Team AIPA blames others for poor showing at FWA

[Anthill]

I commence with the admission that I am not an employee of either J* or Qantas nor am I a member of the AIPA or AFAP. What I am is a professional aviator who has worked in our industry for 25 years. In this period I have worked for 2 GA companies, 3 low capacity airlines and 6 high capacity airlines. I note that this thread revolves around the actions of AFAP in supporting some members who were apparently allocated promotions discordant with company “seniority lists”. This action has evidently caused anger within elements of the J*, QF and other pilot ranks, yet leaves me puzzled regarding why ‘seniority’ remains such a sacred cow within the airline industrial paradigm. There is no doubt that this post will result in some irrational responses, hopefully there will be some rational input and I welcome this, even where well thought out opinion contradicts my own argument.

It is time that promotion based on datal seniority is finally killed off. In an industry such as ours where lack of ability or knowledge can has calamitous consequences, the only appropriate promotional axiom is one that is based on merit. Promotions should and must be awarded to the best, most suitable and most experienced candidate. Datal seniority results in a triumph of the mediocre; whilst all candidates must meet a minimum standard, the result is simply the perpetuation of a minimum standard. Competition for promotion drives candidates to excel and better themselves and their knowledge base as their future prospects depend on it. The result is that we will have a more knowledgeable and professional industrial standard.

In the last 10 years our industry has simultaneously witnessed:

1. An explosion in PRKs/Hours flown/Types on register and
2. A decrease in terms and conditions

Under normalised economic circumstances, this should not happen. As demand for experienced pilots should generate better T&Cs as new or expanding companies seek to attract a competent, well qualified workforce and existing companies need to retain existing staff who may be lured by better conditions and opportunities elsewhere. This is Economics 101 and should be easily understandable. So why have the T&Cs generally declined (note use of generally)(1)? The economic theory expressed as the Laws of Supply and Demand apply in an unregulated environment. Supply and Demand is circumvented when regulation exists (economists often design regulation specifically to manipulate market forces). In our case, datal seniority is the regulatory factor that messes with the laws of S&D that should have resulted in enhanced conditions for pilots.

Seniority means that the supply of promotional opportunity is artificially decreased; pilots will not leave their existing company as they then have to start “at the bottom of the list” again. Promotional opportunities are effectively limited to those within your own company. Thus, employers have a captive, trapped workforce and they know it! They know that they don’t have to offer a better deal because pilots “don’t want to lose their seniority” if they move to another company. So essentially, the 90% of J* pilots who (according to Cox of the AFAP) voted for seniority also voted for a pay cut – for themselves and everybody else in the industry.

Over the years I have heard many arguments that support the concept of seniority based promotion and in the final analysis, I can find very little compelling reasons for its retention. The ‘pros’ for seniority are:

1. It is a ‘fair’ system.
2. It rewards longstanding employees for their loyalty.
3. Seniority prevents”brown nosing”.
4. Everybody knows where they stand in the scheme of things.
5.Everyone gets a chance at promotion when their turn comes.
6. Etc...

However against these points:

1. In what way is seniority “fair”? To whom is this fairness extended to?
2. True. It is good to reward longstanding employees. However this can still be accomplished in other ways, such as choice of basing, staff travel, act..
3.A dysfunctional management will always reward brown noses and find jobs for “mates” despite a seniority list (I’ve seen it happen...). Ethical management would ensure that company brown noses who expect a ‘reward’ are not promoted on this basis. At the same time, it should be recognised that some people have a legitimate desire to involve themselves in activities other than flying the aeroplane. However, this factor should not form part of an objective promotional paradigm.
4. True enough
5. Is an airline a commercial enterprise or an aero club? Not all pilots are suitable for a command and they should be mentored appropriately.

My argument is that Merit Based Promotion should form the basis of future Airline Pilot Industrial awards for the following reasons:

1.Allows us to find T&Cs that reflect our true market worth.
2. Would lead to an increase in promotional opportunities within the industry
3. Increases operational standards and expertise.
4. Ensures that the “best person for the job” gets it.
5. Prevents the loss of corporate/industrial knowledge when crews are laid off - many pilots simply leave the industtry when laid off as they dont want to be a SO again.
6. Provides a “safety net” with chance of re-employment on a similar status when pilots are laid off
7.Allows assignments for “political” reasons – sometimes these are commercially and/or operationally desirable

I have attempted to offer this argument objectively and with the aim of betterment of the pilot fraternity. I lack the time to respond fully to counter arguments and will probably not bother to respond to the inevitable flaming that I know I will receive from some quarters.

AIPA and AFAP are in this to protect the interests of their members, even at the expense of others. I think a unified pilot group is essential for our future but think, quite clearly, that datal seniority should not an element of our future industrial landscape.

(1) Many pilots have left 'seniority based companies for DE positions - resulting in increased terms and conditions for themselves, I suppose some would call this "Que Jumping".