Seniority versus meritocracy

[jafar]

I 'd like to re open the debate.
What fit best an airline & its pilots in today's competitive environment, what are the different system in use, what is YOUR opinion about it.

I am a pilot and worked in airlines with and without seniority.

[wobblyprop]

i'm not an airline pilot yet, but based on my experience of a consultancy that ran on meritocracy:

The company sold its self on meritocracy, but staff were given the good projects and treated according to who they went out drinking with. Essentially, if you were in with the in crowd it was good, but for those that weren't life was not all roses.

I can see that seniority at least gives those hard workers who might keep themselves to themselves a chance for the command course rather than being passed over by the "in crowd".

[Basil]

No contest - got to be seniority. Goes some way to cutting out favouritism and, in any case, you don't get a command unless you shape up and pass the course.

[A-V-8R]

Meritocracy will never work in the long run. Politics will get in the way, as it always has.

The only difference between brown nosing and ass kissing is depth perception.

Merit is such an arbitrary thing; Management thinks landing with 45 minutes of fuel "meritable" for the fuel tankering it saves, a good Captain will use local knowledge to add fuel so he doesn't have to divert or land short. You don't save fuel, you block with it.

Managements "Merit" is a pilot who doesn't use sick leave", A good pilot won't show up feeling under the weather and infecting other crews.

"Merit" is you the pilot flying for peanuts so the Company can craft business deals outside of your airline so they can pay managers finder's fees and Golden Parachutes to themselves.

Too many of you young punks will fly for nothing just to wear the uniform.

Skies are full of pilots flying without a price on their work everywhere, now. Better jobs can be found outside of aviation; many furloughed pilots in the US are finding work outside of Aviation rather than to work for $20 thousand a yearflying an RJ.

And at my airline of 7000 pilots many narrow body first officers are taking leaves of absences or even quitting rather than fly 95 hours a month with 11 days off a month, of which three days off are moveable at the crew desks discretion.

[Dan Winterland]

Seniority is the union's favourite - and the management's! I need not explain why it's the union's, but the management like it as it keeps the workforce static. A Captain will not leave his well paid job to go to another if he has to re-start as a lowly FO.

That's until he's made redundant!

[FlyingForFun]

A view from someone who hasn't ever (yet) worked in the airline industry:

Meritocracy is, in general, a good thing. In the small companies that I've worked in and heard of, it has worked perfectly. In larger companies, politics do come in to play, especially within management, but at most levels below senior management people usually work in small enough teams that those who are responsible for promotion know those they are promoting sufficiently well for meritocracy to still work well.

However, I can understand why it doesn't work in the airline industry. Management don't fly with the line pilots, so they have no way of knowing who's the best.

A-V-8R gives good examples of why trying to measure a pilot's ability statistically won't work. The only way to tell how good a pilot is, is to fly with him. And it's just not possible for a senior pilot to fly with every line pilot on a regular enough basis to know who's good and who isn't.

Alternatively, you could judge pilots on their performance in the simulator, when it's much easier to measure their skill as a pilot than it is in a real cockpit. But that would turn sim sessions from a training exercise to a test, and discourage pilots from trying to spend time improving on things they're not so good at in favour of them trying to demonstrate the things they know they are good at. This would definitely be a bad move.

I'd be interested to hear from current commercial pilots whether they agree with this or not, because as I said this is a view that I've formed from a position of total ignorance.

FFF
-------------

[B Sousa]

Life is Funny, Nothings Fair............Deal with it.

[GlueBall]

FlyingForFun...you're from the UK, I'm not and I don't know whether the pilots at outfits like BA or VS are rostered or whether they can choose their lines of flying according to seniority.

But in the USA seniority rules. Pilots are not "rostered," (arbitrarily assigned flights), they bid for available monthly lines of flying (trips) as published by the company. Union contracts usually include a "sheduling committee" which, needless to say, usually is made up of senior pilots who endeavor to build favorable trip combinations.

What that implies is that a senior pilot probably isn't going to bid a night flight from ANC to ORD in the dead of winter, so as to give an opportunity for a junior pilot to bid a choice day flight from LAX to sunny HNL. It implies that a very junior pilot may not see HNL for many years; it implies that a very junior pilot could be stuck in Africa, living out of his suitcase most days of every month for many years.

Well, that's just the way the cookie crumbles. Why should a junior pilot who may be a favorite of management be given choices over pilots senior to him?

Seniority does not mean that a copilot "next-in-line" will automatically be upgraded. We have copilots who are senior to captains, and we also have permanent copilots.

[LOMCEVAK]

In theory, a meritocracy has the advantage that a company can use the most capable person available to fill a given position thus enhancing productivity/efficiency/safety. It also provides an incentive to an individual to work hard, gain experience and attempt to improve his ability. However, for it to work an unbiased system of continuous assessment is needed. On a military squadron this can happen as squadron pilots work side by side with each other every day, and the executives who assess a pilot's performance see them at close quarters very frequently and are in a position to make such judgements. Obviously, nepotism and personality clashes do occur which unfairly advantage or disadvantage an individual. However, there are procedures for redress of grievance and there is a hierarchical chain for assessment which should (theoretically!) prevent the aforementioned unfairness. It is almost impossible for such a system to work in a commercial airline, unless the company is very small, as the management pilots who would decide on promotion do not see their pilots often enough to assess their performance, and a one-off assessment twice a year in the simulator and an annual line check are not adequate as overall indicators.

However, be under no illusion that a seniority system is good. It does not allow a company to exploit its pilots' strengths and I believe that it is a disincentive for any pilot doing more than the bare minimum as there is no professional reward for hard work, experience or ability. Also, it does not in general allow someones previous experience to be used fully when they first join a company. Unfortunately, a seniority system is probably the only one that works for the nature of commercial flying.

Having grown up in a military meritocracy I found the seniority system in an airline frustrating, but acknowledged that it was probably the best system for the operational structure.

[jafar]

flying for fun

I personnally think you are right, merit can't be measured in a sim. and meritocracy is probably the worst system in airline business. However, I can see sometimes that seniority leads to enormous training costs and I have problems to train somebody who is known to be of poor standards just because his number has come up. I am not in management at all, but in training and although we must do our upmost to get the guys best, it is sometimes impossible.

[FlyMD]

While I very much agree with what's been said above, let's not forget one major drawback of seniority for us pilots: lateral movement in the industry is very difficult indeed... Nothing incenses a pilot's union faster than the words "direct entry captain", for example. although in today's industry, hiring commanders often makes economic and operational sense! Also, once you're out, you're out: I grew up in a seniority system, but after several of the companies I worked for went bust or were restructured, and I chose to go corporate for a while, it's become difficult if not impossible to hope for a job corresponding to my experience and capabilities in a major airline, and the prospect of "starting at the bottom" again becomes less and less attractive. Still, seniority is the only way to go in a big company. The interesting question is: what size should a company have before it's reasonable to install a rigid seniority system?

[m&v]

Fly,I agree with the question of Co' size before implementation of Seniority.My Son's in a firm of 25 pilots, still employ'direct'captns due experience,but after 5 years there it's still rankles when he listed by Alaphbet instead of Date o'hire.(he's a Captn)
I spent 32 years with a
Canadian Co',which used Seniority,as per norm in Larger firm's-It was the most'acceptable ' by the majority..The whole lifestyle was predicated on your bidding(number)and the 'best' you could do for quality of life..
Management always had the prerogative to 'tap' the Wizkids for 'Checkpilot positions'which refuted pure senioity as per upgrades..Ideally the best(qualified and respected) guys were approached,to police standards etc,BUT later due to the fact that co's'burnt the guys out(25days/month,Sim'Line checks etc)the Majority of Checkies were the most 'Junior'qualified Captn's trying to avoid the'Reserve' lifestyle(on call/contact).Reserve could be quite extensive in a Large carrier(Years).
Another 'drag' from seniority was the fact that Pilots ,as they got older, were still'forced' to fly larger/farther to get the 'high' $$$ of the Formulae Pay system(productivety Money)whereas the European aspect of service pay(hourly rate per service year)allowed the 'senior' pilot to stay closer to home,the younger pilots skirting the world(choice)....
Too bad this system wasn't more acceptable to the associations(pro/con):D

[wellthis]

Meritocracy is good where the company is fair in rewarding merit and not favoured group.

Seniority is good where it is at least nation-wide and one does not have to start over again in a new company due to faults of not his own.

Present system is neither and unfair as it does not recognize and value previous experience with other companies and treats pilots not like trained professionals that they are. Similar professionals (lawyers/doctors/dentists/dental hygienists/truck drivers...) often, if not always, get a raise when they join a new company, pilots on the other hand have to start at the bottom at a fraction of their salary and worth as unfortunately, operators take advantage of pilots' love of flying.

If you say that they don't have to leave, well sometimes they do if the company goes bankrupt and plus what is wrong with career advancement. It seems that unions are a double edge sword.

On a lighter note, perhaps when pilots join a new company at a fraction of their worth, they should only demonstrate and fly with that fraction of their experience-one gets what one pays for!!

[jafar]

wellthis
Do you know a company where meritocracy works fairly?
I think to have a liberal pilot market where meritocracy is working, seniority should disappear every where at once. This wil never happen.
Cheers