I work for a major US airline. We have over 5,000 pilots. A seniority list is the only way to manage a list of this magnitude. It also ensures that when your number comes up for command you're damn well ready. Seniority list dictates choice of bases, vacations, equipment. The downside to a seniority list is that in a period of stagnation there are no command upgrades.

Of course opportunities exist for those with management aspirations to become training captains and eventually managers. A major benefit to a seniority list, in my view, is that you don't have to kiss ass to get ahead. And, as the old saying goes, those who can fly, fly! Those who can't - manage!

The problem with modern airlines is they want just that. They want somebody to just plod along. Jut stick to the SOP and company rules and all is well. Remember its about NOT scratching the paint.

When the commands come up as long as the cadet meets the minimum requirement, he gets the job. If not, then you go down the list to you find somebody that does. A 3000hr pilot can stick to the FCOM and SOP as well as a 13 000hr one.

Hence the lesson here is that a 10 000hr captain has to think VERY carefully before he moves.

Quote: “......the only down side I see is if management or someone doesn't like you they might not allocate you the deserving points.....”

This happens in other occupations. Nothing is perfect. People just find jobs elsewhere. Those in other occupations manage to overcome this occasional problem. Why should it be such a problem in aviation? Are most “airline” pilots so dumb that they cannot solve such a problem as easily as those who choose to go into other occupations? Poor little dears!

Pilots are not the only employees of air operators and their suppliers and sub-contractors. Are there “seniority” lists for technicians, engineers, baggage handlers, loaders, fuelers, ticket sellers, marketing staff, caterers, dispatchers, cleaners, management, etc? How do you think such people manage to get pay raises, promotions, vacations, health benefits, pensions, etc? Wake up pilots! As a group you are not coming across as professional, intelligent or capable of surviving let alone doing well in a competitive free market environment.

In a free market employment environment with no “seniority” lists employees who are not reasonably happy where they are just look for another job. They move to another employer, usually at an equal or even higher level. Airline pilot is about the only occupation that has killed mobility of labour. Throwing off the shackles of serfdom and slavery was won over the centuries at great cost. How ungrateful of “airline” pilots to ignore this and spurn such freedom!

Yes! In the US anyway.

With the exception of 'management', which is the adversary of labour, and the really unskilled labour like caterers and cleaners, whom are normally contracted services, most of the groups you mentioned above are represented by unions which generally view seniority as a sacred cow.

Management does not like the seniority system because it removes the opportunity to whipsaw employees against each other.

Judging from the tone of your post, I'm guessing that you're either management or a management wannabe!

Rubbish yourself! Equating Ryanair with a real airline job is asinine. They are the most employee-unfriendly airline out there. The only reason they had no seniority and had to hire DEC's was because of their high employee turnover! The only people who don't like a seniority list are management, mangement wannabes and Johnny-come-latelys!

Actually, 'my' airline has never been bailed out by the government. But, nice try at changing the subject!

Actually, it seems that you have a lot of heartburn over the seniority issue, and have posted several scathing attacks on the concept. From that I must conclude that you have some personal experience which has soured you on the seniority concept. I sense that nothing I might say to you, will convince you otherwise.

However, for those who are open-minded, and have yet to experience a seniority based system I would like to reiterate what many posters on here have already said.

There are pros and cons to the system, mostly based on how far you have progressed up the 'ladder. Unfortunately, airline management is rarely benevolent so we can't rely on them to do the right thing. So, from a worker bee perspective, seniority is the fairest way to level the playing field. It largely prevents management from manipulating it's pilot group.

Some have suggested that a seniority system allows unqualified personnel to progress, and I reject that completely. A rigid selection process ensures qualified pilots are hired, and a structured ongoing educational process ensures uniformity across the pilot population. Most airlines have a professional standards peer pilot group which counsels pilots who stray from the straight and narrow.

It's very rare for a pilot to be terminated for a violation of the regs or a accident/incident. In fact, at my airline, most of the very few pilots get that do get terminated, are for issues unrelated to their flying skills - sexual harassment , abusing sick leave or other absenteeism issues, or drug/alcohol abuse.

Interesting concept with one major flaw. Most airlines are approximately 50% Captain/50% First Officer. To upgrade after 5 years, the airline would essentially have to double in size every five years or suffer extreme attrition at the top.

And I know alot that aren't. Funny that EK doesn't seem to get many BA captains applying, I wonder why?

As a good friend of mine always say:- "believe NOTHING that you read and only half of what you see".

Some people here imagine that a seniority system protects them from being abused by management, however I'm sure we all can think of a number of fellow pilots who have still been screwed over in other ways despite the existance of secure seniority lists, cr@p simm/check rides being only one example of how easy this is to happen.

The problem with seniority lists , like any military hierachy, is that it also allow's completely dysfunctional and personality deficient people ( even though they may be technically qualified) to get into positions of enormous power and authority,( enabling them to make everyone else's life unpleasant), simply because they are in the system.

I disagree with the basic premise of your contention. The military hierarchy is not seniority based, it's based on competence (ostensibly). But, as an ex-SAAF jock, we all know the type of personality it took to get ahead in the military. And it had nothing to do with your competence as an officer or pilot!

A seniority list, almost by definition, takes that 'personality' factor out of the equation. It is based purely on when you were hired and ability to meet and maintain a pre-determined standard of competence.

My experience of seniority lists is based on my experience of being a pilot for a major US airline for the last twenty three years. When a pilot goes into management, he is no longer considered part of the seniority list. Yes, he keeps his number in case he ever goes back to the line. In effect, he is trying to get ahead independently of his seniority on the list. So, in many ways, management pilots are not unlike ambitious military officers.

But for the majority of pilots making their way up the seniority list, the system works remarkably well. Everything is dictated by seniority. Seat, equipment, trips, bases, vacation, days off, and so forth. After devoting twenty three years of my life to this company why should I not be better paid, fly bigger jets, or have more days off than the guy who was hired last year?

The seniority system works remarkably well if you plan on making a career out of a particular airline. I suppose it matters less if you're just building time.

And, by the way, I do agree with the fact that a seniority system doesn't always protect you. Fortunately, a decent union can protect you against the nimrods who occasionally find their ways into a position of power.

Requirements for a command:- Licence, experience, ability, seniority and last, but not least, suitability.

So your scenario shouldn't happen and if such a person does make it to command then it is just as likely to happen in an airline without a seniority list as it is in an airline that has one, since management obviously thought they were suitable for the job, whether you like him/her or not.

I've yet to come across an airline where captains were selected by the co-pilots on a popularity basis;)

Wow! This is a little OT, but I was able to read the secret code in this part of your post - you've secretly spelled out the name of an SA company:

C O M A I R

:D

Parrebellum your quote below refers,

"True, but I bet you could name airlines where captains have questioned how certain individuals could have got command despite their low EQ's and high ratings on the "@rseholeometer" scale.

I guess their number came up and they were in the system right ?

This is exactly the problem, no one takes personality into the equation, and this allows dysfunctional personality types to get command despite their apparent technical competance.

I agree that command is not the result of winning a personality contest amongs the junior aircrew, but it is bad bussiness to promote people into positions of power and authority if there is a risk that they will abuse it and cause strife and dissention amongst their sub-ordinates.

possibly I'm too new age in my thinking ??:cool:

So you agree there is way better than Ryanair? This discussion is about finding 'best practice', is it not?

Not sure where you work, but I think the problem is not the seniority list but the selection process and training!!!

Having been in hiring/firing and training, trust me, NO airline promotes strickly on your number. Problem children, when they slip through the slection net, are identified when they are co pilots.

I am sorry, I still stick to what I have always said. The guys at the bottom of the list, that think they are fine captain material, hate the list system and the top guys love it.