In my example I think you are putting excessive faith in the ability of an HR department to intervene. HR are good for touchy-feely things. Are you nice to your co-workers?, etc etc. HR are not good for hard technical details. If they are asked to assess the programming or software engineering abilities of two candidates do you think they could rise to that?
Exposure of brown-nosing poor performers is neither going to occur at a the one-off promotion to commander in the airline, nor would exposure prevent the airline from demoting/terminating said employee - the promotion is not the only occassion to assess performance, with numerous sim and route checks in the preceding years, I would be surprised if were ever possible for the entire cohort of checkers and examiners to be conned to putting forward for promotion an individual whose technical skills were inadequate.
You are essentially arguing for the ability to fast track promotion for experienced candidates. That completely undermines the opportunity for long term assessment. Will the high calibre Captain move companys on the promise that he may get that command in three years subject to assessment?
Indeed, the command course is not the only instance of promotion: FO to SFO, SFOs permitted to remain in charge when the commander is on a rest on long-range flights etc, are all "promotions" of a kind, although clearly FO to SFO is automatic in seniority airlines - need this remain so without seniority?
Actually the promotion need not be automatic. It isn't in BA, further career development is required.
Young, capable managers are indeed relevant to a flying operation: yes, certainly, as you say, "experience can only be gained at a certain rate in this profession and to earn a promotion the new young things need to prove that they are smarter, better and faster than the older incumbents": but if they do so, why should they be prevented by a seniority system from moving upwards?
To turn the question on it's head, why should they be given accellerated promotion. What does the younger, smarter, faster pilot actually bring to the operation that the older, slower but more experienced incumbent can't? As previously mentioned, there's very little scope to add icing to the cake in this line of work.
Certainly the case for a global, or at least national seniority system is the only defensible method of ensuring those with that huge experience are permitted to retain their position and continue to contribute to those of lesser experience when they move companies - presently they are unable to do so due to the company-based seniority system.
I beg to differ. It was only a handful of years ago that easyjet were desperately seeking Airbus TREs as direct entry Captains. Ryanair still take direct entry Captains. There are plenty of DEC positions available. What you are actually advocating is a system that tries to parachute people into senior positions in companies that recruit internally. There is no lack of opportunity for the ambitious Captain to jump ship.
Regarding your views on checking:
Yes, but you know whether you have passed, require some retraining, or are atrocious there and then on the day - there is not input by HR, delivering any feedback from any other source. You have no contact with HR in this process is the point.
What's so bad about knowing the result there and then? Does withholding the result somehow make it more meaningful? And what would HR tell me about my check? That I was nice to the cabin crew and dispatcher? That I did a good speech to the passengers? All communications with other groups are done by strict protocol using defined terminology, something best assessed by a qualified practitioner, not an HR bod.
It does appear from your responses that you think effective HR solves all recruitment/promotion problems. I don't believe HR is the silver bullet you make it out to be. Instead of having a transparent seniority system you are suggesting we move to an opaque system of HR managers reviewing candidates for a job that they themselves are not technically qualified to do and hoping that some internal system of checks and balances within the HR department will keep everything fair. It all seems rather too idealistic for my liking.