Originally Posted by
ScratchF15
My initial thoughts on this are that it is a positive. I have been in two flying jobs now, military and regional airline, where command was given to those based on time of service, ability to meet a minimum (low) standard, and not being a complete idiot (sometimes). While this may seem the most "fair", it really does not serve the organization well. It appears to eliminate any meritocratic incentive to perform above the minimum standard. It also eliminates some politics in promotion, but really just shifts them to other sectors (ie training, checking, management, schedules, etc.)
Seniority-based promotion also reduces true PIC authority. There are many captains, flight-leads, instructors, check-airmen, SEFE's that know they don't deserve their position over others. We all know it, and sometimes it causes a break-down in the chain of command - usually when the shxx hits the fan. Now, you introduce more politics as bruised egos need a fix.
I equate a seniority based system to socialism and meritocratic system to capitalism. Neither are perfect, but I will take capitalism and its record over socialism any day.
What do you think about this can of worms?
I worked in Corporate America for awhile and I can assure you that the merit system (Capitalist) you favor for promotion, is not better than a seniority system. Look at Corporate America today...it's a disgrace...you can throw ethics right out the door.
Basing a promotion on "merit" over seniority only brings in more politics and a$$ kissing. So now you have even MORE incompetent people being promoted. Remember, a promotion is very subjective and the merit system increases the chances of a subjective promotion. (race, creed, sex, nationality…)
Our business is about safety based on standardization and professionalism. A Captain checkride is a checkride...period. If you think a person should not wear four stripes, don’t blame it on seniority...because the same incompetent person could be easily put in command under the MERIT system.