Originally Posted by
NoelEvans
I would argue that that reason is 'inertia'. It is a huge mass not necessarily going the correct way, but too much effort is needed to change its direction. Inertia is often one of the biggest 'obstructions' to improvement.
There are some very entrenched views here. With the extremes of "that is the way it always has been" and "pilots will be able to move equally and freely". Neither are logically valid.
The "first come first served" (let's call it FCFS) system has been mentioned. That would be the same as arriving at a counter to buy something and taking a 'numbered ticket' for your place in queue. For the next thing that you want to buy you get a similar numbered ticket. A base move? Put in your bid and you get your place in the queue. Fleet change? Put in your bid and you get your place in the queue. Command? Meet the criteria then put in your bid and get your place in the queue. As with any queuing system anyone 'arriving' after you is behind you in the queue.
In a seniority system you get that 'numbered ticket' for your place in all of those queues, even for queues that you could never have dreamed would exist, the day that you join the airline. With that 'number' you can change your mind about which queue to join as your whim takes you and 'trump' others who have been in another queue for a long time already with your 'number' and queue-jump towards the head of that queue.
As regards commands, both systems are equally capable of having good systems for meeting the criteria for command or of having 'brown nose' or 'best buddy' systems for 'meeting' that criteria; all that is at question here is which queuing system you use from then on.
As regards Direct Entry Captains, they should be in the equivalent of that FCFS queue. If there are no suitably qualified candidates immediately available for promotion then there is an immediate position at the top of that 'queue' and a DEC position is justified.
I have worked for airlines that have used both systems and for me the straight seniority system is the by far the least preferable.
Seniority lists and final salary pension schemes have always been the shackles that have been hugely detrimental to pilot job mobility. With an airline failure (and they happen irritatingly often and not even 'legacy' airlines are immune) both those shackles shatter the pilots' careers and futures. Final salary pension schemes are now almost gone as one of those shackles and seniority lists need to be the next.
Losing pilots and having to replace them is one of the huge costs of maintaining a pilot force. Seniority lists and final salary schemes have been one of the best tools available to management to block pilot mobility. Without those shackles, terms and conditions will have to be the method of maintaining a stable pilot force. Those terms and conditions are not always just "money, money" but often lifestyle matters like basing options, work patterns, etc. One of the biggest 'legacy' airlines in this country is losing some pilots to one of the biggest LCCs, so pilots are starting to look at more than just the 'headline' terms and conditions.
Seniority list systems are on the start of the way out, but due to that huge inertia it is going to take a long time. Airline failures have been one of the biggest 'culls' of seniority lists as the last two to fail used seniority lists. But in doing so they have highlighted the serious shortcomings of that system. Seniority lists, like final salary pension schemes, are going to disappear from pilots' employment conditions. Seniority lists are going to take a bit longer to go.
About the "20 year FOs", I have know someone who retired from a "seniority list airline" as an FO by choice and entirely due to that seniority list: as a very senior FO he was near the top of the FO 'list' and could ensure a good lifestyle and acceptable earnings; if he was promoted he would be at the bottom of the Captain 'list' with a crappy lifestyle and hardly improved earnings. So, because of the seniority list he chose to remain an FO up to his retirement. So don't blindly quote "20 year FOs" to 'support' seniority lists!!
one of the most reasoned and articulate posts here, talks sense