Originally Posted by
TACHO
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!
This is a very dangerous argument. One that the bean counters in head office will be ecstatic to see mentioned on here, particularly by an individual who is claiming the biggest advantage of a non-seniority based system is that T&C's will improve across the board. If your definition of T&C's improving is that we all work harder because we should be "willing to graft and put in a bit of work" then i'll stick with my antiquated seniority thanks. That mentality is exactly what the pro-seniority people on here are worried about - managers offering commands to people who are willing to work the days off, be extended for an extra couple of sectors, and not kick up a fuss about being worked 900 hours a year. Meanwhile those that are looking for a proper work/life balance (i.e. a less fatiguing roster that actually has some time for proper rest, not enough time to do some "underwater basket weaving"), who place the safety of the aircraft and their health over gaining an extra few hours and brownie points with management, will be left at the bottom of the pile. No matter how good a pilot they are.