reenlistment rate data, we reviewed related  documentation; assessed the data for errors, omissions, and  inconsistencies; and interviewed officials. We determined that the data  were sufficiently reliable to describe the Air Force’s aircraft maintainer  loss and reenlistment rates from fiscal years 2010 through 2017.

In addition, we reviewed the Air Force’s 2015 and 2017 aircraft maintainer  retention survey analyses and conducted discussion groups with a non- generalizable sample of aircraft maintainers to obtain their views on  factors affecting maintainer retention, on-the-job training capacity, and  commercial aviation industry opportunities, among other things. We  selected Tinker Air Force Base in Oklahoma and Eglin Air Force Base in  Florida as the locations for these discussion groups based on geographic  diversity, base size, and the types of aircraft maintained at each base. At  each location, we moderated two to three discussion groups with aircraft  maintainers for a total of five discussion groups ranging from between 3  and 12 maintainers per group. While these discussion groups allowed us  to learn about many important aspects of the aircraft maintenance  workforce from the perspective of aircraft maintainers, they were  designed to provide anecdotal information and not results that would be  representative of all the Air Force’s more than 100,000 aircraft  maintainers as of fiscal year 2017.

To review the state of the commercial labor market for aircraft mechanics  and aerospace engineers, we analyzed data from the Department of  Labor’s Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Current Population Survey on the  unemployment rate, employment, and median weekly earnings from 2012  through 2017, in accordance with economic literature we reviewed for a  prior report. These data can be used as indicators of whether labor  market conditions are consistent with a shortage. We chose this period  because we had previously reported on the data from 2000 through 2012,  and 2017 was the most recent data at the time of our review. We  reviewed documentation about the Bureau of Labor Statistics data and  the systems that produced them, as well as our prior report that used the  data. Based on prior testing of the data from these systems, we  determined the data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our  indicator analysis to provide context on the labor market. We also  reviewed the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Occupational Outlook for Aircraft  and Avionics Equipment Mechanics and Technicians for 2016 to 2026 to  determine anticipated future workforce trends. In addition, we conducted  interviews with four commercial aviation industry stakeholders regarding  any imbalances in demand and supply, and actions the industry is taking  to address them. Specifically, we conducted interviews with officials from  the Aeronautical Repair Station Association, the Aerospace Industries  Association, Aerotek, and the General Aviation Manufacturers  Association. We selected three of these organizations based on our  previous work and one based on a recommendation from one of the three  organizations.

To determine what is known about the extent to which the commercial  aviation industry affects the Air Force’s aircraft maintainer staffing levels,  we conducted a literature search and review to identify relevant studies.  Specifically, we conducted a literature search for studies published in  books, reports, peer-reviewed journals, and dissertations since fiscal year  2010. We chose fiscal year 2010 as a starting point so that the scope of  the search would match the timeframe for which we analyzed Air Force  maintainer loss rates. We searched five databases, including ProQuest,  Scopus, and EBSCO. Our search used Boolean search phrases,  including variations of words such as aviation, maintenance, and  retention. We identified and screened 49 studies using a multi-step  process to gauge their relevance and evaluate their methodology. We  excluded studies that did not specifically focus on our objective, military  maintainers, or the U.S. commercial aviation industry. We retained 1  study after screening and reviewed its methodology, findings, and  limitations. Three GAO staff (two analysts and an economist) were  involved in the screening and a systematic review of the study, which was  determined to be sufficiently relevant and methodologically rigorous.

We also analyzed data on the number of Air Force personnel completing  the Joint Services Aviation Maintenance Technician Certification Council  (Joint Services Council) airframe and power plant certificate program from  fiscal years 2010 through 2017, and the number of Air Force personnel  receiving airframe and power plant certificate funding from the  Community College of the Air Force’s Air Force Credentialing  Opportunities On-line program from fiscal years 2015 through 2017. We  selected this timeframe because the Air Force’s airframe and power plant  funding program began in fiscal year 2015, and fiscal year 2017 was the  most recent data available at the time of our review. To assess the  reliability of the Air Force’s airframe and power plant certificate program  data, we interviewed officials. We determined that the data were  sufficiently reliable to describe the number of Air Force personnel  completing the Joint Services Council’s airframe and power plant  certificate program from fiscal years 2010 through 2017 and the number  of personnel receiving funding from fiscal years 2015 through 2017.

To assess the extent to which the Air Force has taken steps to help retain  maintainers, we analyzed the number and total costs of selective  retention bonuses (retention bonuses) that the Air Force awarded, by  maintenance specialty and skill level, from fiscal years 2010 through 2017  for the active and reserve components. We normalized the cost data to  constant fiscal year 2017 data. To assess the reliability of the Air Force’s  retention bonus data, we reviewed related documentation; assessed the  data for errors, omissions, and inconsistencies; and interviewed officials.  We determined that the data were sufficiently reliable to describe the  number and total costs of the Air Force’s aircraft maintainer retention  bonuses from fiscal years 2010 through 2017. In addition, we conducted  interviews with relevant Air Force officials regarding retention goals and  monetary and non-monetary incentives to improve maintainer retention,  and Department of Defense officials regarding retention bonuses. We  compared this information to Standards for Internal Control in the Federal  Government related to monitoring activities and key principles of strategic  workforce planning that we have identified in our prior work, such as  developing strategies that are tailored to address gaps in numbers of  people, skills, and competencies.

To assess the extent to which the Air Force met its annual technical  school completion rate goals for aircraft maintainers, we calculated  technical school completion rates—the number of aircraft maintainers  completing technical school compared to the number of programmed or  expected completions—for the overall maintainer population and each  maintenance specialty for the active component, for fiscal years 2010  through 2017. We compared those completion rates to the Air Education  and Training Command (AETC) established active component completion  rate goal. For the Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve Command,  we compared programmed completions to actual completions to  determine the extent to which they met their technical school training  needs. To assess the reliability of the technical school completion data  (for both the active and reserve components), we assessed the data for  errors, omissions, and inconsistencies, and interviewed officials. We  determined that the data were sufficiently reliable to describe the Air  Force’s aircraft maintainer technical school completion rates from fiscal  years 2010 through 2017, rounded to the nearest hundreds up to fiscal  year 2013, and more-precisely from fiscal years 2014 and beyond.

In addition, we observed maintainer technical school training—both  classroom-based and hands-on—as well as training equipment at  Sheppard Air Force Base in Texas and Eglin Air Force Base in Florida.  We selected these locations because they are two of the primary  locations where aircraft maintainer technical school training occurs.  Specifically, according to Air Force officials, the majority of aircraft  maintainers receive at least a portion of their technical school training at  Sheppard Air Force Base, and all F-35-specific maintainer training occurs  at Eglin Air Force Base. Additionally, as part of our previously discussed  non-generalizable sample of discussion groups with aircraft maintainers,  we obtained maintainers’ perspectives on technical school and on-the-job  training. We also reviewed training policies as well as other  documentation, such as Career Field Education and Training Plans and  training evaluations. Finally, we conducted interviews with technical  school instructors and supervisors about the maintainer training process  as well as AETC, Air National Guard, and Air Force Reserve Command  officials about training challenges and programmed training needs.

We conducted this performance audit from April 2018 to February 2019 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain  sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that  the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives.

Appendix II: Air Force Reserve Component Aircraft Maintainer Retention from Fiscal Years 2010-2017

According to Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve Command  officials, they monitor retention of aircraft maintainers through loss rates— the number of maintainers who leave the career field or the Air Force  within the fiscal year, over the number of maintainers at the start of the  fiscal year—and have used selective retention bonuses (retention  bonuses) and taken other actions to improve retention.

According to our analysis of Air National Guard data, aircraft maintainer  loss rates have fluctuated over the past 8 fiscal years. For example, loss  rates increased significantly for all maintenance specialties and skill levels  combined, from 12 percent in fiscal year 2010, to 36 percent and 30  percent in fiscal years 2012 and 2013, respectively. While Air National  Guard maintainer loss rates decreased from fiscal years 2014 through  2017, they remained higher than fiscal year 2010 rates. Table 7 provides  loss rates for Air National Guard aircraft maintainers over the past 8 fiscal  years.

Air National Guard officials stated that maintainer loss rates are often  location dependent, and that retention bonuses are the primary tool used  to improve retention. According to these officials, while the Air National  Guard looks at nationwide staffing when determining which occupational  specialties are eligible for bonuses, some locations may have more  critical needs than others. The number of retention bonuses that the Air  National Guard has awarded to aircraft maintainers has decreased over  the past 8 fiscal years, while the total cost has increased. Specifically, in  fiscal year 2010, the Air National Guard awarded 1,587 retention bonuses  at a total cost of $4,580,295. However, in fiscal year 2017, the Air  National Guard awarded 653 retention bonuses at a total cost of  $5,373,000. Over the past 8 fiscal years, the majority of its retention  bonuses were awarded to 7-level maintainers.

The Air Force Reserve Command’s aircraft maintainer loss rates over the  past 8 fiscal years have ranged from 10 to 13 percent. In addition, the  loss rates of 5- and 7-level maintainers have been similar to the loss rates  of all skill levels combined over this period. Similar to the Air National  Guard, Air Force Reserve Command officials stated that maintainer  staffing challenges and loss rates are partly location dependent, though  they also cited opportunities and higher pay in the civilian labor market;  high operations tempo; lack of career growth, opportunities, and flexibility;  and pay disparities with the active component as factors affecting  retention. Table 8 provides loss rates for Air Force Reserve Command  aircraft maintainers over the past 8 fiscal years.

The Air Force Reserve Command has also used retention bonuses to  help improve retention. Specifically, over the past 8 fiscal years, the Air  Force Reserve Command has increased the number of retention bonuses  awarded and their total costs. For example, in fiscal year 2012, the Air  Force Reserve Command awarded 15 retention bonuses totaling  $242,593. In fiscal year 2015, it increased to 572 bonuses awarded  totaling $8,913,229. In fiscal year 2017, the Air Force Reserve Command  awarded 317 retention bonuses at a total cost of $4,550,000. According  to Air Force Reserve Command officials, the Air Force Reserve  Command has taken a number of steps to help improve technician  retention, such as paid permanent change of station and student loan  repayment. These officials stated that they are also currently working to  improve career path options and medical benefits for technicians. Further,  Air Force Reserve Command officials highlighted Human Capital  Management 2.0 as an effort focused on balancing the human capital  supply and demand across the Air Force Reserve Command, including  improving recruitment and retention.

Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Defense

Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

In addition to the contacts named above, Lori Atkinson (Assistant  Director), Benjamin Bolitzer, Molly Callaghan, Timothy Carr, Christopher  Curran, Matthew Dobratz, Amie Lesser, Grant Mallie, Mike Silver, Carter  Stevens, and Lillian M. Yob made significant contributions to this report.

DOD Depot Workforce: Services Need to Assess the Effectiveness of  Their Initiatives to Maintain Critical Skills. GAO-19-51. Washington, D.C.:  December 14, 2018.

Air Force Readiness: Actions Needed to Rebuild Readiness and Prepare  for the Future. GAO-19-120T. Washington, D.C.: October 10, 2018.

Military Aviation Mishaps: DOD Needs to Improve Its Approach for  Collecting and Analyzing Data to Manage Risks. GAO-18-586R.  Washington, D.C.: August 15, 2018.

Military Personnel: Collecting Additional Data Could Enhance Pilot  Retention Efforts. GAO-18-439. Washington, D.C.: June 21, 2018.

Military Personnel: DOD Needs to Reevaluate Fighter Pilot Workforce  Requirements. GAO-18-113. Washington, D.C.: April 11, 2018.

Department of Defense: Actions Needed to Address Five Key Mission  Challenges. GAO-17-369. Washington, D.C.: June 13, 2017.

Military Compensation: Additional Actions Are Needed to Better Manage  Special and Incentive Pay Programs. GAO-17-39. Washington, D.C.:  February 3, 2017.

Unmanned Aerial Systems: Air Force and Army Should Improve Strategic  Human Capital Planning for Pilot Workforces. GAO-17-53. Washington,  D.C.: January 31, 2017.

Air Force Training: Further Analysis and Planning Needed to Improve  Effectiveness. GAO-16-864. Washington, D.C.: September 19, 2016.

Unmanned Aerial Systems: Further Actions Needed to Fully Address Air  Force and Army Pilot Workforce Challenges. GAO-16-527T. Washington,  D.C.: March 16, 2016.

Unmanned Aerial Systems: Actions Needed to Improve DOD Pilot  Training. GAO-15-461. Washington, D.C.: May 14, 2015.

Air Force: Actions Needed to Strengthen Management of Unmanned  Aerial System Pilots. GAO-14-316. Washington, D.C.: April 10, 2014.

Aviation Workforce: Current and Future Availability of Airline Pilots.  GAO-14-232. Washington, D.C.: February 28, 2014.

Aviation Workforce: Current and Future Availability of Aviation  Engineering and Maintenance Professionals. GAO-14-237. Washington,  D.C.: February 28, 2014.

Military Cash Incentives: DOD Should Coordinate and Monitor Its Efforts  to Achieve Cost-Effective Bonuses and Special Pays. GAO-11-631.  Washington, D.C.: June 21, 2011.

Aircraft maintenance is the Air Force’s largest enlisted career field, with more than 100,000 active and reserve maintainers to ensure its fleet is safe and ready to operate.

However, the Air Force still needs more aircraft maintainers—particularly those with more skills and experience. It has struggled to retain the ones it has, in part due to the workload and stress from not having enough experienced maintainers on staff.

The Air Force uses retention bonuses to keep maintainers with certain critical skills, but does not have a comprehensive strategy or goals to help retain experienced maintainers. We recommended it develop both.