Lots of what you said there was dead good. I would argue with the comparison to the car industry, and sugest that what we actually want is something more akin to the General Medical Council or the Law Society - you don't often see THEIR members being manipulated or jerked around - quite the opposite. (And when they are, half the time it's revoked on appeal!!!
)
But I agree - Devillish for BALPA Chair!
Now, let's face it, the seniority system is not one that you would invent if starting from scratch. Problem is that it's there, we're here, and there are huge amounts of vested interest on both sides.
But really, would doctors accept such a ludicrous concept? Would lawyers? Would dentists? Would accountants? Would uni lecturers or teachers? Would scientists? Would civil servants? Would policemen? Would journalists? Would - (dare I say it) - the military?
So why should we; there's no reason why we shouldn't align ourselves more nearly with the other professional bodies with whom it suits us to compare ourselves. I can't imagine anyone who could argue with meritocratic principles, the ONLY real objection is the misuse we fear management may make of it -but look at the debacle BALPA have just caused by harping on what are fundamentally seniority and hence remuneration related issues.
We need a BALPA committee, (of more than just Big Airways), looking seriously at this issue, because the seniority system actively opposes and hinders the free movement of personnel. Further, if meritocratic principles took over, arguably we would be better placed to control more of our own destiny because seniority and experience would have fewer reservations about leaving a perceived 'safe' placement.
I don't suggest it's easy, but if you look at the professional bodies I mentioned earlier, they don't seem to have a problem with it, in fact it seems to work very well for them - I believe it could for us too!
Actually, this is probably thread creep. I may just cut and paste - waddaya think?
