Why do commercial pilots support seniority based promotion?

[eastern]

As a GA pilot with a full time job in technology, I’ve never been able to understand why commercial pilots seem to support (or tolerate) seniority based promotion. I’m not interested in a labor vs. management argument, but reading the “Co-pilot saves the day” thread in rumors and a recent article in Flying, it reminded me that in any other professional organization there would be little likelihood of highly experienced folks being forced down the ladder and supervised by those with less experience.

And even more important, I can’t imagine why a professional would not want to leverage their skills to go wherever they want whenever they want (i.e. move into a more senior position, better location, etc) by selling advanced skills to potential employers.

Again, don’t want to start a flame war, but could you help someone on the outside understand why most pilots seem to support this process?

[Nineiron]

What yardstick can we use for experience? Some employers introduce a Total Time element, but that is flawed by the long haul/shorthaul differentials in experience. It would be unwise to use training and sim records. Admitting to ones shortcomings in the bi-annual humiliation session in the sim is a very important part of air safety and could never be seen as 'competitive'. In most professions the bull****/personality factor is an acceptable part of promotion, but not so in aviation.
So we are left with 'Company Time' as the most practical form of seniority. There are often training posts available for sideways promotion of experienced guys who are new to a company.

[qwertyuiop]

Eastern.

I use to think the same, however I now believe that there is no better way.

Unlike many jobs where a "load mouth and bull****", along with a bit of ability allows you to promote yourself, ours is not an industry that would benefit from the same goals.

How do you assess a pilot? The ones that go around with "the mouth and ego" are generally covering up a lack of something. The company I work for encourage their pilots to get on with the job in a competant manner and avoid all the bravado that, in other industries, may lead to promotion. Anybody unsuitable for promotion will be found out, those who are competant, reliable and up to the job wait their turn.

Who do you want to fly with? Burtie Bull**** or Mr average and safe?

As I said, how do you assess a good pilot?

[Bealzebub]

To answer your question in a slightly back to front manner.

The major disadvantage of a seniority based system of promotion is that a move from one company to another will almost always result in starting back at the bottom. An exception might occur when a company is recruiting direct entry commanders. In this case you start at the bottom of the seniority list generally, but only at the bottom of the captains seniority list specifically. In case of redundancy you might have no overall protection, but your command seniority would otherwise remain higher than longer serving F/Os within the same company.

Clearly it is easier for short serving pilots to move from one company to another than it is for longer serving pilots. In the case of a company failing then the seniority list becomes meaningless and everybody is looking for the entry level on another companies seniority list.

The advantages are that when a pilot or group of pilots join a company they do so in order of joining date or relative merit at the bottom of the seniority list. All of these pilots are assumed to be potential commanders for that company. Some may have carried that rank previously, most probably haven't. In most companies it is necessary to achieve a seniority position nearly half way up the list before the opportunity for a command presents itself. When this occurs and assuming it has taken a few years most of those pilots at this point will be assesed by the training department for their suitability ( experience level, training reports, maturity, etc ). Most will be put forward for command training. Having waited years for this opportunity it is reasonable to assume that most pilots would be ready and quite able to pass the necessary command checks. They will have amassed not only a significant amount of experience, but also a significant amount of that companies experience and its own distinct requirements for the people it is about to promote into its management structure.

It would be very unfair for the individual and bad practice generally to promote individuals out of sequence for no good reason. Seniority generally reflects the level of experience within a company. Salaries by virtue of increments are often tied to the seniority level. The one promotion to Captain is considered subject to suitability by virtue of that seniority. From the companies point of view it rewards loyalty and ensures the prospective Captain is well versed in that Companies own operation. The individual can asses their own command prospects ( from a time point of view at least ) based on their seniority number as it rises relatively from year to year.

Most companies also have a sideways promotion structure often referred to as appointments. These are usually offered for training positions or office/classroom positions (managers /instructors etc). This enables a company to select from anywhere within its ranks those individuals who it deems may have a talent that makes them suitable for one off positions within its training or managemnt structure. This is perhaps no different from that you are used to within other organisations. Individual pilots can also lose these positions or resign them without normally losing their relative seniority position as line pilots.

I hope this explains the position with a little bit of clarity. In summary all pilots are assumed to be commanders, and although not all will become so in order of seniority,the vast majority will. It is only right that given this general assumption each individual should be considered for promotion by relative order of joining date.

[Mad (Flt) Scientist]

WHile agreeing that assessing the skills of an individual is never easy....

the people who design the aircraft you fly are given relative authority over design decisions on the basis of their fitness to perform the task, assessed in that fashion; and
the people who approve the certification are generally selected for technical merit and not on pure calendar experience.

I would rather the better person do the job, not the one who had simply been around longest. Just because it is hard to assess people is no excuse to not try to do so.

[N_ICE]

In my experience pilots dont merely tolerate the concept but they can be quite staunch advocates of seniority lists. It would be wrong to give the image that seniority automatically qualifies an individual for promotion to the left hand seat, as the posters have said above its not a straightforward approval, but merely a gauge of their possible fitness for the position. Unlike most careers where aspects of age, experience and attributes are vital pilots are generally experienced according to their hours and the duration of their service with a company. It's not perfect, no system ever could be but in general terms it is quite positive as an objective initial criteria. It doesn't mean that pilots are not assessed for their suitability, it merely means that this assessment will take place with due reference to the time served at the company. It impacts not only pay but bidding preferences for trips, bidding preferences for changing type etc. On the down side there is a lot of luck involved, its all in the timing.

What is interesting is when you have to merge the seniority lists of two companies, Dan Air / BA a classic example, and in the US PanAm / Delta or TWA / American there are lots more where this has been a big issue for the pilots concerned. I would be interested to see how they could merge the pilots without having reference to something as objective as a seniority list? just a thought .

[quid]

I've been a check airman for major 121 carriers for 18 years, and I can tell you there is no practical way to grade pilots on merit or ability.

When some seniority lists are over 10,000, no one person can check them all. There would be differences in objective standards from one check airman to another, no matter how hard we'd try. Also, as good as the simulators are, it's difficult to grade the "thinking" that is so important in a command position.

How often should the "ability list" be shuffled? How often should a PIC be "checked"? If he had a bad day, should he/she be demoted for 6 months?...12 months? The training and re-training costs would be prohibitive in the best of times....and we certainly don't have those today.

Remember - each and every pilot flying the line has met the standards required by the their company, the FAA and other agencies, and those standards are tough. Not every pilot makes it. You've got to be good just to get the job. And yes....sorry to say that on occasion a pilot has to be terminated.

Anytime you take a random sample (to say nothing of a 10,000 pilot list), some will be more talented, more proficient, etc., but I'd let my grandkids fly with any of them. If I wouldn't, I'm not going to pass them.

[Dan Winterland]

Another aspect of the seniority list is that is supresses pay. Airline management is very much in favour of seniority - it deters their experienced and expensive Captains from seeking employment elsewhere. There is less need to increase pay as a retention incentive.

[SLT]

Now everybody - don't rise!!!!!!!!! He's only winding us up!!!! :rolleyes:

[eastern]

What a great thread! I was out for a day and it really took off in my absence-

Thanks again for your POV-
ZS