Just asking again as no-one has given an answer yet. How do you quantify how "good" a pilot is?
Surely you can't be serious? (Deliberate airplane reference there :-) We work in one of the most tested, scrutinised and graded industries there is. So OK I will give you an answer, which no doubt will be picked apart, flipped upside down, twisted and the semantically analysed until it's overall meaning is the made to be the most ludicrous suggestion since Adam was a lad.
Is person x a good pilot? Well why not use Sim marks and results of Line checks.... which are still the benchmark used
within the seniority system by the way, The only difference being that those who get 3/4 'yes' ticks in their checks under the box titled 'suitable for command' (as it existed in my previous company) are allowed to then apply for a command course. Seniority or otherwise doesn't prevent a company from saying 'you need 3 ticks in a row' to apply, then you take your place or wait for your place, and before the nay sayers start up again, this is NOT seniority. An experienced FO would still need to prove his ability at the company, competing against those already there, whom judging by the general outcry on this thread would of course have no problem passing. A Captain joining, if this system was applied universally would already have had to achieved this standard.
Should a more experienced pilot from another airline be given the command because they have more hours, or should the pilot with the best ability be given it regardless of experience?
Well the pilot with the better ability obviously, a 10,000 hour pilot and a 12,000 hour pilot probably have very little difference in skills. That places the onus of excelling directly on the individual in question, not on his ability to have been in the right place at the right time 5 years ago. Obviously there is a minimum hours requirement for command upgrades.
In answer to your point about trainers, firstly the gauntlet of flying with 'chopper bloggs' or 'nice guy tim' has existed since Pontius was a pilot, seniority or not. It would be the same for everyone. And everyone would take that risk, or have you never had a bad sim in a seniority based system? Secondly and slightly more seriously, my former airline transitioned from a system of grading which was subjective to one of 'global marking', namely, did the candidates fly according to a series of laid down objectives which were graded from 1-5? 5 being they covered all points, 3 being they did what is 'average' and 1 being that they didn't achieve the objective... there was no differentiation between Captain and FO, an FO could score 5 against a set standard of objectives, and was not given allowances because he was FO. a Captain had to score a minimum of 3 across the board, based on the objective and criteria, if not it was remedial training and if that failed, it was back to being an FO, until his scores increased.
On another note, by rewarding purely experience (i.e. hours), we are pushing everyone to work harder. Back when I was a fresh faced FO I would have wanted to work my 900 hours right to the limit if it meant I could apply to be a Captain at any airline in the world in a few years. There would be zero advantage to having an easy roster and better lifestyle because it would hold you back in your career. Airlines that offer that lifestyle wouldn't be able to attract First Officers if someone could work a few years at RYR and jump them for a command
Is this your most reasoned argument? So you are now telling me that its not fair that people would have to work hard to get somewhere? and no, before the people stood in line with their elbows out all pipe up... waiting on a seniority list on an 'easy' roster is not the same as working. A command course is a LOT of work... if you think a seniority list changes that then I'm afraid you are in for a rude awakening. There of course would be an advantage to having an 'easy' roster, you'd have more days off to go down the pub with your mates, watch the football and take up a course in underwater basket weaving if you so desire. Meanwhile the guy who was willing to graft and put in a bit of work would then overtake you, which to me is the definition of 'absolutely fair'. Depends how badly you want it I suppose? The odd sick day is not going to make a difference. Doing something for more hours generally means you will be better at it, its not a difficult concept.
Airlines that offer that lifestyle wouldn't be able to attract First Officers if someone could work a few years at RYR and jump them for a command
So who's got it worse then and who deserves it more? The guy who is beat from pillar to post for 4 years while he keeps his eye on the prize, or the guy who
expects and thinks its reasonable to be
given an upgrade based only on the fact that he took his place in the line while cruising along because he could have an easy lifestyle. I think you've made the best case against seniority yet!
Airlines recruiting often have a similar dilemma, so they do a selection, they take the people whom they think, based on reasonable evidence, will do the best job. The more experienced guy is more likely to make this grade, but there is nothing preventing a less experienced guy from being the same standard. I see no reason whatsoever why this can't be applied within an airline also.