Why seniority lists exist
Hec7or’s reference to Ernie Gann’s great work “Fate is the Hunter” made me think that maybe there should maybe be just a word here about why seniority has historically had such a unique position in pilot employment, especially compared to other professions. Unless things have changed radically in the last 20 years, as far as I am aware there is no other profession (e.g. law, medicine, architecture) where every single practitioner is required regularly to demonstrate his or her skills to an independent authority. Similarly, the pilot-in-command is the only type of employeEE who has legal responsibilities in international law which are on the same level as those of his or her employER.
Under the ICAO umbrella obligations are assigned separately to the State, the Operator, and the Pilot in Command. That’s why although ICAO is a United Nations organisation (where only States have total power), in ICAO meetings the Operators and Pilots are both represented (via IATA and IFALPA) and participate fully in decision-making. Individual Operators and Pilots have their own obligations assigned to them by their State authority via their licences. To ensure safety these must be maintained at a constant minimum level.
All this is a long way round to get the point that there is no other type of employee who has to PROVE, once or twice a year, that they can do their job properly to someone who is NOT their employer. In other professions, once someone has their initial qualification, their competence is only questioned AFTER SOMETHING HAS GONE WRONG.
How does that link to seniority systems? Most people would probably agree that in an ideal world where there is competition for a job, it should go to the person best able to do it. But in practice this usually means that even if there are objective criteria such as basic qualifications, it must lead to subjective judgements being made by individual managers about individual candidates, especially regarding continuing competence after initial qualification. Some do well, others flounder: ideally the less competent may get overtaken by the more competent – but the less competent may do better by various ways including nepotism, politics and all the other biases we are increasingly conscious of.
In the pilot group however, everyone has had to continually achieve the same minimum competence level as verified by an outside assessment. (And yes I do know that’s not always the case in reality.) So on that basis if you want to ensure fairness in the system, you have to include something else. Generally, of two equally well qualified candidates, the one most likely to do the job best is probably the one with the most experience. And within a single organisation the best (but by no means perfect) measure of experience within that organisation is length of service. Hence the seniority lists. So most pilots associations historically have said that it is better for the COLLECTIVE good that between equally SUITABLE candidates, preference should be given to the most senior.
That does not help a lot when dealing with such traumatic problems as the pilot profession is facing now. But it does mean that when trying to resolve things and spread the pain, the basics should be forgotten.