Management And Pilots Should Read This!

[QAww]

Labour disputes are back on the agenda around the world as pilots attempt to claw back the wage concessions made after the last recession. But as the
familiar labour rituals are played out, could it be time for a more fundamental rethink of
how pilots are engaged with the business?
It could all be summed up by a single
image - a long line of Cathay Pacific pilots trooping to a mass union meeting. What
started a year or so ago with labour action at the US majors has since gone global. While
a few eyebrows may have been raised at the extent of the action (and certainly at the size
of some of the settlements), this round of pilot wage negotiations is not much different
from any other. Pilot unrest has, it seems, become accepted as an inevitable, if
unfortunate, fact of airline life. Perhaps it is time to step back and ask why?
The pilots wending their way to strike meetings are not, after all,
the disenfranchised workforce of some smokestack industry fighting with their bosses to
raise the minimum wage. These are highly paid and, for the most part, highly motivated
professionals, with stable careers and in command of some of the world's most advanced
technology. It is hard to think of any other professional group which so regularly
punishes its employer with strike action. In fact, it is hard to think of a blue collar
workforce in the recent past which has been so consistently militant.
The desire for better pay and conditions is, of course, the
presenting problem. But in reality the issue goes much deeper. Pilots hold a deep-seated
suspicion of airline management, built on years of mutual mistrust. You do not have to go
any further than the online pilot chat rooms to feel the level of bitterness about decisions taken above.For its part, airline management has been tempted to see pilots as
an unpredictable and difficult group of individuals.
In part, the problem is institutional.Wage negotiations are stuck in
a rigid cycle which invites confrontation. Pilots make wage concessions in the bad times
only to claw them back again in the good. The game on both sides is to give as little as possible. The mechanics of the negotiating ritual are also rigidly laid down and even occasionally involve intervention from government.
Airline structures too do not help. While to the outside world
airlines may look like modern creatures, those that work in them know that they can be as
monolithic as any smokestack factory. It is put well by Jospeh Schwieterman, who directs
the Chaddick Institute at Chicago's DePaul University:"The idea of changing from a machine-shop culture has got to come centre stage. Airlines are still like factories, where people punch in on a time clock and follow very detailed rules." He adds that there have been few sustained efforts to make airlines "a more intellectually engaging place to work".
To be fair to smokestack industries, most of those have already
taken on the message of cultural change and moving beyond the work-to-rule mentality. Some airlines too have started to change - even the once doggedly unfashionable American
Airlines allows casual dress for office staff. But to engage pilots in the business will
take more than a change in dress sense.
Pilots are, almost by definition, absentee workers, distanced from
the rest of workforce. The closest that many come to an office is the pilot briefing room.
No wonder that, as a group, they have tended to develop a finely honed locker-room mentality.
Not only that, while pilots may have highly developed professional
skills, few have any commercial experience. Their view of the airline therefore tends to
be heavily skewed towards its operational rather than business needs.
There have, of course, been attempts to bring pilots in from the
cold. Employee equity plans have been much in fashion, but recent history would suggest
that they are not the answer. Both United and Northwest Airlines launched pioneering stock plans in the mid-1990s, but they were also hit by the opening strikes in the latest wave
of unrest. Even supporters admit that the schemes have rarely been tried except in
desperate circumstances when the alternative was bankruptcy. Neither do these engender the
sense of belonging and participation in the business that is required.
What is needed is a more radical rethink of how pilots are engaged
in the business. Opportunities for regular contact with other managers, or even external analysts, will help more than any number of in-house newsheets - often viewed as no more
than management propaganda. One model could be to start viewing pilots as home-workers,
connected to the office by IT as in other industries.
Business education too could help with a more rational understanding
of how and why decisions are made. Pilots also might be included in making those decisions rather than left to work on conspiracy theories.
Above all, pilots and management must learn to trust each other.
Airline alliances are a case in point. Unions have pressed ahead with their own defensive crossborder action groups. Meanwhile, executives dare not even talk out loud about alliance synergies in the cockpit for fear of union reaction. Facing such fears may hold
its risks, but maintaining the status quo is almost certainly storing up trouble ahead.

[Traffic]

Yep

That about sums it up.

The "T" word..in a nutshell.

[Traffic]

Perhaps I could add the following question all drivers should ask themselves.

Q: What do you do for a living?
A1: I work for XXXXX airline OR
A2; I am an airline pilot and I fly B747,777,737...A340,330,320...

Which answer would you give??

I know many who used to go for A1 ...I suspect more and more are opting for A2.

[Flap 5]

There is another point which is being missed here. Pilots are now being worked to the limit of their legal duty hours, and sometimes beyond into discretion. Where would they get the time, the energy and the inclination to spend extra time going to meetings which are conducted at the convenience of office staff?

Furthermore when I am working I am physically out of touch with anyone who would need to contact me, even in an emergency. This is the most inconvenient aspect of being an airline pilot, not the other reasons which are often quoted by those who do not do the job. Responsibility and the studying required for the job are accepted by us all as what we are paid for.

[phd]

QAww - all valid points - but the same could be said for all airline employees across many airlines. Having worked in several other industries before arriving in this one I have seen good and bad management practice and good and bad industrial relations. For such a technologically advanced industry as ours what I find bizarre is how dickensian the industry is in its management of people -all of its people. More enlightened industries have learned that the way to beat your competitors and deliver consistently high standards of service across your business is by taking your people with you, both in body and in spirit. That requires respect, good communication and team-work to achieve a commonly held vision of what the company and its people stand for. Sounds like b*ll**ks I know but people are not robots, and money is not a prime motivator for those who have sufficient of it to live on comfortably. What most people seek is to be valued by colleagues, customers and their employer, to have a say in how the company is organised and run and to feel that they have a stake in the future of the business. To achieve this the airline industry must come out of the dark ages and start managing people as individuals and not as units of production. No signs of that happening right now.

-------------------------------------------
Pobody's nerfect.

[HugMonster]

Very well said, fishbed.

[737type]

Very well said indeed Fishbed.

A company, in any industry, has to look at all of its staff as crucial and necessary team members, and not as a necessary evil.

Any company with low employee morale will never succeed. Maybe they'll see some small gains during the fat times but in the long run, forget it.

[1.3VStall]

Fishbed,

You're spot on when you say that poor (man) management is not confined to aviation - it is a British disease.

Changing the subject, I've just noticed where you're from. Is the Hop Sing still open? I last went there 30 years ago when I was at Sleaford Tech!

[Roadtrip]

I've worked for non-union airlines (VERY profitable ones BTW) and strong union airlines (also profitable). Without a labor contract the rules can be changed at managements whim and at anytime -- AND THEY DO. With a contract, there are known rules that both management and the workforce must follow. Even then often times they break the contract and say "if you don't like it, grieve it" with an army of lawyer behind them.

In this industry, you'd have to be nuts to want to work for a non-union airline. I'm sure there are a couple of exceptions, but certainly not many.

[ 21 November 2001: Message edited by: Roadtrip ]

[tmusser]

The trucking industry has experienced all the same problems, alienation, lack of contact, mistrust, heavy organizing pressure. (However, unlike pilots, drivers could leave one employer and obtain a signing bonus and essentially equal earnings potential from another employer.)

From my view, the trucking industry has been able to satisfy many of the endemic problems with two relatively simple actions.

Trucks now carry satellite communications devices, which can receive and transmit internet-generated messages from drivers' families. As well, drivers can interface with home office regarding pay, benefits, and to offer complaint.

Secondly, most truck lines have appointed driver ombudsmen. These people are trained in effective communication, and are charged to take the driver's side in any dispute or in resolving complaints.

Even though neither action affected pay or working conditions, turn-over and confrontation are greatly reduced in companies that have taken these actions.

[sabenapilot]

What I find a very good quote is:
Wage negotiations are stuck in a rigid cycle which invites confrontation. Pilots make wage concessions in the bad times
only to claw them back again in the good.

[Raas767]

I don't disagree with much that has been said here, but those of us that fly in the U.S. are a generation of pilots that have been raised with Icahn, Lorenzo, Crandall, Wolf and Ferris. Very few Kelleher's around indeed. That being the case we are a very suspicious bunch. Any meaningful change in this business has to come from the very top, and quite frankly,I don't see it.

[The Guvnor]

My own oft-repeated views are simple.

First, trust between all parties is an absolute priority. It doens't matter how good (or bad) people's conditions are, as long as there's consistency and fairness any negative aspects can be overcome. Southwest Airlines is a perfect example of a company where that mutual trust and respect exists.

Next, everyone should benefit from the good times and share in the bad - which is why I'm a strong advocate of employee share schemes in which everyone from the Chairman to the teaperson should be a member, on equal terms.

Finally, we need to get rid of that outdated anachronism - the seniority system. No other industry in the world has it, and as tmusser pointed out that without it you can move companies and maintain (or improve) pay rates and conditions.

OK, so we all know what the problems are; and we have a pretty good idea what the solutions should be. So let's do something about it rather than just talking! :rolleyes: :eek: :rolleyes:

[sabenapilot]

Yep, let's set up a company with 44 L-1011s!

[alexb757]

I agree with much of what has been said on this topic. Moreover, I have worked in management in another industry as well as other airline operational areas on both sides of the Atlantic. I currently fly with a small (but growing)US domestic airline which, @ the moment is non-unionized. Without doubt, trust on all sides is crucial to provide long-term harmony & fiinancial success - on BOTH sides. Work rules are fine but only if both sides respect them. With a contract, you are more orless bound by them. Yes, some of the wage awards in recent years have been obscene. Now some of those carriers are paying the price. Whatever happened to compromise?
Indeed, there are few CEOs like Herb Kelleher, Richard Branson et al. who value their employees and treat them as individuals not just some number.
If you have a look @ a recent copy of Airways magazine, there is an excellent article about airline managment styles and labor relations which should be compulsory reading for everyone. Finally, a qoute from one CEO: "It's not labor unrest per se that encourages unions on to the property but bad management". Enough said...... :confused:

[Raas767]

Guv.
Rumour has it that you once ran an airline. Were you able to apply your utopian ideas there? Perhaps you could enlighten me on how you would run a company like, For example AA, with 14000 pilots 30000 flight attendets and an overall staff count of around 125000 without seniority lists or unions.
This has all been tried before. Remember Peoples Express? The reason things are the way they are is that despite obvious problems it works. It has worked for the last 60 years and I would wager you that it will prevail for 60 more.

[TechFly]

Guv,

let's try another time.

Why you don't join some high-perspective-management-forum where you can find people like you, discussing your nice and advanced ideas of running airlines?

Cheers,

Fly safe & enjoy life.

[EI - E I - O]

Fishbed, point taken, but what about the doctors and nurses, who have just as much responsability, with peoples lives and work 70+ plus every week, not every month.

The industry has changed, its not the same, and unfortunately, will never be.

Jockeys are going have to get used to being fully utilised, its going to be a fact of life and an industry norm, accept it or not, its up to you.

[Mowgli]

I agree with what Fishbed says, and I believe we need to be managed differently. If we are going to be working more, then perhaps we should first look at working more effectively i.e deploying people more efficiently, having fewer people criss- crossing the country on their way to do a sector - that happens a lot in my company. We are looking at new IT software which should make us more effective with what we've got, and also improve our quality of life with better rostering.

We need to bring changes to management techniques: how many of your airline management have MBAs? If we're going to have to work more, then we need the quality of life at work and around work to be better. Slim down the paperwork, use IT instead, so you can communicate from remote areas with modern gismos on palmtops. What about salary incentives for having to live in an expensive area? Want me to work more? Give me some help to live in the expensive SE of UK so I can be at work more often without it being so intrusive on my free time.

We could make better use of our captive audience, ask a marketing bod how much he'd like to have 300 people looking at screens for many hours. There's money to be made there. I'm a pilot, but I want my company to survive, and make lots of money. My cabin crew are our sales people: the first thing they sell is a safe operation, but do they feel valued enough to sell more?

If we want to be valued more, we've got to add value to what we do. I reckon the airlines are in the dark ages where managment is concerned. That's not necessarily the fault of individuals - they need some new tools. Sorry, but not all "new management speak" is garbage, we've got a lot to learn.

[Ignition Override]

Good observations.

Alexb757: I read that interesting magazine article and it suggests that USAirways was only managed by Wolf and Gangwal in order to sell it to Untied, I mean United. These two corporate "leaders" had supposedly never created a back-up plan, but their immense personal pay/stock contracts were never in jeopardy. Guys who have been CEOs sometimes say, well they charged the "going rate" for experienced airline CEOs/presidents. Is this true?

By the way Alexb757, do those pilots on the anonymous 737s which go to "Dreamland" from LAS, stay long with the company?

[The Guvnor]

Raas767 - what you're saying about seniority is bollox and you know it. I can't think of one other industry that employs it in the same way that the airlines do - it's something that benefits the unions, not anyone else.

Are you trying to tell me that any sizeable operation cannot survive without formal seniority? OK, so how does it work at IBM? Ford? General Motors? BP? Microsoft? All of those companies employ rather more than 125,000 people globally and they seem to do rather well without it. Sure, they have unions. So?

By doing away with seniority, you can recruit staff for the specific positions you need. Short of 747 captains? No problem - go out and get them. Need RJ FOs? Same thing. Closing down a particular fleet? Then the people on that fleet's contracts terminate. Want to promote from within? That's fine - but based on ability rather than time served or 'dead mans shoes'.

Strangely enough, this is generally the away that things work in industries other than ours. Nothing wrong with it. It's the 21st century - the days of jobs for life have long gone.

Mowgli - what you're saying is spot on; I've been saying it for years. Telecommuting is very much the way to go - there's no need for grossly expensive infrastructure like Waterworld and the Compass Centre, for example. Rather do what JetBlue does and issue your crews with notebooks, mobiles and PDAs and trust them to be adult enough to check before setting off to see that the aircraft you're scheduled to fly isn't going to be a couple of hours late - which puts you out of duty time at the end of the day - and to check the weather, flight plans etc without having to physically go to Ops. Indeed, there isn't even a need for a physical Ops centre!

Another benefit is that you then don't need to spend vast amounts on living in expensive areas but rather can commute in from a rural setting where you can bring up your family in peace, quiet and safety.

[tilii]

The Guvnor

Oh dear, Guv, you’re slipping back into your old ways. You confuse what is your own, never humble, opinion with reality. And you are stooping to rudeness (to Raas767, at least) at the same time.

Let us get a few things straight, shall we? IBM, Ford, General Motors, BP, and MS do not operate commercial airlines. While some may own corporate fleets, they look to professionals to handle their aviation needs. And the vast majority of professionals have found that the seniority system, despite some of its more obvious drawbacks (particularly for the frustrated entrepreneurial types like your good self), is a tried and trusted system which has benefits far outweighing its acknowledged limitations.

You say Short of 747 captains? No problem - go out and get them. Need RJ FOs? Same thing. Closing down a particular fleet? Then the people on that fleet's contracts terminate. Want to promote from within? That's fine - but based on ability rather than time served or 'dead mans shoes'.Interesting. So, your model airline:When short of Captains, will ignore the ‘ability’ and loyalty shown by serving First Officers and recruit direct entry Captains from amongst those who are immediately available - irrespective of their ability and elsewhere demonstrated corporate loyalty (or lack thereof);

When in need of First Officers on a particular fleet, will waste the resources available from within despite the availability of qualified, and demonstrably loyal, pilots whose contracts are ‘terminated’ by your ‘closing down a particular [alternative] fleet’;

When looking to promote, will find some new way to establish ‘ability’ other than in sycophancy and nepotism.

You clearly have no sense of equity, no sense of responsibility towards loyal employees and their dependants, and absolutely no awareness of the potential damage that might flow from such irresponsible attitudes as your own. God save us all from the wannabe employers of your ilk.

Sadly, you are right in one awful respect when you say: “It's the 21st century - the days of jobs for life have long gone.” Would you care to tell us why you so obviously believe that a hard working, dedicated and loyal employee does not deserve long-term stability in his/her employment? On second thoughts, don’t bother, for I’m sure we will be treated to more of the same old drivel from you. Oh, and how have these principles gone down in the past in the many airlines you have run and which no longer exist? Work well did they? :rolleyes: :D :D :D

Yes, I can see it all now. Your employees will be at home enjoying their rural peace and tranquility while being endlessly bombarded by the mindless drivel being transmitted through the ether from their verbose and lunatic employer. Oh yeah. Sure.
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[ 22 November 2001: Message edited by: tilii ]

[CaptX]

An interesting thread.....Then the Guv gets involved as ever, and we're back to the playground. Guv, please stop referring to this industry as "ours". Those of us professionally involved in Aviation find the fact that you associated your "Walter Mitty" world with us, insulting.

[upwiththebirds]

here here

[sabenapilot]

Yes indead, OUR industry hey, Guvnor...

I thought you were unemployed for the last few years now? (judgeing from your continuous flow of posts).
Anyway, it sure seems as if you have found a job for the rest of your useless life through this forum... :D

[Pete Otube]

There's a middle way,tilii, in that pilots could be contracted as say a 747 pilot rather than a pilot.

If the company feels that the 747 fleet is no longer commercially viable then those contracts are sadly ended, rather than having the airline, and other jobs, crippled by some archaic rule than involves playing musical chairs.

If, however, the company replaces the 747 with 777, then they should be duty bound to give first priority to the redundant drivers.

Corporate loyalty (how does that show itself, by the way?) is fine and should be rewarded whenever possible, but not at an unacceptable cost to the airline and other employees.

This is how companies like the ones referred to above run their factories, plants, power stations etc.

Fair play should govern all industries equally - without some sort of special fair play restricting airline growth and survival.

[ 22 November 2001: Message edited by: Pete Otube ]

[tilii]

Pete

OK, fine, so we should all rush to the training establishments and qualify ourselves as a 'B747 pilot' or 'A380 pilot' (because jobs on these will surely attract the highest salary levels and thus the greatest return on our training investment).

Naturally, when the airlines need to recruit the common or garden 'B737-200 pilot' none of us will be there for recruitment. We will all be waiting for the next recruitment drive for B747 pilots.

Wake up and smell the coffee, dear chap.

[411A]

For smaller carriers hiring experienced pilots on type is certainly the way to go. Why train new pilots when the marketplace offers a wide selection of type-experienced guys/gals?
A recent issue of Flight has a perfect example...Air Atlanta Icelandic needs B747 crews. Do they train their ex-L1011 crews? Certainly not, much more cost effective to recruit experience from outside. If MORE aircarriers did this, it would help provide a more reasonable return for shareholders, those long forgotten folks....who funded the carrier in the first place. Airlines do not owe any particular loyality to pilots...or any other employee for that matter.
And for those who say that..."what about pilot loyality, and the pilot shortage?"...as recent events have shown, there is no pilot shortage, and certainly not likely to be anytime soon.

[Pete Otube]

tilii

Now you're using silly logic and tired old "smell the coffee" lines.

Look sonny, I'm drinking the coffee, and lots of us don't want to fly 747's or boring long haul. Rather have a little less money and better lifestyle. There'll always be pilots wanting to fly all types of craft. There's minicab, bus and limousine drivers out there, as well as fishing, ferry and liner skippers. You must get out more!

Care for a cup?

[sabenapilot]

I think our friend has made a very good remark there, i.e. where are you going to find all those self-qualified pilots for small and medium sized airplanes?

Mind you a type rating for a B737 or a B747 is about the same price, so if I had to decide which one to pay myself, I'd go for the last one as it will guarantee me better pay and better duty rules. I think nobody would bother training to fly planes like the canadair, Avro Rj or even the B737 and A320.

Of course the first 10 or 20 years you wouldn't have too much problems finding qualified people for these planes, as they would still be around, but remember both airplanes and people get older and have to be retired one day.

If for instance the mechanism you propose was introduced worlwide in the 1980s, then there would hardly be any A320 flying right now, simply because you wouldn't manage to find sufficient qualified pilots for this very efficient new plane!

You'd be stuck with old and costly B727 or and B737classic at the very best and even that would turn into a problem as more and more pilots retire over time....

Something to think about.

[Chimbu chuckles]

As usual the Guvnor ignores the fact that seniority benefits the airlines as well!

What would be the extra training costs burden incurred in your system where pilots could ‘job jump’ and maintain their seat, be it LHS or RHS?

Or would you not bother with standardisation training?

And when the pilots took the experience your airline had provided and left to work somewhere where they were treated with some respect what would your attitude be then?

I suppose when a senior F/O got sick of seeing his chances of promotion killed by a never ending stream of Command qualified losers (why else are they coming to work for you?) and left you would just damn him to hell as a ‘typical bloody pilot’?

What a wonderful system which allows personalities to intervene in an individuals career! I have seen Check Captains and Fleet Captains score check rides on the basis of how they felt personally about an individual often enough to know that seniority is the lesser of evils.

I would suggest Guvnor that if this industry was ever burdened with a company run by yourself it would not be for long!

Chuck.

[Pete Otube]

"scoring check rides on the basis of how they felt personally about an individual"

Must be some foreign jonny airline - that sort of thing ain't allowed in the UK any more!

[Raas767]

Guv.
Do you and Frank Lorenzo play golf or something?

[PAXboy]

I have read this post with interest and can only suggest (gently and quietly) that the Seniority system will end. When is matter of conjecture but end it will.

I have been working in telecommunications for 23 years and worked in a wide range of industries on both permanent and consultancy contracts: Retail; Banking; local government; air freight; broadcasting; funeral trade; container port; pharmaceuticals and others.

In those 23 years I have seen companies move from 'taditional' to 'hire and fire'. Not one of them is the same as it was ten years ago.
Regrettably, the word 'loyalty' rarely comes into it now. This works in reverse too, as staff show no loayalty to the company and pick and choose to suit themselves.

Do I like this? No. Would I want to move back to a more 'traditional' kind of employment? Yes. It will not happen.

It is true that dumping staff is stupid and it is always better to re-train an already experienced member of staff but if the money looks better in the short term - they will dump the staff! If, four years later, they have to hire back staff with the qualifications that they dumped, the excuse is, "The market changed". Short term is a max of two years. The money boys cannot see any further than that because that is what the city looks at. It is a closed loop.

The observations about laptops, PDAs and so forth is spot on. One client of mine is looking at exactly this and they are not a cutting edge company but local government!

It is true, also, that one of your major problems is that your working lives are 99% spent away from the office. Consequently, you are not 'visible' and can more easily be discounted. The comparison with truckers is well made and anything that can draw you together in that way would be valuable.

It is very sad that your business is changing to one that cares less but you are only just catching up with the rest of us, who have already experienced that change over the last ten years.

The change may happen fast it may happen slow but a large part of it wil be a generational change. The people starting their careers now, will not have the same loyalty built into their hearts as those now 45 and older. Their loyalty is to themselves alone. Again, I can only say that I have seen all of this before.

The only possibility is not to hold back the change but to jump ahead and force the change to where you want it to be. In this regard, your work is against you. Almost any other profession can arrange a meeting (or a series of) and get you under one roof within a short period of time for consulation. That is all but impossible for you folks - and the money boys know it.

Further, a pilot is by nature and training, one to make decisions and think for themself. That makes it very difficult to think collectively. Again, I have seen this in other industries.

The way for you to meet is by what you are doing now - electronically. Through the good offices of the wonderful and fabulous Chief Pilot PPRuNe (doffs cap).

[Raas767]

Pax boy.

The seniority system will not end for a very simple reason. Pilots are generic. We are selected for a very specific skill which make us all virtually identical. We are all qualified to be captains one day. If we weren't then the airline would not have hired us. This being the case seniority is the best way to determine promotion within an airline. Everyone still has to pass whatever course you are involved in but there is no politics involved in the selection. Even the most junior of us like this system and even management likes it. There has never been a contract opener my management at my airline through out it's history where they wanted to do away with seniority.
The posting about simply hiring a captain of the street is nonsence as well because of standardization problems, pairing difficulties and the like. I can just visualize the disaster of putting an off the street captain next to a senior first officer who should have the job by virtue of his seniority. CRM would be nonexistant.
I sense that alot of people on this forum are from many different aspects of this business and bring points of view tainted by their experiences( me included), but trust me, seniority is here to stay at the big carriers. The alternative would be Kaos.
Now, since I don't have much seniority I have to fly to New York on Thanksgiving.

[tilii]

PAXboy

While I accept your argument that the industries to which you refer have changed from whatever it is you describe as ‘traditional’ to what you say is ‘hire and fire’ (frankly the distinction escapes me), nothing you advance in your theory above has any relevance when it comes to the pilot seniority system as employed by the vast majority of major airlines.

We will forgive you for this, since your profile makes it clear that you have no relevant aviation experience other than as a passenger. However, given the said lack of experience, I question whether you are equipped to comment upon what pilots are, or are not, ‘by nature and training’.

There are many ways in which pilots ‘meet’ as you so quaintly put it. Perhaps the most effective way is through their professional associations or through their ‘on the job’ communications. Without wishing to offer any offence whatsoever to your ‘wonderful and fabulous Chief Pilot PPRuNe’ (what a sycophantic and presumptuous phrase that is!), only a very tiny minority of our professional pilots have ever posted on PPRuNe. The great majority would never dream of engaging in discourse through this medium.

Perhaps you would do well to read again the words in red at the foot of these pages and to ponder upon the fact that, while many here profess to be highly experienced airline jet jockeys, the vast majority of PPRuNe contributors are still very wet indeed behind the ears. This is blatantly obvious when you read some of the drivel that is posted by the likes of The Guvnor, Pete Otube and 411A.

Let this not detract from those whose presence here is highly professional and who care very much about PPRuNe. ;)

And let this not distract you, PAXboy, from your continued enjoyment in ‘reading with interest’ anything you may see written here. :D :rolleyes: :D

[ 22 November 2001: Message edited by: tilii ]

[wonderbusdriver]

Guvnor & Paxboy:

I´ve had this discussion with my father(ex "multinational" manager who used to fly more as SLF than I do now) rather often.

PLEASE let us know:

HOW do/would you "measure" a pilot´s "ability & aptitude"?

WHO would/should assess a pilot´s "ability & aptitude"?

Please think long and hard, about the "how" and "why" and what consequences they ultimately have.
(Hint: A SAFE operation is the task with the highest priority for all pilots.)

Thank you.

[The Guvnor]

From the top

tilii - you're either being dense (which I have on very good authority you're not) or you're being deliberately disingenuous when you ignore what I specifically said several times - I'm talking about the named companies as a whole rather than their flight departments!

Let me reiterate - no other industry uses a seniority system such as that used by airlines.

I find it amusing that you're so anti one form of 'serfitude' - bonding - whilst completely supportive of another.

As I said previously, jobs for life have gone. If you want loyalty, get yourself a dog. What you have are two groups that each have something the other wants: the employers have money; and the employees have skills. The employees trade those skills for the employer's cash. That's life in a nutshell - unless of course you happen to know differently?

Where you have crews responsible for their own ratings - which obviates the need for bonding - they will be able to select what type they want to be qualified on and with no seniority system they can move from airline to airline as they wish, moving straight into a position for which they are suited and qualified.

This is what happens in most other industries - if someone who has been, say a teacher, wishes to become a computer programmer then they will go off and get themselves suitably qualified and find themselves a job. If an employer is prepared to retrain an employee - whether it's a teacher as a computer programmer or a DHC8 pilot as a 737 one then it should be a privilege and not a right.

By operating on a 'muggins turn'/'dead man's shoes' seniority system, not only are you denying your most skilled and able people the opportunity for rapid advancement; but you are not properly utilising your resources - which goes a long way towards explaining the current state of the industry.

Abolishing the seniority system would also get rid of such insanities as scope clauses.

In return for their investment in themselves, crew members would be able to seek - and obtain - higher pay rates which both reflect supply and demand and the fact that the employer would not have to invest further money training them.

The laws of supply and demand would of course apply to ratings. If everyone goes off and gets themselves an A380 rating, then the oversupply of crews would drive down salary levels which would make it less attractive for people to do the ratings. Come on, this is basic economics - you know this already! :rolleyes! :D

Pay rates would actually end up about the same for all aircraft types - which again is as it should be - and therefore the real decision factors will be the base, type of operations and the lifestyle.

Incidentally, I note that whilst you accused me of "stooping to rudeness" all of your posts on this subject have been remarkably vituperative towards anyone that disagrees with you. Whilst calling a spade a bloody shovel might be a trademark of your fellow countrymen, could it be that your change of domicile from the Antipodes is as a result of your forgetting who signs your pay check and reviews? :D :D :D

raas767 you are supremely arrogant when you say: "We are selected for a very specific skill which make us all virtually identical. We are all qualified to be captains one day."

That's completely untrue and I trust that you are a very junior FO and simply haven't had much experience in the industry! Pilots are human, with human failings. We are not all leaders, imbued with leadership skills and abilities - and that, rather than time served, is what's needed to be a commander of an aircraft. I know a lot of pilots who are perfectly well aware of their own limitations and who are happy to remain in the right hand seat. Equally, I know a number of captains who frankly should never have made it into the left hand seat. There are many airlines that demand that FOs become Captains - and if they fail the checks to do so, will be fired. Where's the loyalty there?

Wonderbusdriver - how do they assess people's ability and merit for promotion in any other large business? As your Dad - as an ex multinational manager he'll know.

Hint: if your pilots are not SAFE they should not have been employed in the first place.

[tilii]

The Guvnor

My dear chap, thank you so much for your very kind words. I am pleased you take heed of your 'very good authority', though the fact that you rely upon it here is simply evidence of how wide of the mark idle gossip can be (born and bred in Blighty, I'm afraid).

I like the way you have responded here on the issue of the seniority system. It's good, plausible stuff, Guv, as found in the vast majority of your posts. But it is wrong, as only time will tell. FWIW, I think that in the short term your prophesies may come true. But I do think that in the fullness of time even you will sing a different tune. Let us wait and see.

Meanwhile, I must say that you had earned my grudging respect over recent times. I had begun to believe I had yours. Sadly, your contributions to this thread are a huge step back in time. I do wish you would tone down your rampant capitalism and ease up on trying to be the eternal know it all. ;) :cool:

And let me reiterate - no other industry but the 'aviation industry' operates airliners. Therefore, the fact that no other industry uses a seniority system such as that used by those airlines is utterly unsurprising and largely bloody irrelevant. How's that for calling a spade a shovel?

[ 22 November 2001: Message edited by: tilii ]

[The Guvnor]

tilii, note please that this is simply my prophecy of the way that things will go - and one which I am interested to see you fully concur with.

There are many things in life that we do not agree with; and wish we can change - but lack the power or ability to do so.

For what it's worth - and I've said this many times before as well - I'm of the Herb Kelleher school of management; where trust mutual respect and job enjoyment reigns paramount.

Working practices will change - and telecommuting will be a way of life that for many will be a positive advancement; and for other, less technologically minded people, a serious problem.

I do, however, believe that the seniority system is an anachronism and one which causes as much disservice to the employee as it does the employer.

[tilii]

Oh dear, Guv, I simply cannot allow you to get away with implying that I agree with your view on the seniority system. I repeat: your views are good, plausible stuff. But they are wrong, as only time will tell. :rolleyes:

[bugg smasher]

Guv, I’m not certain that your assessment of raas767 is accurate, judging from his comments he seems to have a lot of inside knowledge, enough so that he is likely a management pilot struggling with these issues on a day-to-day basis. I agree with your statements regarding the requirement for flexibility, that is an essential survival tool for airlines not coddled by generous state coffers, witness the rapid demise of Sabena when union intransigence stopped the airline from operating reliably and government access to funding was denied. However, rass767 is correct in stating that the seniority system is a necessity, without it pilot morale drops to lows approaching zero, resulting in high turnover, highly increased training costs and concomitant safety compromises for the airline concerned. I can think of one or two operations that fall into this unenviable category. You object to his statement “selected for a very specific skill which make us all virtually identical”. At first blush it would appear he is calling us all easily programmable robots, which would indeed be insulting, although I’m sure there are those who would no doubt argue the point. I think he meant to say “people with the capacity to develop highly specialized skills that allow them to perform a particular range of complex and demanding tasks”. In that, he is also correct, perhaps you misread him. Perhaps I am wrong, a clarification from raas767 would be welcome.

In all of this, someone very wisely pointed to the fact that open and honest lines of communication between unions and management are absolutely essential if everyone is to have a reasonable grasp of the big picture, without which, evidently, we would all find ourselves hip deep in sheep dip, no offense intended to our Kiwi brothers and sisters. These problems existed well before the world’s most famous caveman reared his insanely hideous and callow head, they are merely brought into much starker relief by the post-trauma realignment now taking place.

It is in all our interests to arrive at a solution. Perhaps management should ride the line for a while, get some serious sleep- and digestive-pattern disturbances to think about, and all pilots do a nine-to-five duty stint slogging away at the four small corners of an office desk (Aaaar, shiver me timbers!), maybe only then could we arrive at some sort of mutually profitable accommodation. I continue to have the greatest of hope.

[SunSeaSandfly]

Guv
One of the main constraints an airline has, is planning constraints. You have to be able to project that you will have trained and qualified airmen in sufficient numbers at all times to to meet the needs of your schedule.
If anyone can jump up and leave at short notice, your competitors would wait until you look vulnerable and then up the ante on Boebus 740 drivers, and you have aircraft sitting on the ground.

This principle was illustrated to me some years ago in the local soft drink bottling industry.
Several months before Christmas(tropical location so high season for soft drinks) the local Pepsi distributor started buying up cases and cases of empty Coke bottles.
Coke did not notice until shortly before Christmas that they had no bottles to fill.Panic buying of empties, price went up greatly.

Think of trying to keep a constantly changing workforce up to date on all the route checks, HPF,SEP, recurrent checks, etc,etc and the other unending number of compliance items. Scheduling sim etc would be a nightmare.The CAA would have fits over standardisation.

What about brand loyalty. A man with a PA mike and 300 pairs of captive ears for maybe 8 hours can do you a lot of good or harm depending on his mood. Let us hope he is not unhappy, or he can do a lot of damage before he moves on.

Introducing a brand new type, what are you going to do? You can't commit to take delivery of the latest SonicBus in two years time not knowing where you will get crew.
Train the crew, and the next entrant to the SonicBus market will up the ante and save himself the training cost.

I see a lot of practical problems in eliminating seniority. Don't forget that Unions and seniority came about mainly because of bad management and unfair treatment of employees. How can you guarantee to stop that?

[Raas767]

Guv.

Perhaps a clarification is in order. My statement was not meant to be arrogent. I simply meant that when we were selected at my airline we all had to pass certain pre-employment screaning. The same screaning that everyone has to pass that fly for major carriers. These tests are designed to measure aptitude and a miriad of other things that the specific airline deams important for their prospective pilots. This does not mean that everyone makes it to command. Some people do not pass the training program and are let go. As you rightly pointed out I fly for an airline that has an up or out policy, which means if you don't qualify for command you are out. Obviously everyone has to qualify for whatever seat position he or she seaks but the promotion OPPORTUNITY is awarded based on seniority. Thank God.
You also seam to hold Kelleher's outfit in high regard, and rightly so. He runs a very good airline, perhaps the very best. Please know , however, that his employees are highly unionized and that airline also employes the seniority system. SWA is succesful for a variety of reasons but foremost because of superior management. That, my friend is what sets an airline apart. Not unions, not seniority lists, not scope clauses. LEADERSHIP.

Bugg Smasher.
No, I'm not a management pilot but I have been in this business a long time and I have seen the likes of GUV come and go. They never prevail.

Happy trails.

[The Guvnor]

tilii, you're being disengeneous again! :D

My: note please that this is simply my prophecy of the way that things will go - and one which I am interested to see you fully concur with."
was merely in response to your:
FWIW, I think that in the short term
your prophesies may come true. But I do think that in the fullness of time even you will sing a different tune. Let us wait and see.

I also note that you have amended your post to state:
And let me reiterate - no other industry but the 'aviation industry' operates airliners. Therefore, the fact that no other industry uses a seniority system such as that used by those airlines is utterly unsurprising and largely bloody irrelevant

This is precisely my point. Every other industry has - by definition - career path progression and individual responsibilities at least equal to if not greater than those of the airline industry. They manage perfectly well without a seniority system. So why does the airline industry need it?

bugg smasher/SeaSunSandFly/raas767 - you've all missed my point, probably because I didn't explain it as well as I should have as I was concentrating on other areas.

In a system where seniority disappears - as is the case in every other industry apart from ours - then companies have to look after their people better to retain them. Whether that's better pay, better working conditions or a better lifestyle - or a combination of all three - doesn't matter: the bottom line is that if life if pretty awful at company A and looks great at B then people will migrate from A to B.

This goes back to what I was saying about type ratings and effectively equal conditions for all types of aircraft (conditions being a combination of the three factors above). If you know that you need x number of people rated on y type then you'll do as easyJet did recently - and offer then 'golden hellos' (actually golden handcuffs as if you leave within a certain period the signing bonus has to be repaid - including the portion you handed over to the tax man!)

Airline managers would need to keep their staff happy and well motivated to ensure that SeaSunSandFly's scenario of an unhappy pilot with a PA and captive passengers doesn't happen.

There would still be internal promotion - obviously - and retraining on other types. But it's a privilege and not a right - and it's one that's reserved for those that merit it.

In short, this would be a win-win situation for all.

[White Knight]

for your info eieio, the 70+ per month that pilots fly is precisely that. That doesn't include the rest of the duties that go with it. Report times, positioning, classroom refresher training etc.
The seniority system has many bad points. I've seen people get their commands who should NOT be in the left seat of an airliner. However I can't see any other realistic way for the pilots to be employed. It is a very different industry from any other and comparisons cannot be reasonably made.

[tilii]

The Guvnor

Moi, being “disengeneous”, Guv, or you being the dense one that you have said you know I am not?

First let me respond to your remark about internal promotion and type retraining. Neither of these are now, or have ever been "a privilege and not a right". They are no more than commercial realities or necessities. When an airline needs skippers, it has two choices: promote from within or recruit from without. The latter alternative has in the past been shown to be fraught with difficulty, if not danger. Likewise with type retraining.

Now, I do assure you that I have not missed your point. Nor, I think, have bugg smasher/SeaSunSandFly/raas767 missed your point. On the contrary, I think we all have made an effort to defend a system that has proven its value, to employer and employee alike, over many years in what is unarguably a unique industry.

I think I can speak for many of us when I say that we recognise that many an entrepreneurial Johnny-Come-Lately or Wannabe may well hold that there is a better way than the pilot seniority system. Certainly, many have so held in the past and alternatives have been tested. The simple fact remains that, despite experiences in many other industries that have shown it to be beneficial to reject or remove a seniority system (the police forces, by way of example), the aviation industry stands alone as one where such a system works, and works well enough to be better than any of the alternatives so far put forward.

This is not to say that we pilots are unwilling to listen to new ideas. But nothing you have so far posted on this issue is new. It may well be that you have woken one morning to find you have a hard-on caused by a seniority system alternative ‘realisation’, but you must share with us the novelty of this realisation of yours so that we may better understand your enthusiasm.

Once we understand it, we may like it. Of course, it will then be necessary for you to establish your new airline so that we are able to put it forward for implementation. The CAA may not like it, of course, which could be problematic. Pilots negatively affected by it may persuade their unions to not like it. The Air Transport Users Committee may not like it either, and may put it to government that it is detrimental to air safety. :eek: :rolleyes:

At the end of the day, Guv, you have a long way to go before your wet dream becomes a reality. But I do admire your determination and your rhinoceros-like hide. Keep up the good work. ;) :D


Late Edit @ 1630 hours: Aaaah. That seems to have done the trick. Seven hours and no response from him. He's off posting plagiarised 'news' elsewhere. Jolly good. Wonder if it was his spelling embarrassment or did he just finally see the light? :D :D :cool:

[ 23 November 2001: Message edited by: tilii ]

[QAww]

There is one airline in Belgium which does not use a seniority system. You get on in the company by doing what you are paid to do professionally and with no fuss. If you are good at your job you will be rewarded with promotion. If you are bad at your job you will get nowhere. Should a new aircraft type appear, only the good, hard working and high socially intelligent people (which 70% of pilots are not) will be invited to join the fleet. Anybody else is left behind and will lose their jobs as the older aircraft are phased out. The management are interested in getting the job done quickly and efficiently. Should any of the management take a dislike to an individual for any particular reason, that member of management will remove himself from deciding about the individual concerned. This leads to the avoidance of personality clashes and ensures that the person concerned still has a fair chance of suceeding with the opinions of the other members of management. Both pilots and management try very hard to make it all work. Management do not turn into the usual Gods on high and remain very approachable and amenable. Pilots in return do not act like spoilt Hollywood actors or supermodels and actually enjoy doing a good job because they feel valued. Management explain to all new recruits that your progress is totally your responsibilty. Act like an idiot and you go nowhere. Act responsibly and you will rise up the ladder. The net upshot of all this is everybody gets on well (it is a big airline) and people realise (both management and pilots)that the companies survival and therefore their survival is directly on their shoulders. The attiude of the pilots and mangement is the most refreshing I have ever seen. Other airlines can certainly learn from this company and would do well to get rid of their Dickensian attitudes.

[The Guvnor]

QAww - would you be talking about VLM here? If not, which one?

This seems an excellent way of doing things. Any downside to it?

[QAww]

Its DHL/EAT. This is one reason why DHL is a genuine world class company, not one that thinks it is. This company embraces some seriously clever thinking plus it moves with the times. I have nothing to do with the company unfortunately but I have a close friend within who speaks with authority. This is the kind of company I want to work for, not the Marks and Spencer syndrome types (we are great, everybody will always come to us, we can just sit here and be magnificent on our gold plated chairs.......oops).

[TechFly]

Thanks to everybody apporting ideas and different solutions.

I respect the opinions of all the people (also the Guv's one!)....

I was asking myself:

Why managers are so contrary to the pilot's seniority?

May be, because they want to preserve their direct entry Top Mangmt?

They should start at the bottom and advance as we do.

Cheers.

Fly safe & enjoy life.

[PAXboy]

raas767
There has never been a contract opener my management at my airline through out it's history where they wanted to do away with seniority.
Indeed ... YET. My view is that your industry will change in the way that others have. I cannot say when but a guess is within ten years.

tilii
While I accept your argument that the industries to which you refer have changed from whatever it is you describe as ?traditional? to what you say is ?hire and fire? (frankly the distinction escapes me
...
We will forgive you for this, since your profile makes it clear that you have no relevant aviation experience other than as a passenger.

Thank you for accepting that I am who I say I am! When I chose my name tag for this board, it was specifically done to show that I am SLF. But I am one that has worked in a range of industries in a range of countries. I have experieenced enormous change in my own working practise that I could not have imagined when I started. In the 1980s it changed once, in the 1990s it changed a second time.

With reference to 'traditional/hire and fire'. The former is one that encourages progress, trains staff with a long term view (5 years +) and presumes that staff will stay. The latter avoids training as it costs too much and the expectation is that staff will leave of their own volition. (5 years -). Also the kind of company that sheds staff as it 'regroups or downsizes' and two years later takes on staff with the same experience and skills as the ones they made redundant!

White Knight
However I can't see any other realistic way for the pilots to be employed. It is a very different industry from any other and comparisons cannot be reasonably made.

That does not mean that the comparisons will be made by 'reasonable' people! I have seen 'managers' move into an industry that they knew very little about and some make it work better and some trash the place. Until it happens, one never knows. Look at GEC in the UK, well run for over 30 years and trashed in three.

To all airline staff, I can only say that I hope and trust that your industry continues to grow in the way that you want it to. I hope that the best method of promotion is used. I hope that the hours worked by UK hospital doctors comes down to your level and not the reverse. But, over 23 years of experience in this country and others, I have seen them all change without exception. I cannot see a way in which yours is going to be singled out for different treatment.

[ 23 November 2001: Message edited by: PAXboy ]

[Raas767]

One thing that should be remembered here is that the unions "own" the seniority list. Management has nothing to do with it. So in order for it to go away the unions would have to do it. The only way that is ever going to happen is in the face of something so shattering that I can't even imagine it.

Guv.

Are you talking about a system such as Park Aviation and IASCO where pilots spend time with airlines for as long as their contracts are valid and then move on and gain employment based on their type ratings and experience? Sort of a global fraternity of nomads going wherever their is room for advancement. If that's the scenario you have in mind then I think I will retire.

As far as DHL in Europe. I know nothing about it but I can guarantee you that their is also politics involved in promotion. Throwing parties, playing golf with the boss, and that kind of thing. Ask any airline pilot whether they like the chief pilot and the answer is usually no. They are not selected by virtue of seniority but through political intrigue and good old fashion back stabbing and their loyalties are always to themselfs and their career advancement through the management ranks at their airline.
No thanks!

[PAXboy]

raas767. Very interesting about the unions owning the seniority list. In that case, Yes, it will take longer to change. I stick to my opinion that it will change, not least that one human being will always find an advantage in changing the system!

As regards politics, yep that is life. I have seen very dumb, biased, etc. people promoted and when they cause too much damage, they promote them further up the chain to put them out of the customer's way. I see that all the time. After all, how many of the actors in big movies are actually talented actors and how many just look the part?!

As I say, I wish your industry well.

[The Guvnor]

raas767 - many thanks for confirming what I said earlier: that the people with the vested interest over seniority are the unions. Not the employees and not management.

As long as you have several people participating in the evaluation process, the possibility of bias is not very high - and all the more so if it's handled ethically as described at DHL/EAT.

[dallas dude]

guv

Interesting that you attempt to ride Herb Kelleher's coattails by suggesting you're "cut from the same cloth". Please forgive me if I maintain my scepticism. Herb's got more credibility in his little finger than......!
Well, you (and no doubt everyone else) will get the point.

Back to the orignal thread. Look at the airlines with the best pilot/management relationships. The common thread is simply that the better managers/leaders typically grow from the legal profession. Successful lawyer types MUST possess good inter-personal skills. In other words, they are good communicators and understand how human psyche works.

Contrast this with the CPA/beancounter-heavy managements, where everyone and everything is a cost base. They're great at reading a spreadsheet but don't learn how to relate to people (after all, it's difficult to interract with a ledger!).

The first group understands value. The second simply recognises cost. No surprise then, that the vast majority of US airlines are run by financial types (Herb's an attorney).

Now, on to guv's lack of understanding on why a fourteen thousand pilot group can't be simply rated.

Are you going to run a league table or something? What's it based on,DFDR? Who made the most George Clooney sounding P.A.? Who's going to grade it?

Most importantly, who's going to pay for it?

The last question should be the most obvious. The present seniority system costs an airline NOTHING to manage! They're not about to rush to change that.

Let me know when Don Carty calls you for some advice. I wouldn't hold your breath, though.

dd
(and I don't care too much for most attorneys either)

[bugg smasher]

Paxboy,

I agree with you in that many industries promote incompetence as a means of politely shifting undesirable employees to areas where they are less likely to do damage, or as a method of elevating favored ones ahead of the peer group. In aviation, however, promotion of incompetence and/or inexperience leads to disastrous consequences. This is most clearly seen in our industry by certain operators of large modern jets whose names need not be here repeated, where nepotism and national face appear to be the order of the day. The result is a safety record so tragically appalling as to defy analysis or understanding; beyond all reasonable expectation, they have succeeded in turning their flight operations into a deadly game of lawn darts.

In every successful airline, there exists a mechanism of checks and balances that seeks to ensure all pilots are operationally, psychologically and medically fit. Some do slip through, you may have seen the “Old Boy’s Network” thread earlier that touched upon many of these issues. This system ensures that each and every pilot is judged by his/her superiors, and if found wanting will be shown the door without hesitation or remorse. This is absolutely necessary, and something which should provide you, the passenger, with a reasonable degree of confidence when boarding a commercial aircraft. It bears more resemblance to the military way of doing things than to any commercial practice. Pilots are, Guv, indeed promoted on merit, the seniority system merely ensures that each one of us is given the opportunity to be in the right place at the right time.

I find your comments, PAXboy, reflect a genuine and fascinating knowledge of various business practices, and I concede that your predictions may very well come to pass on the management side of the airline business. The flight department, however, is a horse of an entirely different color. Guv rightly points out that pilots have no business on the management side of things. By the same token, management types should also remain where they belong, as far away from the cockpit as is mercifully possible.

[tilii]

The Guvnor is perhaps being that "disengeneous" thingy again, for we all know that "unions" are, in fact, the employees. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[The Guvnor]

tilii now, you know that's not correct - there are rather a lot of instances I (and everyone else) can think of where the unions didn't represent the majority view or where there was vast amounts of gerrymandering employed to attain a desired result. The unions are in it for their own benefit - look at the oft quoted comparison between Chris Darke's pay increases and those that he represents! :D :rolleyes: :D

DallasDude - you obviously didn't read QAww's post on the subject, so here it is again:

You get on in the company by doing what you are paid to do professionally and with no fuss. If you are good at your job you will be rewarded with promotion. If you are bad at your job you will get nowhere. Should a new aircraft type appear, only the good, hard working and high socially intelligent people (which 70% of pilots are not) will be invited to join the fleet. Anybody else is left behind and will lose their jobs as the older aircraft are phased out. The management are interested in getting the job done quickly and efficiently. Should any of the management take a dislike to an individual for any particular reason, that member of management will remove himself from deciding about the individual concerned. This leads to the avoidance of personality clashes and ensures that the person concerned still has a fair chance of suceeding with the opinions of the other members of management. Both pilots and management try very hard to make it all work. Management do not turn into the usual Gods on high and remain very approachable and amenable. Pilots in return do not act like spoilt Hollywood actors or supermodels and actually enjoy doing a good job because they feel valued. Management explain to all new recruits that your progress is totally your responsibilty. Act like an idiot and you go nowhere. Act responsibly and you will rise up the ladder. The net upshot of all this is everybody gets on well (it is a big airline) and people realise (both management and pilots)that the companies survival and therefore their survival is directly on their shoulders. The attitude of the pilots and mangement is the most refreshing I have ever seen.

Sounds a great idea to me. Anyone see any reason why it shouldn't work elsewhere?

[HugMonster]

What many people seem all too often to forget is that unions tend to prosper and recruit huge memberships where management is poor, autocratic or overbearing - or all three.

Management therefore have only themselves to blame for the unions. If you don't like them, change your style so your employees don't feel the need for them.

The days of geing convincingly able to blame unions for things like poor attitude, restrictive practices, excessive pay demands etc. went many years ago, before Maggie even departed the scene of sane politicians.

And Guv? Be careful about "gerrymandering" allegations. We all saw what went on around the time of the so-called ballot of FR employees.

[redtail]

Companies get the unions they deserve. Supposedly Southwest Airlines, the darling of the armchair airline experts and critcs, wanted their workforce to be unionized, so as to be easier to work with. Go figure!

[Hold at Saffa]

You change beliefs by changing behaviour, not the other way around. And you change behaviour by a subtle mixture of carrot and stick. The secret is finding out which size and flavour of carrot, and what diameter of stick is most effective.

[Bamse01]

Guvnor
It is amusing to read your posts.
I am a B-727 Captain with American Airlines
with 16 years of service and a spotless record.
When AA grounds its 727 fleet in 6 months time, are you suggesting that I and the approximately 1000 other B-727 Flight Crew
should hit the pavement and start looking
for other B-727 jobs around the world, and
since AA is picking up 737,757 and 777 aircraft, they should recruit only appropriately type rated pilots?
Then I could go out and buy myself a B-777
type rating and reapply as a B-777 skipper?
Wouldn't do much for morale and continuity in the pilot group and I seriously doubt the company would save a penny.
Do you suggest pilots pay for their own recurrent training too?
Guvnor, I think it is time for you to get a grip and quit bashing pilots!!
Enough for now!!
:(

[Raas767]

Bamse.

Your well written post represents an island of reason in a sea of irrationality!
I'm sorry I missed you guys the other night.

[The Guvnor]

Bamse01 - you obviously didn't read (or take in) what was said. Retraining from one type to another, under this scenario, would obviously be available to those that merited it. There would be no bonding (which would make tilii happy) and as it's a privilege and not a right it therefore becomes an incentive.

Recurrent training would of course be the airline's cost - though in other industries it is indeed the individual's responsibility to remain current in their speciality.

Read QAww's post on DHL/EAT and you'll see how it works.

Regardless of whether or not you think it's a good idea, I strongly suspect this is the way that things will go. Already you have many airlines requiring people to be type rated - or pay for their own ratings (Southwest and Ryanair are just two) and frankly there's not a lot wrong with that. To do otherwise would be like employing a programmer with Pascal skills and retraining when you need a C++ programmer!

The primary benefit to employees is that they are then free to move around as they please (without the constraints of bonding) and in order to keep the best people the airlines need to look after them. This would include good pay, lifestyle, promotion, and conversion on other types.

As I said before, it's a win-win situation.

[tilii]

Again, let's answer The Guvnor's earlier question "Anyone see any reason why [QAww's concept] shouldn't work elsewhere?"

1. We only have QAww’s word for this description of DHL/EAT and, by his own statement, he is not employed there and writes as a wannabe employee. What store should we place in his description, then?

2. “You get on in the company by doing what you are paid to do professionally and with no fuss. If you are good at your job you will be rewarded with promotion. If you are bad at your job you will get nowhere.” This is already broadly the case in most airlines.

3. “Should a new aircraft type appear, only the good, hard working and high socially intelligent people (which 70% of pilots are not) will be invited to join the fleet. Anybody else is left behind and will lose their jobs as the older aircraft are phased out.” Interesting. The words ‘good, hard working and high socially intelligent’ leave me a little puzzled for more reason than that they lack grammatical integrity. Such judgements are made subjectively. Who will decide? Oh, yes. Sorry, I forgot. It will be the management … er, minus anyone honest enough to ‘remove himself’ (all male management, then?) on account of his self-assessed prejudice. And what about Qaww’s remark about pilots? Seventy percent of us are NOT ‘high socially intelligent’? Well, thank God for that. It sounds quite painful, don’t you think?

4. “The management are interested in getting the job done quickly and efficiently … . Both pilots and management try very hard to make it all work.” Again, already the case elsewhere.

5. “Management do not turn into the usual Gods on high and remain very approachable and amenable. Pilots in return do not act like spoilt Hollywood actors or supermodels and actually enjoy doing a good job because they feel valued. Management explain to all new recruits that your progress is totally your responsibilty. Act like an idiot and you go nowhere. Act responsibly and you will rise up the ladder. The net upshot of all this is everybody gets on well (it is a big airline) and people realise (both management and pilots)that the companies survival and therefore their survival is directly on their shoulders.” What utterly naïve nonsense. QAww is entitled to express opinions and prejudices, but that does not mean we must all swallow them as the gospel. It is clear that QAww believes pilots act like spoilt Hollywood actors or supermodels (except, perhaps, those who are lucky enough to be employed by DHL/EAT). This places QAww in precisely the same category as The Guvnor and his entrepreneurial ilk. ‘Nuff said?

6. “The attitude of the pilots and mangement is the most refreshing I have ever seen.” Since Qaww does not work there, how does he/she say that he/she has ‘seen’ it at all?

Nah, methinks I'll give this one a wide berth. Sounds like a sycophant-infested cesspool to me. But you go on ahead Guv. :D

[HugMonster]

Unfortunately, as we have all seen time after time, whilst it is very easy for incompetent pilots to be removed, for those who upset management to be ousted or forgotten in some quiet backwater, and for those who "rock the boat" with safety concerns that would cost money for rectification to be gagged, it is far from easy to remove incompetent managers, nepotistic appointees and unsafe managers.

Interesting quote about Stalin from the book I'm reading at the moment - "Archangel" by Robert Harris.

Quoting Simonov, he describes a Politburo meeting in which the large number of aircraft crashes was discussed. ...the head of the airforce, Rychagov, was drunk. "There will continue to be a high level of accidents," he blurted out, "as long as we're compelled by you to go up in flying coffins." There was a long silence, at the end of which Stalin murmered, "You really shouldn't have said that." A few days later, Rychagov was shot.

[Bamse01]

Guvnor
I am not sure why I even bother replying to your post, but I will just mention a couple of things that comes to mind. I think the majority of pilots in my own and most other airlines would prefer spending their career with one company until retirement.
Contrary to your belief, not all pilots are nomads willing to move around and offer their services to the highest bidder who happens to operate the equipment type such pilot is qualified on.
In your post of 22Nov, you specifically say that if a fleet is being closed out, everybody on that fleet should have their contract terminated.
If you think that is the way to get any loyalty among your troops, then good luck in running your airline!

[The Guvnor]

HugMonster - are you suggesting that poor managers should be shot? Novel idea, and certainly one that puts paid to the Peter Principle! :D :D :D

Seriously, though, the senior management (ie board of directors) are appointed (or not, as the case might be) by the shareholders. If all employees are also shareholders, then they get a fair chance to state their case to the other shareholders as to why X should (or should not) be elected/re-elected.

Poor managers should be as accountable as anyone else in the company.

tilii - as I suspect that QAww's English is a lot better than your Dutch or French, perhaps you'd like to cut him (or her!) a bit of slack on grammatical issues?

I shall be talking with EAT/DHL on Monday to learn more about their employment practices.

Still, I'd be interested to learn what's meant by "high socially intelligent"!

Bamse01 - I refer you to my earlier reply to you:

Bamse01 - you obviously didn't read (or take in) what was said. Retraining from one type to another, under this scenario, would obviously be available to those that merited it. There would be no bonding (which would make tilii happy) and as it's a privilege and not a right it therefore becomes an incentive.

Recurrent training would of course be the airline's cost - though in other industries it is indeed the individual's responsibility to remain current in their speciality.

Read QAww's post on DHL/EAT and you'll see how it works.

Regardless of whether or not you think it's a good idea, I strongly suspect this is the way that things will go. Already you have many airlines requiring people to be type rated - or pay for their own ratings (Southwest and Ryanair are just two) and frankly there's not a lot wrong with that. To do otherwise would be like employing a programmer with Pascal skills and retraining when you need a C++ programmer!

The primary benefit to employees is that they are then free to move around as they please (without the constraints of bonding) and in order to keep the best people the airlines need to look after them. This would include good pay, lifestyle, promotion, and conversion on other types.

As I said before, it's a win-win situation.

Therefore - unless a troublemaker or otherwise someone that doesn't fit into the corporate ethos - then I can't see much need for a nomadic lifestyle. Unlike the present seniority system where you are bound to the company by your number, it would be your choice to leave if you were not happy there. That's really the point that I'm trying to get across here.

[tilii]

The Guvnor

I am delighted to read your post above. I shall be talking with EAT/DHL on Monday to learn more about their employment practices.No doubt DHL/EAT's management are eagerly standing by their telephones to chew the fat with you. We may, then, anticipate your extensive report on 'radical liberalism in airline management' on Monday evening. :rolleyes:

I intended no offence to QAww in challenging his/her chosen words. But they make no sense to me. The point is that I would not attempt to communicate in French or Dutch unless I was able to make myself clearly understood.

I too will be interested to hear how QAww's words accurately describe a practice used in DHL/EAT. I will be even more interested to know how DHL/EAT assess 'high socially intelligent'. :D ;)

[TowerDog]

Aye Guvnor, you are stirring the pot again?

Wanting to get away with seniority (Like that amateur pilot Yak Yak/Saffa on the other thread) and you want pilots to pay for their own training and conversions?

Great idea from your standpoint, but reality would soon set in: No pilot would come and work for you. (Except for scabs perhaps)
No pilots, no flying, no airline, etc.

I tried that nomadic lifestyle with IASCO, contracts, ferry flights, etc.
It sucks.
No job security. No seniority and the pay was not nearly enough to justify the lifestyle. It was different 20 years ago: One could spend a number of years in the Orient or in the sand-box and retire early with a Swiss bank account. No more.

Seniority is here to stay whether you like it not. Get used to it. (Try it, you may like it as a gay guy once told me.... :D )

Uh, and another thing you are wrong on:
On the previous page you said: "People with vested interest over seniority are the unions, not the employees and not managment".

Uh, the unions are employees who got organized.
(Perhaps you have seen to many old Hoffa movies? :D )

So lighten up Gov, support your local unions, hug a pilot.......

[Huck]

P.J. O'Rourke once had a great line - something like this: those who are against gun ownership have never held one in their hand when they were truly afraid.

I would say that those who are against seniority have never had a number.

Please, PLEASE, Guv - put yourself in this quick scenario: your company has announced plans to purchase a fleet of bigger planes. You are scheduled next week for an interview with the chief pilot to move to the new fleet. Then during this morning's first walk-around, your first officer finds a crack in a prop leading edge. You write it up, and the chief pilot strolls out and tells you to just go with it. Your 10,000 hours of experience tell you it is dangerous, but you really want the new position. What do you do?

I saw a captain put in that exact scenario at ASA in 1998.

The non-seniority world you describe is essentially that of the USAF. I would suggest you find a synopsis of the crash in Dubrovnik that killed US Secretary of Commerce Ron Brown in the early nineties. It was against regulations to fly to that airport, as it was not properly surveyed. But Clinton's White House put pressure on from above, and the pilots would not screw up their careers by saying no.

[The Guvnor]

Huck - in that scenario, I'd trust that the pilot would refuse to operate the aircraft until maintenance had either cleared it to fly (the crack being within specs) or had grounded it. If the Chief Pilot tried to force the line pilot to fly the aircraft without such authorisation from maintenance - and/or used his refusal to fly the aircraft as a reason for declining a transfer to the new fleet, then the Chief Pilot would be exiting the building that evening clutching his P45.

Safety comes first.

Same as with the fuel issue that was being debated on another thread - as far as I'm concerned, the Captain is being paid to make decisions about what margin of fuel s/he's happiest with. Not Ops.

[redtail]

You're only visiting this planet, aren't you Guvnor?

In Huck's scenario most of us would prefer a union on our side to hedge our bets on the outcome. Being right doesn't ensure employment everywhere.

[TechFly]

Bamse01, don't worry.

Fortunately The Guv is alone against all the others.
He/she should apply for another forum (may be only for managers with such perspective view).

I recognise the argument is difficult and wide but the attitude he/she has been demostrating during the past make me clear only ONE thing: I will never work with him/her....

CRM should be mandatory for people flying the desk like The Guv.

Cheers.

Fly safe & enjoy life.

[The Guvnor]

Redtail - only one thing is going to assure you of that and it ain't a union. It is - as was promulgated on the first page of this thread - trust between management and staff.

BALPA (aka the British Airways Line Pilots Association) might be fine if it's a non-controversial issue, but if you trawl through the many previous threads on the subject they don't seem to represent their member's interests against BA (in particular) and indeed many of the other airlines either.

As some of the Dan Air people how well they were protected by BALPA when BA took them over! :rolleyes:

[redtail]

I still prefer to hedge my bets.

By the way, I helped to change unions at my company because the previous union failed to represent my interests. It can be done.

[Alpine Flyer]

I'd first like to thank for the original post which I thought to be excellent reading. Management could improve a lot by treating pilots and cabin crew as "our guys handling the customers" rather than cost bases (as very aptly described in another post; I work for a beancounter-managed airline as well)

I offer the theory that Guv is actually a (B)ALPA mole offering anti-pilot theories to force us to reason pro-seniority, etc. :-)

Apart from the obvious issue of "safety vs. promotion" (and Guv, your reply to this is really naive) seniority systems create a monopoly of supply for the pilots. The airline cannot hire pilots not on the seniority list and is therefore generally forced to accept the conditions of those already on the list. The bigger the airline is the more efficient the monopoly becomes as relative growth (expressed as a rate of new pilots vs. already employed pilots) is usually slowing as the airline grows.

While this may sound like beancounter drivel it is one of the main reasons guys like Guv dislike seniority. There is no way for airlines to escape their pilots and especially no way to hire cheap "newbies" or "already qualfied" (by whom) pilots and fire the pilots already there.

On the other hand, seniority forces pilots to stick to their airline as every "sidestep" will also be a step back career-wise (unless stepping to an airline not governed by seniorty - despite the shining example set by DHL/EAT that doesn't seem to be a career move fancied by many). This contrasts sharply with the careers in other professions where a "sidestep" is the only way to move upwards because "internal promotion based on ability" is not happening. Especially in the US most pilots are a lot more loyal to their Airline than its managers..........

Seniority has its "gives" as well as its "takes". It is not a free ride but something to be paid for. To give it up would be the most stupid thing we could ever do. Even the simple fact that management types want to remove it should be reason enough to preserve it. It won' disappear by talking it away, even if Guv may think so.

[HugMonster]

Guv, do you really think that, in such a scenario, an unscrupulous company would be so stupid as to put that down as a reason?

[Gantenbein]

Tilii:

From ‘Management and Pilots should read this’ (today):
I intended no offence to QAww in challenging his/her chosen words. But they make no sense to me. The point is that I would not attempt to communicate in French or Dutch unless I was able to make myself clearly understood.
From ‘Clipping The Airlines' Wings Would Do Us All A Favour: John Humphrys’ (today):
No need, then, for a terminal 5. No more will my wife's hairdresser and her aircraft refueller boyfriend (sorry ... partner) be able to afford their drunken orgies in Antigua. Flying will become one of The Guvnor's 'privileges and not rights'. Good show!

Does your wife really have a boyfriend who goes off to drunken orgies in Antigua? Or are you talking about her hairdresser’s boyfriend? How can any of this have anything to do with The Guvnor's 'privileges and not rights'?

I see two possible conclusions for you to draw: either realise that even between native English speakers, communication will never be free of ambiguity, and therefore accept those who contribute to the forum as people who contribute to the debate, or decide that since you, like those others that you criticise, cannot always make yourself understood, you will have to stick to your beliefs and refrain from contributing.

For the sake of debate and wider understanding, I hope you’ll opt for the first conclusion.

Other than this, this is a very interesting thread. May I express the hope that those who contribute read what has been written, before posting replies that show they haven’t?

(edited some ambiguous text...) ;)

[ 25 November 2001: Message edited by: Gantenbein ]

[tilii]

Gantenbein

Must I really offer you a lesson in English grammar?

The phrase, "wife's hairdresser" is entirely unambiguous, dear chap, in that the apostrophe makes it clear that we are talking here about the 'hairdresser of (in the possessive sense) my wife'.

And, if my taxation solutions were to be introduced, it seems likely that 'the hairdresser of my wife', together with 'the aircraft refueller boyfriend of (in the possessive sense) the said hairdresser of my wife' will no longer be able to afford airfares to the said drunken orgies in Antigua, this because flying will have become a 'privilege and not a right', a phrase used by friend The Guvnor to describe promotion prospects for pilots in his theoretically perfect, and seniority-less, airline.

If you have a problem following any of that, I respectfully suggest that you take whatever steps are necessary to locate a forum where the English language is written in more simplistic terms. My children recommend the CITV website, for example. OK? :rolleyes: :D ;)

[Gantenbein]

Tilii
Thank you. You have demonstrated my point more elaborately than I could have. :cool:

[tilii]

Yep, that's right. Good at elaborating I am. :D :D :D

[The Guvnor]

tilii - that last sounds like it was lifted from a Dr Seuss book!

Taking some of your own advice to heart, are we? :D :D :D

[Gantenbein]

Back to the topic…

IMHO, abolishing the seniority system may occur, but it can only work if it is done worldwide. If only half of the world’s great airlines decide to do without it, they will quickly discourage those on the lower rungs of the ladder, and find they cannot replace those who leave to pursue a more promising career elsewhere. Alternatively, there will be a huge mistrust between those who feel they have no chance of getting command and those who have had it to begin with.

And even if the whole world adopts airlines without seniority… Managers can find jobs in a host of different companies, since managing one will not be very different compared to managing another. Airline pilots, however, are endowed with skills that would not help them in any other line of business. So their services are restricted to airlines. While the US is special in the sense that several major airlines can exist side by side, with all of them vying for the same pilots, who have similar backgrounds, share the same work ethics, and speak the same language, the rest of the world is not the same single market. If you think only of the communication that is necessary between two pilots in an emergency situation, it becomes unthinkable that these two pilots don’t speak the same language… fluently. So pilots cannot be employed just anywhere, and airlines cannot employ just any pilot. So seniority will continue to exist, naturally, in large parts of the world. This can be overcome, but I can’t see this taking place within a generation or two. Even in management, only a few, very special people succeed in countries they were not familiar with before accepting the post.

Airlines would be like other industries, if it weren’t for the fact that many countries have only one major airline. The pilots who work for them are specialists.
Airline pilots would be like other specialists, if it weren’t for the fact that they work in possibly urgent situations which require instant communication, improvisation and decisiveness. For this to work, you need a team in which each member understands the other.

While there are other industries that are poorly represented in many countries, few work with stress situations. While other professionals work with stress situations, few work in multinational teams. And few stand to lose millions of euros of equipment if they don’t perform. Not to mention hundreds of lives. So isn’t that a good reason for management to treat us kindly?

[tilii]

Yeah, Guv, looks like I have to keep it pretty simple for some here. :rolleyes: ;)

[Doctor Cruces]

The real problem here is that airlines, as all industries,are run by "bean counters" whose only concern is the bottom line. It doesn't matter a jot how the Operational Management want to treat their aircrews (both front end and cabin) with regard to enough crews to assure sufficient crew rest, and I DON'T mean min rest over the entire duty cycle, cover for sickness and holidays etc etc, it will ALWAYS be the accountants who call the shots.

Trust me on this one....been there, done it and been stuffed by the bean counters.

Doc C.

[Doctor Cruces]

Hate to be seen to be agreeing with The Guvnor, but what was wrong with his reply to Huck's scenario. Huck asked him to put himself in a position and he answered as any responsible airline manager should.

It is NOT the Chief Pilot's (or any other Manager's) place to blackmail or order a pilot to take an aircraft that has a defect that the MEL says should not fly or that the Captain is unsatisfied with in ANY safety oriented way. The Captain is the Commander of that flight and its safe conduct is his responsibility and his alone, not the chief pilot's and not the managing directors or anyone elses.

As for fuel loads, Ops may ADVISE but as to final decision again it is up to the Captain.

Has Guvnor bashing become such a way of life for us PPRuNers that even when he says something sensible it must be greeted with phrases like "are you just visiting this planet?" OK, he is controversial and some of his ideas may not please us all, but has anyone ever stopped to consider that he may make some posts just to add a little controversy and to get a debate going?

OH Gawd, stuck up for Guvnor... where are my pills?

Doc C. :D

[HugMonster]

DrC, I agree with quite a bit of what you say. However, no airline will ever admit to blackmailing a pilot over safety issues, nor will they ever be seen to apply commercial pressure to take no more than minimum fuel, etc. etc. etc.

However, this all happens. I know. I have seen it, in several outfits of varying sizes. I have seen huge amounts of pressure put on pilots who were seen to be "troublesome" or "stirrers" when they raised questions of safety, or pointed out aspects of poor management that had impacts upon operations and operational effectiveness or safety. There are many, many pilots out there who have seen much the same as I have.

The Guvnor gave the only reply any member of management could or would (aoutside a court of law) give. Yet such a reply is, in the context of this forum, slightly naive.

And now I think I've just blown my chance of getting a decent Havana cigar at the Xmas bash! :D

[Doctor Cruces]

HUGMONSTER,

I see what you say and know this to be true also.

Oh for a time when flight safety REALLY takes precident over profit!

We do what we can and hope for the best.

Doc C.

[The Guvnor]

Actually, HugMonster, surprisingly enough it didn't blow your chances of getting a decent Havana at the Chrissy Bash.

I am though rather surprised that you seem to have a single track approach to this: ie that all management is bad and crews are good. Sounds a bit Orwellian to me.

The recurrent message that has been mooted is that there has to be trust between crews and management. I gave a perfectly honest answer about what I would do in the situation given. Certainly, the management team that I have assembled are, I believe, professional enough not to to let safety concerns be overridden by economic ones.

Equally, we would trust that the crews do not seek to take improper advantage of that position.

This is one of the main reasons I have long been a strong advocate of employee shareholding and keeping everyone in the loop, with respect to the company's finances: if it's your money that's at stake (or at least part of it is) then that tends to focus peoples' minds wonderfully.

[ 27 November 2001: Message edited by: The Guvnor ]

[HugMonster]

Not in the least Orwellian, Guv - I've known some real P'sITA of flight crew, and I've known some excellent managers.

The trouble is that there are (at least outside BA :D) far fewer management than crews, and it doesn't take many bad apples to sour the whole barrel. In even a medium-sized airline, two idiots "upstairs" making idiotic decisions, developing sloping-shoulder syndrome and covering their backsides can create a really bad atmosphere, particularly if the remaining members of management don't want to tackle the problem head-on.

Another aspect is that management have the whip hand. Most flight crew are considered "junior" to "management", and aren't seen as what they are - the people who have the most direct input to how well the company performs. If some are seen as "troublemakers", then ousting them or making their lives miserable is very easily done, and they generally have no reply available to them.

Next problem is that most managers are not pilots, and simply don't understand many of the safety implications of flying an aircraft. They think that, if the book says so much fuel is required, for a pilot to take more is simply wasting their money. Furthermore, management will not be in the air, up front when it all goes pear-shaped. Pilots are, and therefore, having a generally fairly well-developed sense of self-preservation, like to feel safe. Most that I have worked with over my career in aviation also appreciate that, if they waste money, it comes out of their paypacket at the end of the month. I'll do all I can to help the company be in a position to give me a nice, fat bonus at Christmas. But I won't ever do that at the expense of safety. One or two managers have tried to persuade me (by fair means and foul) to do so. I'm a rather stroppier so-and-so than many pilots, and have reported them ALL to the CAA for doing so. However, other pilots wouldn't, and therefore are pressured into reducing safety margins.

CRM is required throughout an airline, not just on board the aircraft.

I fully agree that trust is required on both sides. Unfortunately, that is a very rare commodity. You see that very often in the attitude of the more reactionary companies to unions.

Guv, in conversation you and I have thrown a few names around who should not be let out of the playpen any time aviation is involved... they are the sort of managers I am talking about.

[tilii]

The Guvnor Certainly, the management team that I have assembled are, I believe, professional enough to to let safety concerns be overridden by economic ones.I trust the quote above contains a mere typo error. You surely don't mean what you've posted here, do you? :confused:

[ 26 November 2001: Message edited by: tilii ]

[Bigmouth]

The seniority system being fair presumes the hiring system to be fair. Which off course it is not, as all the negatives having been listed in this thread (favoritism, etc.) apply to it. Hence you start out with a potential wrong, which the seniority system in turn rigidly will prevent from ever being corrected.
It also presumes that all its pilots will progress professionally at the same rate. If you were equals as newhires, you´ll still be equals in performance 25 years later. Right.
With a seniority list good work does not get rewarded and poor work does not get penalized.
Pilots are overwhelmingly right of center politically, but for some reason when it comes to this particular issue they turn into hard core socialist.

Ernest K. Gann in ¨Fate is the Hunter¨ (again): The seniority system must ever persist if only because it is a protection of the weak, who are everywhere in the greatest number.

[The Guvnor]

tilii - thank you for pointing that out; corrected with suitable emphasis.

And no, it wasn't a Freudian slip! :D :D :D

[Invalid Delete]

Guv and the advocates of No Seniority :-

The world without seniority already exists in aviation. You are refering to "Contract Pilots" - you know, the ones that you get from Park Aviation and the likes. The trouble is that although you have the flexibility of a quick "Hire and Fire"regime, you have to pay way over the odds for them. (i.e. a 6 month contract in Italy or the Far East on $10,000+ dollars per month + Housing allowances + Medical etc.)

Hence Huge salary bill !

That should surely help you to reduce the recruitment and training costs ? But wait, lets look a bit deeper into this rather short sighted idea. All your pilots are on short contracts - but they all need to be cleared to line, hence loads of training - hence loads more Training Captains, (which will diminish in number and become even more costly than ever). Oh, and then the new guys to type can't fly with each other for a while until they have done 50 hours or 50 sectors (or whatever). And once they are trained and have 6 months on line they get a better contract closer to home and leave the company. Oh dear, more recruitment, more training, more cost, less experience, more headaches...

Who, by the way is going to pay for all these type ratings, to work for a 6 month contract, Snow White ?
You would have to be INSANE to work in an environment like this.

Just look at what has happened in the IT industry. This is a prime example of what would happen in our industry if we went down that route. IT "consultants" can earn shed loads more cash than most pilots, they work 9 - 5 Monday to Friday and they don't get fatigue, shift changes at the last moment. In short they don't get there lives ******ed up like we do. Their employer doesn't have the power to rule their lives and free time like airlines can do, by producing late rosters, loads of changes, not agreeing leave until the last moment etc, etc....

Guv, as you well know, moving from one airline to another is not always simple (only in the boom years ). Additionally on your planet, it would be impossible for anyone to get promoted higher than an FO, as nobody would employ them as a Captain, as they :-
A) Have not been trained as a commander.
B) Have no command experience.
C) Have nobody to reccomend them in the new airline.
D) Can't get any of the above under your proposed system.

If everyone is responsible for their own type ratings, There may be trouble ahead...

[Invalid Delete]

Is Bugg*red really a rude word still ?