Should seniority be scrapped in airlines? [Archive]

BelArgUSA

7th Aug 2007, 08:40

To answer specifically to Dick Deadeye objections...
xxx
There are means of identifying those pilots who perform best as F/O and are potentially upgradable to captain sooner than others... This selection is derived from captain's reports, performance in simulator recurrent training, and in line operations. You see, our F/Os are, when performing above average, given a captain type rating, and thereby, are given the opportunity to occupy the LHS, and practice their future upgrade to full captain status.
xxx
As to the effect on the morale of F/Os, bypassed by direct entry captains, I hardly believe that it ever was the case when I got hired, alongside others. My airline had at times been forced to hire direct entry, not having a number of candidates who were upgradable. These F/Os did maintain their overall seniority. Here in Argentina, pay is a function of seniority from date of hire, and of course, position, not by size or weight of aircraft. I have merely 13 years seniority. I know some F/O, even on the 737, with 25+ years with this company, having a salary nearly equal to mine...
xxx
My colleagues and crews (F/Os included) considered me well enough to recommend me to a promotion to check captain, and further, to manager of flight training, as I have been instructor for many years in airline service (with PanAm). I might be just a plain average pilot, but my reputation as instructor is second to none...
xxx
When the A-340 arrived to this airline, they hired 18 direct entry captains due to the fact that these Airbus were an entirely different breed of technology... and I did not see any discontempt among our crews...
xxx
Shall I also mention, that many major world carriers, such as ANA, JAL, SIA, KAL, MAS, Asiana, Cathay, Emirates, all rely on a large proportion of direct entry captains. No need to mention that these are all succesful airlines, and not only because of geography.
xxx
As to why I did not join i.e. ANA or JAL in Japan, as many PanAmigos did, despite much higher salaries, is because I did not want to suffer 9 months of re-education (and brainwashing) to the Japanese culture and style of training, in a minuscule hotel room in Tokyo. Buenos Aires was always my favorite layover, of all the many places I did fly to... When I arrived here, I received, for free, 6 weeks of intensive Spanish language tutoring, and felt absolutely welcome by everyone, from airline management, down to the people in my street.
xxx
And I prefer Argentina beef dinners with pasta and wine, to sushi with sake...
No mad cows here, they do not need psychiatric treatment...
:)
Happy contrails

ETOPS

7th Aug 2007, 08:42

I think we are confusing two seperate issues here. Seniority as it applies to bidline etc etc and who gets upgraded for command. In BA upgrades come in seniority order but you still have to pass the course. If you knew how many failures there were each year you would be reassured that the system was not just churning out new Captains sausage machine style. We even have the equivalent of an earlier posters "PFO's" those who have had at least 3 goes and still failed. If you are changing fleets to get a left seat and don't pass then you end up back on your original type/seat - something that I seen happen this year to colleagues.

In terms of all the other issues surrounding seniority - how would you organise an airline with 3200 pilots and not become corrupt?

Wingswinger

7th Aug 2007, 09:12

It depends on the airline and its culture. Having been in a legacy carrier and marched up the list to my command which I enjoyed until its ridiculously young retirement age forced me to leave, I am now at a LoCo as a DE TC where promotion is done on experience and ability alone. The selection for command is thorough and uncontaminated by any form of favouritism. There is no such thing as a long-serving co-pilot at my current company (apart from those who fail) because many leave to join legacy carriers or to go to the sand-pit. Nearly all the others enter the command selection process as soon as they have the hours and they gain a command in short order. Mind you, it helps that the company is expanding at 15% per year! It has yet to hit a serious brick wall.

Horses for courses.

Say again s l o w l y

7th Aug 2007, 09:20

Seniority is an outmoded practise. It is hard to see what could replace it successfully, but there are other options.

Virtually everyother industry promotes mainly on merit (and on "who" you know, but that's a different argument!), how can they do it and not the airline world?

The management structure in flying is quite complex. As an FO, your day to day manager is the Captain you are flying with. In a big company, this could be a different person every day of the week.

How can you be meaningfully assessed on a continual basis in this way? You can't really, but how many of us hve had one to one meetings and discussed issues that affect us with pilot managers? Very few I would venture.

One of the problems, is that pilot managers may be senior flight crew with years of experience in the cockpit, but most have little knowledge of how to manage a department. When people say "Human Resources" in flying circles, it is usually followed up by a sneer or sarky comment, but that is really due to not understanding what HR is really all about. (BTW, I'm not in HR)
How many senior pilot managers have had any training in management? Very few. (Ex-airforce are more likely to have had some training, but it is unlikely it has been recent enough or deep enough to cope with a huge modern department and all the asociated issues.)

Personally I think a meritocracy is by far the best way of promoting people and it is pure laziness in a companies HR dept. and self interest amongst more "senior" pilots (who will usually have more horsepower behind them) which has stopped a good solution being found.

As has already mentioned. Seniority lists is more likely to hold down salaries than increase them, because it removes the desire for people to change company for fear of losing this all encompassing thing called "seniority."

It is a managements dream to have something like this. A device to prevent pilots moving jobs without having to pay them more. Great!

If you look at other fields, at the start of your career, you increase your salary fastest by moving jobs. It isn't unusual in some fields for people to have moved 6 or 7 times in the first 10 years of their employment life. The days of companies disliking lots of moves on CV's when there is a clear upward path shown is gone. It is an accepted fact. That doesn't mean it's popular though.

Bonding has always been used to try and stop the free movement of pilots between companies, seniority lists are just another mechanism of control over the pilot workforce. It works for many, but it is a bit outmoded today. A very hard thing to find a good workable replacement system though.

Seat1APlease

7th Aug 2007, 09:42

The danger is that if commands were allocated at the management's discretion then it would be the brown nose brigade who would get rewarded for their efforts.

The ones who always take minimum fuel irrespective of the weather on the day. Those who volunteer to work on days off for the money, even though they are breaking agreements by doing so, those who we used to call the Martini pilots who would go anywhere, anytime, anyplace.

In short you could write off any hope of a home or social life because you would have to scramble up the same slippery pole. The advantage of the present system is that pilots still have to pass the standards laid down by training departments, rather than the managements favourites getting the job.

Say again s l o w l y

7th Aug 2007, 09:49

That is a very good point and one that is difficult to dispute. Seniority does have its merits and if it is ever going to be replaced at certain airlines, it needs to a better system, not just a more "modern" one.

warmkiter

7th Aug 2007, 10:00

g´day

sorry to say, but half of the guys who write here, dont have a clue about airlinebiz.. its the half who wants to get rid of seniority:)...
how do you want to select the guys to the left seat? by flying skills..
big joke,:} sorry to say but in an decent airline all pilots have way enough skills to fly left and right seat.if not then chance the airline.if the F/Os are good enough only for right seat then something went wrong in the initial selection:=.
i have been flying 2 years A320 family as F/O, now since 6 years F/O on B744 and could have moved to comand course allready a year ago.had the option on A320 for lowcoster in the company or 767/757 charter also within the company. sorry to say but i like it more to fly a year or so as SFO on B744 and then go to MD11 cargo as commander.if you are in the biz, you know by the options for wich company i work for...
if you start choosing commanders by "skills,proficiency or management abilities" you get a brownnosing,completely :mad:management controlled,mafia:mad:like company.have fun, i dont want to work in an enviroment like that...one of the best things in seniority is that the management has no influence who becomes commander... think twice about that.. blue skies..

BelArgUSA

7th Aug 2007, 10:30

Compare the seniority system in airlines, to the degraded public school education system known in the USA and other countries since some 40 years ago... In the USA, kids acquire 12 years seniority to receive their high school diploma... They just sit there for 12 years...
xxx
To achieve all this, departments of education had to lower education curriculum levels so that a larger number of students pass... and can get to a college... yet unable to read, and write... But it sounds good when you have a class of little 18 years old monkeys all graduating... Quality education... Some 40 years ago, only 66% graduated from high school, forced to study stupid subjects as physics and trigonometry. So, there was a need to change the curriculums to more intellectual subjects such as "household economics" and "finger painting"...
xxx
Then we send them to some colleges with football teams... and to keep these good football players, we invent degrees in "underwater basket weaving" to be sure that our little monkeys can maintain grade averages to continue to win the championships...
xxx
Airlines are in a sense like that... lower the standards, so you are insured to graduate to command by seniority (only), not by merit...
xxx
Should you not believe me, have a look at the spelling of some here, college graduates and pilots... Oh, if you wish, criticize my English spelling, please do so... (yet I was not born and raised in English)... How is your French and Spanish spelling, by the way...? Better than mine, hopefully...!
xxx
:)
Happy contrails

flightleader

7th Aug 2007, 11:03

Without seniority system,pilot's carrier would becomes a 'dog eat dog' world.It is
going to be harder when one grow older.If you can rise faster as an FO then you will fall faster when you are a captain.

With seniority system,promotion path is in a more orderly manner.If the airline is expanding,you promotion is faster.But if the airline is matured,promotion will be slower,you have to jump ship for a faster carrier path.If you have been sitting around waiting years for your command and thinking that seniority is the obstacle of your promotion path,then SHAME ON YOU! You idiot counldn't count!
Simple calculation would pinpoint where you would be by looking at the company fleet plan.Now stop blaming the seniors and pull out that calculator!

bomarc

7th Aug 2007, 12:30

seniority options:

date of hire at current airline.

date of first flight as a pilot anywhere (ppl)

putting all names into hat and having sexiest female flight attendant draw names....first drawn equals top seniority.

take a pilot with 19 years seniority and make them junior to someone at a merged airline with 3 years seniority

enforce a meritocracy controlled by management, who would judge you on how many times you "helped out" on your days off. (while denying it...this would encourage a company man concept)

Yes dear friends, there are a bunch of marginal pilots who are senior to you. They are total A$&holes. They aren't very good at airplane knowlege, CRM, and don't leave a good tip at dinner.

But the other options are simply unfair...except for putting all the names into a hat...and you would still get A$#holes senior to you, but then it would be by shear luck.

My airline just merged with another here in the US. My airline made over 200 million profit this last quarter, their airline lost money. THEY claim THEY saved our bacon so they should be senior. The Arbitraitor (remove ARBI) said someone who was 8 years old when I started flying the line would be senior to me.

I'll take the pretty girl with the hat system...at least their is a pretty girl to look at.

Hand Solo

7th Aug 2007, 12:46

I used to think seniority sucked until I got some. In my airline management appointments are largely made through toadying and cronyism and very rarely does a talented individual succeed. Imagine if flying promotions were conducted in that manner.

parabellum

7th Aug 2007, 14:01

This is really a no brainer and I am curious as to why any one would want to dispense with the seniority system.

When you have the seniority/qualification/experience/ suitability you are assigned a command course, if you pass you get your command, any problems so far?
If you fail you go back and study, usually a year, others will pass you by.

To say that you have seen total losers upgraded on seniority, (BelArg) , suggests to me that the training, not the seniority system, is wrong. If they are no good how come they passed a command course and is that the fault of a). seniority, b). the management or c). the union or d). the training system?

Anyone who feels threatened by seniority probably hasn't got any!

(I exclude merger situations).

GlueBall

7th Aug 2007, 14:06

Captain BelArgUSA: If the "World's most experienced" airline didn't go belly up in 1991 you'd still be flying your jet clipper and you wouldn't be bad mouthing the ALPA airline seniority system which had made you 747 captain when "your turn" to upgrade was due.
In fact, comandante gringo, I bet that when YOU were way up there in the stratosphere of the PanAm seniority system, that you wouldn't want to give up your cozy bid line to EZE/GRU/GIG/SCL . . . for some junior captain, or would you? Would you take the junior captain's JFK-CCS trip in place of your JFK-EZE flight? . . . Please tell us.

Viscount Sussex

7th Aug 2007, 14:41

Here we go. So many good posts, different angles. Every system has its good and bad points. However, fair is fair. In my opinion LIFO (last in, first out) should be used for redundancy. Same applies for promotion, first in (higher on the list) gets a shot at his/her command. Reverse for demotion. When he or she gets the command, subject to proficiency, keeps it. If you start promoting people on "merit" (I heard it called other things), it can be subjective. Direct entry it’s great for the guy that already has a command. But I’m sure that if I went to Argentina or anywhere as direct entry captain, the local F/O’s would be unhappy, because it would only delay their promotions. Also who is to say that the criteria for promotion in one company are the same as in another company? Transparency. A list of names with the date of joining to the side of each name is pretty hard to argue with. It (hopefully) avoids funny hand shakes, nepotism of all sorts…. the correct squadron tie…, mates of mates…, etc….etc
Some new pilots believe that they would benefit from that system, so they support it. Maybe some would benefit, but overall it wouldn’t be good for the pilot fraternity.
That’s my halfpenny worth.
In the banker, so shoot!!
:ouch:

Lemper

7th Aug 2007, 14:52

Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.
Sir Winston Churchill (1874 - 1965), Hansard, November 11, 1947
Now replace Government by Promotion and Democracy by Seniority.

Anti-ice

7th Aug 2007, 15:06

You know , the only people that ever whinge about seniority -are those that don't have it/haven't worked their way up to it....

It's a good way of promoting loyalty within a company and doesn't mean that anyone is less valued or considered.

Every job has to have some kind of perk, and in the airline industry these are becoming fewer and fewer so at least keep the one thing that proves you have done hours/months/years of hard work for your current employer.

The trouble is , in todays pampered to little world, everyone wants everything now, withhout some of the hard work that comes along with certain things.

In a work environment where you have very little direct continuous contact with management, it's just a way of acknowledging your longstanding and appreciated time with your company.

If you aren't / weren't in the right place at the right time, then that is no more your colleagues fault than anyone elses......

Happy Landings. :)

Say again s l o w l y

7th Aug 2007, 15:34

One of the problems in todays industry is the seemingly reducing T & C's. Something that the seniority system does nothing to combat. In fact it makes it harder to resist, since most people would usually vote with their feet if treated badly, but with the seniority system you could lose too much.

Loyalty should work both ways, something that companies like Ryanair should learn. (If there was an argument for a strong pilot body and something like a seniority system that would be one!)

As I've said, I don't think seniority is perfect, but it does seem to be the best that is available at the moment, but it is by no means perfect. A hybrid system that took length of service into account, but also took competance and further training into it.

Younger, less experienced pilots are more likely to be "anti", simply because they have less to lose. It doesn't make their comments less valid though.

wrt, comments about management structure. As an F/O you fly everyday with your immediate line manager, the problem is that this person is different all the time. I think this structure is one of the problems in this business and one of the prime causes of the "them and us" antagonism that can go on between flight deck and more senior management.

There is no/little relationship between "head office" and flight deck unless there is a problem, which normaly ends up in finger pointing and bad tempers and a loss in respect.

I know some companies do have differing ways around it, but most of them seem to be not that successful. Though this is gettin away from the issue of seniority lists somewhat.

cavortingcheetah

7th Aug 2007, 15:48

:hmm:

A meritocratic system of seniority might be acceptable in a company or organization whose employees were individually and directly linked to profits with precise accountability to shareholders.
This system of profit generation and accountability is not the norm to be found in airlines in particular or indeed in civil aviation in general. Where growth and profitability are not directly linked to the efforts of one specific person there can be no other system of seniority than the one in which company loyalty and service are rewarded, in the fullness of time and taking into account the ability of the employee to move up the chain of command through each link of seniority. An old navigator of deep acquaintance used to opine that flight decks these days were far too full of fresh faced flying carpet baggers who could neither tell the difference between an air plot transfer and a fart in the Heathrow tunnel nor distinguish a Polar Stereographic from granny's cherry pie.
'Merit,' he would say ' is for First Officers, let them fight among themselves if they must in their over modulated disintegrated fashion'.
'Background is for Commanders and seniority in that regard can only come with time.':ooh:

MD11Engineer

7th Aug 2007, 16:41

In engineering / maintenance how would you describe merit? The guy who signs off any dodgy fix and never has a MX delay? who will work 48 hour shifts on overtime just to get a plane out (you guys like to fly a plane where somebody has been working on for 30 plus hours without a break or sleep?) Or the guy who does his work the best way possible, but refuses to sign off a plane that in his informed opinion is not airworthy and refuses to work when he is tired and dangerous?

Jan

John Wayne

7th Aug 2007, 17:16

Actually, seniority does suck. It's an outdated, pathetic, numbers game with no more foundation in proficiency than driving a big wheel at your local fair. Unfortunately, there is (thus far) no better system available to us pilots with which to replace seniority, and so we're stuck with it.

Live with it; you may well find it a case of the devil you know. :}

Bob Lenahan

7th Aug 2007, 17:45

Great! Now as the Flight Manager I can let my good drinking buddy, who's flown here for 12 months, fly when and where he wants. In fact, next month I'm upgrading him to Cap'n. Now John, on the other hand, who has been here three years, personally and off the record, I'll admit he's a great pìlot. But I don't like him. First of all, he doesn't even like to drink. He didn't even send my wife a happy birthday card for her last birthday. No, I think I'll even cancel his upcoming vacation and ....

PPRuNeUser0183

7th Aug 2007, 19:01

Obviously a very emotive subject. Seniority is far more useful to airlines than it is to pilots.

Yes, length of service SHOULD be recognised & rewarded, including as one of the considerations among others for upgrading.

No, it shouldn’t limit movement between airlines, (I’m not for one minute suggesting that there’s a conspiracy between airlines to fix the market price! – They would never do that would they? := )…

What if pay was based on transferable career experience? For example, what if airlines were to use pay scales based on factored Total Time, using a system similar to Easyjet’s recruitment requirements?

We would have all the benefits of length of service being rewarded when it comes to holiday allocation etc. but pay reflective of our experience, regardless of how many times we’ve switched companies or have been made redundant.

If the pilot shortage is as suggested on other threads, any new start-up or existing company adopting this system would soon attract experienced and competent crews at a market rate, and crews would be motivated to work more hours to get to the next pay scale.

Of course, under such a system airlines would lose crews just as easily if they didn’t remain competitive, which is exactly why they prefer the current system,... to have us by the short & curlies :eek:

PAXboy

7th Aug 2007, 21:28

witchiepooHow about promotion and employment based on the system the rest of the corporate world uses - test results, experience, and references.This gave me a fine laugh.

I am not a pilot but spent 27 years in corporate life. I worked in IT in retail, local government, City of London financial district, freight companies etc. as well as working with (and in) four countries, two of them outside of Europe.

I have seen people promoted because they were the absolute best for the job as well as because it was 'their turn' and the company knew that if they denied the promotion again, they lose the person. Since the person had lots of experience and knowledge of the company - that would be bad.

I have also seen that, when a person is promoted, it is often the worst thing for them. There is a commonplace saying that, if you promote your best salesman to Sales Manager, then you have just gained a bad Sales Manager and lost your best salesman.

The corporate world promotes people on all the usual things: Greed, favouritism, nepotism, ignorance, bribery, self-interest, hatred for the company - the lot.

Say again s l o w l yWhen people say "Human Resources" in flying circles, it is usually followed up by a sneer or sarky comment, but that is really due to not understanding what HR is really all about. (BTW, I'm not in HR)In almost all the companies I have worked for (or now come into contact, whilst being self-employed) also follow 'HR' with a sneer or sarky comment!

The only thing to be sure of is that, like all things human, one day seniority will change. So it is not a question of "Is it a good thing?" but "When will it go for legacy carriers?"

Psr777

7th Aug 2007, 21:50

With legislation changes within the EU regarding age discrimination, I understand that a by product of this legislation, promoting people on time served is under threat if not already against the law (not a legal eagle, so pls forgive if not true).

How will this affect pilots seniority lists within the EU? I believe that concessions based on time served is also under threat?

Any info appreciated.

Rainboe

7th Aug 2007, 22:31

This nugget has been doing the rounds for several years. It's not correct. The legislation was not intended to throw current seniority systems into disarray. This has been admitted. Besides- it is going to take people taking this to Court, and eventually the European Court, at enormous expense. Who is going to pay? The Unions? No- not with many of their members happy with promotion based on seniority. People have been saying for years seniority based concessions and promotion will have to end. It's not happening and it's not going to. You will not see it in your lifetime. This rumour/gossip is being endlessly recirculated.

BelArgUSA

8th Aug 2007, 02:16

Gentlemen...
xxx
It appears that (as mentioned a few times here) that two different issues are discussed about seniority. I do not oppose seniority, as to the privileges for bidding line schedules, time off, vacations, choice of equipment flown. I am only opposed to upgrade by strict seniority. Besides seniority, there are other standards to be considered when it comes to selection for a first command. I talk about experience standards and ability to complete training succesfully.
xxx
I have to deal with many different facts here in Argentina, such as nepotism, and also "relations" at high government level. As an example, last year, I did receive a personal letter, as flight training manager, from a former president of this nation (we had many presidents in a period of a few months in the period of 1991-1992), the letter requesting that his son, a 737 F/O, be selected for upgrade as captain, in the shortest possible delays. The chief pilot received the same letter, as well as the director of operations. I know this 737 F/O, but I never flew with him as I am not 737 qualified, except that I occasionally instruct in 737 classrooms or simulators, if an instructor is not available for subjects I know.
xxx
The director of operations and the chief pilot asked me (thank you for that) to see if he could qualify as captain, and to give him an evaluation ride in a simulator. I would have gladly "bailed-out" of this diplomatic mission. I also got many reports from the captains he flew with, many were quite negative. So when I was in Miami, instructing in 747 simulators, he "demanded" to be given an evaluation ride the next day, as he had to go back ASAP... I had to juggle my whole 747 training schedule for him...
xxx
We spent 90 minutes in a 737-200 simulator, during which I gave him a basic proficiency check, nothing nasty... holding patterns, steep turns at 45º bank and 250 kts, a ADF approach circle to land. He failed every maneuvers, even by F/O standards. I even suggested he flew in the RHS (seat he is accustomed to) but insisted in occupying the LHS. He flew a good all-engine ILS, and a passing engine-out ILS, but "crashed" during the missed-approach. I stopped there... and had to spend 2 hrs on the phone with Buenos Aires to document my disapproval of his performance.
xxx
His daddy, sent a letter to the chief pilot about me, to the effect that I was not a competent 737 rated instructor... and demanded another evaluation ride... which he got a few weeks later, by a "real 737 instructor", who got the same opinion as mine... so he continues to fly as F/O... and I do believe, will be for long... I suspect that he will be "bypassed" a few times, in the future.
xxx
Thank you Glue Ball about my "seniority" with PanAm... but you know little about the PanAm instructors at the Academy, we were outside of the seniority list, we were assigned "training lines" without bidding... And JFK-GIG-GRU-EZE-SCL was not a training line... generally it was JFK-FRA...
xxx
I was an instructor at the Academy, teaching in classroom and simulators since 1972, F/Es and pilots, 727, 707 and later the 747, when I was given the option of doing the 747, as many instructors went to UAL at the time PanAm sold the Pacific division, then became a line-check pilot and finally a proficiency-check pilot, simulator and line. My PanAm seniority was only sufficient to be a rather junior MIA based 727 captain... I shall also mention that I got nearly 10 years of furlough, in part, thanks to the merge with National (recalled and furlough again 3 months later).
xxx
I have my opinions, right... I hate new generation electronic gadgets and push-button-proficient pilots, who lack airmanship, I hate 747-400s designated "2 pilot aircraft" as 3 are always required for the long sectors they operate, and for me, to upgrade to command, I see that those who qualify are proficient.
xxx
I am flight training manager, and not in a popularity contest. Above all, I try to manage a training department to the best of my abilities, and try to qualify pilots with the highest possible level of training and airmanship. All my "boys" are my friends, I dont want to see them do a CFIT in the Andes. They can come any time to my office, and draw a beer from my little fridge to discuss problems... And if you do not like "old school pilots" and me sharing today's airspace, I am to retire soon when the last 747-200 is gone...
xxx
:)
Happy contrails

bomarc

8th Aug 2007, 02:45

<They can come any time to my office, and draw a beer from my little fridge to discuss problems..>

we shouldn't promote alcohol use in our profession...I am sure you meant a root beer

BelArgUSA

8th Aug 2007, 03:04

Definitely, Mr. Bomarc
xxx
We do not promote alcoholic beverages within 12 hrs of start of flight duty.
I quote my GOM...
When outside of these limitations, I indulge myself with a beer or two, and red wine for dinner.
In Argentina, root beer is unknown...
What is this...? - Hmmm... I see, USA, got the picture...
xxx
Cheers (just having a glass of wine right now) -
I fly next friday, 0700Z - is it ok, Sir...?
:)
Happy contrails

GlueBall

8th Aug 2007, 04:07

. . .The classic 747-200/300s will not be retiring anytime soon; in fact one of the latest editions [s/n 24837/810] a -329SF was delivered to SN (Sabena) in October 1990, long after one of the first -412s [s/n 24063/736] was delivered to SQ (Singapore Airlines) in July 1989!

BelArgUSA

8th Aug 2007, 04:39

Señor Glue Ball -
xxx
I was mentioning the last 200 to be retired from my airline... That is when I retire.
Our two last 747-287 were delivered in 1982. So, 25+ years of service.
xxx
As far as 200/300s you are correct, they were still delivered in 1990/1991.
Just looked on my production list, the last "747 Classic" was s/n 25226, a 747-228F (Air France) but Martinair got it - PH-MCN - delivered 19 SEP 1991.
Many 200/300s will remain active another 10 years...
PanAm's N747PA, the first 747-121 flew until 1995 or so, 25+ yrs career...
xxx
:)
Happy contrails

Wino

8th Aug 2007, 12:23

BelArg,

You defeat your own arguements. If you are trying to make it a SAFETY thing about promotion, then you have a problem with your training department.

The reality is that you simply use an arbitrary standard, (seniority + x number of hours etc.) for promotion, and then you get to TRY.

The promotion is not automatic at ANY airline (atleast in the USA, though your example of the x president proves quite the opposit problem without seniorit, even if you did block it that one time) , if you feel that the captains are not qualified, then you are argueing about training standards, not seniority.

So you have blown your own arguements out of the water. Unfortunately seniority, though not perfect removes ALL of those outside pressures and makes upgrade to captain simply a test of skills, as it should be, and not a test of skills + political connections, as it absolutely should NOT be.

Cheers
Wino

RHRP

8th Aug 2007, 12:23

Psr777
Using seniority in selection for promotion is probably indirect discrimination against women under the sex discrimination legislation brought in 30 years ago. As far as I am aware, no one has brought a case challenging this.
Although we do not yet have any case law to prove one way or the other, my own view is that selection for promotion based on length of service (ie those with the longest service automatically get the first opportunity to be promoted) is probably direct age discrimination under UK law.
It would be a brave pilot who challenged this in the courts. However, case law from other industries might take the matter out of airlines' hands.
RHRP

Wino

8th Aug 2007, 12:29

Also, for those that think the seniority list is detrimental to t & c... I would suggest that they look at the merchant marine, which has a single list, and has been wiped out.

Cheers
Wino

AutoAbort

8th Aug 2007, 13:27

Shall I also mention, that many major world carriers, such as ANA, JAL, SIA, KAL, MAS, Asiana, Cathay, Emirates, all rely on a large proportion of direct entry captains.
THERE I think you might have stepped on a VERY hot potato!
When you employ DECs instead of upgrading FO:s with at least as much, or more experience/qualification as DECs, to save money you are on the wrong path.

AutoAbort

RAT 5

8th Aug 2007, 13:34

There are those who have tried to stress the fact that promotion based on seniority is not the norm. You have to pass the test. The time when you are assessed is based upon length of service (seniority) and required qualifications. Some do not seem to have grasped this. Those qualifications will include such matters as total hours, good enough standards at bi-annual checks, soound attitude in crew/pax management issues, stable personality etc. The company may want a sign that you have an interest in remaining with the company after your promotion.
In any field there will always be those who are average (good enough), average +, very good and excellent. Just look at sport to see the comparisons. Not everybody wins the tennis tournaments or golf; (Kornokova never won any but made a fortune); not every footballer is a star; but then a team needs a good solid longterm consistant performer, rather than a flash in the pan prima doona.
Thus, it must be assumed that all pilots are competant as they pass their checks. You now have the recognised excellent pilot who is an F/O. Older than his years; will make an excellent captain. Do they deserve promotion earlier than the plodder who is dependable, longtern career minded with your company, steady eddy rather than Top Gun? IMHO, no. How is this decision arrived at? Seniority and satisfying the qualifications to deserve assessment. Still got to jump through the hoops.
But I agree with the attitude that seniority sucks when it is always used so the fat cats get fatter by always having the biggest piece of pie. Seniority usually brings higher salaries. That should be enough.
Spreading the argument slightly: it is archaic that larger a/c attract larger salaries. A jet a/c is a jet a/c. Within the same company salary should be by rank and length of service, not type a/c. The salaries come from the overall profits/income of the whole airline, not fleet by fleet. Guys flying short-haul are more productive in pax carried per month than long-haul guys. Guess what. Seniority allows the top dogs to bid on the highest salary fleets. Why? To me it has always seemd odd that the oldest pilots want to be on the most tiring of fleets. Generally (IMHO) longhaul is a younger guy's world. Could it be that the salary is higher and thus the final salary pension is also higher. Fat Cats again. You also get the nonsense that flight managers need to be training captains - another bit of B.S.- and then their salary has to be higher than T.C's because they are managers. Guess what; in some airlines seniority is used to decide who becomes a T.C. Even more B.S and nepotism at its worse.

There has to be a system to decide who, out of a pool of equally qualified people, gets the first chance to prove they are suitable for promotion. Once that choice has been made it is necessary for the candidate to prove they are capable. There merit enters the equation. Seems fair all round.

stillalbatross

8th Aug 2007, 14:03

Any antipodeans reading will fondly remember the early days of Freedom Air in early 90's when all F/O's were told they were eligible for the next 737command slot and were then told to apply for the job with the renumeration they would expect. Obviously some wanted the command to get elsewhere while others wanted to stay a while.
It wasn't pretty, best and winning offer was under 20K sterling. Fortunately the process didn't transfer into Air NZ.

Soft Altitude

8th Aug 2007, 19:17

A couple of thoughts:
Could seniority be defined by the time that you've actually spent in aviation flying actively ?
What about those who were forced (by Force Majeure) to change airlines and hit the bottom of the infamous seniority list every time and started patiently all over again ?
I strongly believe that command should be given to the most experienced F/Os in terms of hours, variety of flying duties, route structure, number of airfields, weather conditions, they've been through, and number of aircraft types flown.
Dump the seniority. I've personally had it, I want my command after dragging my arse in the right hand seat around the planet for 16 years, mostly flying for majors !

BelArgUSA

8th Aug 2007, 22:39

To Wino...
xxx
I know you do not approve of my arguments. You are in USA, a completely different airline environment than mine. I was 1969 to 1991 with PanAm, an ALPA carrier and I had my ALPA card... You appear to be a "Union man"... I was, until 1991... Now I am overseas, completing 38/39 years of a career as pilot... and the USA airline industry and unions, I will not tell you say here my opinion about them, as I am a polite person.
xxx
When PanAm busted, I got an offer as F/E 727 with Delta, for new hire wages, ($1,200/mo. gross - how gross!) yet having 1,000 hrs PIC on 727, 6,000 hrs PIC on 707/DC8 and 1,000 hrs PIC on 747, and ALPA member since 1969... I slammed the door on the USA airline industry, and ALPA as well...
xxx
Here in Argentina, our unions are no better, but one thing, they help pilots of bankrupt air carriers. A few years ago, LAPA, a 737 domestic carrier, bit the dust. We have basically hired out of their defunct seniority, into our airline. Those pilot, who were 737 captains, after completing 12 months with us, are offered upgrade to 737 captain with us, in priority... the union goons decided all of that... not necessarily me... By the way, their date of hire (with us) will be their seniority date, and they later will be bypassed by other more senior pilots who will upgrade.
xxx
We wanted (and unions too) to preserve the status of these experienced 737 pilots, and offer them the decency to continue their lives, and not be obliged to go overseas... By the way, our new-hire wages are decent ($4,000/mo) for a country, you, in USA, define as a third world nation. Not bad for a place where a filet mignon is $12.oo...
xxx
Delta never offered us PanAmigos the consideration (nor did ALPA) that the Argentines give their airline pilots. And same happened to the pilots of Braniff, and Eastern...
xxx
:)
Happy contrails

bomarc

9th Aug 2007, 01:34

sadly, there is a terrible lesson to be learned.

if you live by seniority, and your airline goes tango uniform, you lose by seniority.

if you are senior, you can continue your career by just barely passing every test/checkride you ever have.

if you are junior and excel, you do nothing to line your own pockets (though you have earned my respect).

USA ALPA has largely forgotten any semblance of loyalty to pilots who paid dues for 20 years...

USA ALPA actually pays their administrative help MORE than a 737 pilot at many domestic airlines.

TO the PanAmigos...I am sorry you got screwed over. I really am. There is no excuse except greed.

and we, as a profession, are "greeding" ourselves out of existence.

any airline in the USA that really promotes only based on MERIT, please tell us who you are.

ALPA will soon be de-certified at my airline I think and hope.

You can't change the rules once the game has started....but alpa did

hunterboy

9th Aug 2007, 07:41

Seems that everyone thinks they are a rising star. What happens if you are not as good as you think you are, and start getting bypassed by a new pilot that management think is better than you? (Flew on the same squadron,went to same school,Father is Chief Pilot, etc)
Seeing how things work in my company, I wouldn't trust management to do the right thing.

Dogma

9th Aug 2007, 09:34

Seniority Rules!

Stops thrusting of the "management rectum" to get Commands, Trips, Leave, etc ,etc ,etc!

Additionally, the system works well and enables the smooth, stable and transparent running of the airline:ok:

Say again s l o w l y

9th Aug 2007, 10:34

This thread really demonstrates the lack of trust between pilots and management.

No wonder things are in such a state when there is such distrust, especially when you consider everyone is supposedly working towards the same goal. ie the growth and success of a company.

Most of the comments here seem to be that having a seniority system is a protection against poor practise and nepotism. Can it really be that bad? I don't think it is. There may well be examples, but how many of us here have got jobs because a "friend" got your CV to the top of a pile, or harangued a recruiter on your behalf?
Every job I've ever had has been the result of a "contact" and it is fairly common place in all industries.
If you've ever got a job in that way, it is a bit rich to start shouting that nepotism is wrong. Pot, kettle and black springs to mind.

Basil

9th Aug 2007, 11:38

Every job I've ever had has been the result of a "contact" and it is fairly common place in all industries.
If you've ever got a job in that way, it is a bit rich to start shouting that nepotism is wrong.

Can't say I have - did it all the hard way :(

Do know a guy who worked for a Gulf airline in the 80s who flogged his log a bit after leaving his previous outfit where daddy was a wheel - If he's reading this; Yes we did know about you :=

Apart from the RAF, I've spent the majority of my flying career in a seniority system and it seemed to work very well. As has already been stated: Just because you get to the top of the FO heap doesn't guarantee a command but it should guarantee command assessment and/or a command course.

African Drunk

9th Aug 2007, 13:17

Seniority restricts free movement of labour which in turn allows our wages and terms and conditions to be kept lower than the market dictates.

Krueger

9th Aug 2007, 13:37

African Drunk,
Could you give examples where your statement is true?

Check Six krueger...

Bograt

9th Aug 2007, 13:50

What good is a seniority list if it is ignored?

We have a seniority list, but still suffer the effects of cronyism and arbitrary assignment of command courses. One single line check or sim report from up to three years prior, submitted by an individual with a dislike for the candidate, can have significant repercussions on selection for command.

The infamous "star chamber" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Chamber) meets to discuss each individual candidate; and one dissenting manager can delay or terminate an individual without requiring to discuss his reason(s).

BelArgUSA:
Cathay does still have some Direct Entry captains flying from the now aborted ASL freighter operation, but they haven't recruited as such since 1Jan2000 - it is wrong to say that CX "relys on a large proportion of DE captains." When ASl stopped recruiting there were about 60 captains on the books - not all of whom were DE. A lot of the DE captains have now retired as they were already above retiring age at their previous airline.

4auir

9th Aug 2007, 16:21

Keep senority, get rid of pilots (FO's and Captains) who don't pass the merit test.

Otterman

9th Aug 2007, 20:07

Seniority is like democracy.

Churchill once said (I paraphrase); Democracy is the absolute worst form of government that has ever been invented, except for all the other ones.

Seniority underutilizes a lot of talent, but it contributes to flight safety by keeping a lot of crap off the flightdeck. A tradeoff I can live with.

Nils Taurus Excretus

10th Aug 2007, 16:58

Seniority for all it's ills is the only way to ensure a fair system of opportunity to qualify for Command. The desirability of the position of Captain {given the years hard work, testing and training and then years of flying crap aeroplanes for crap pay and working for crap management} is mainly due to finally achieving some of the professional respect and recognition both, remunerative and social, that most professionals achieve in at most about 5 -8 years.

Given that everybody wants to be a Captain and that we all (professional pilots flying the line) pass the same tests to {hopefully} the same standards, the only way to prevent the 'conga line of suckholes' that is some companies way of managing a business is to ensure that there is an unbiased criteria for selection for the coveted 'Opportunity to Qualify for Command'

Please remember: It is nothing more than that - 'Opportunity to Qualify for Command'. You still need to make the grade and I am personally glad it is HIGH. Even so, there are pretty variable standards at times, with some getting through or promoted to training/checking positions because of 'connections' rather than suitability. Seniority is not infallible but it is the best solution to a difficult problem.

To those that draw parallels with the corporate world please remember how many 'Executives' die at their desks with all their customers dragged along for the ride. Call me arrogant or what you will but I am an aircraft Commander and daily take on a level of responsibility that would make most 'wannabes' eyes water. I am immensely proud of it and relish the daily challenges professional aviation brings.

How many CEOs make decisions with potential liability in the hundreds of millions, sometimes in just a few seconds and without a team of nodding yes men and dozens of meetings? You want to know about time pressured decision making? Then look in the cockpit of a modern jet airliner on min gas at a piss ant airport with third world ATC and weather at the minima!

I am afraid that a forum filled with, albeit interested and generally well meaning folk, who are NOT qualified as professional pilots is at best a discussion and should not be taken as meaningful in the determination of how we decide who gets to sit in the coveted LHS.

IGh

10th Aug 2007, 17:37

A few slots above, Bograt points-out one weakness:
"... What good is a seniority list if it is ignored? We have a seniority list, but still suffer the effects of cronyism ..."

MERGER-list versus a seniority-list

Under the pretense of unionism, many pilots claim their's is a seniority-list. But instead, the merged-list is really a totem -- with their junior pilots placed above the other company's more senior pilots: still they pretend that their's is a "seniority" list.

If a larger group of pilots abandons the "seniority" concept (defined in 1932) during a merger of pilot groups, why not abandon the claim of a "seniority" list?

A more honest description would NOT claim the term "seniority", for a NON-seniority totem of pilots, or bid-list.

Paul Wilson

10th Aug 2007, 21:23

On the legality of seniority lists in the EU. John Lewis (a UK department store and supermarket group) has a benefit of 6 months off on full pay (7 and a half if you add normal holiday) after 25 years service, when the new legislation came in, after much consultation with lawyers and govt., it was retained with the deletion of an age qualification. So the principle of longer service gives increased benefits seems secure. What seems less secure is the principle of longer service gives increased salary. A test case would be interesting, and parallels would be drawn with the recent sex discrimination cases about 'equal value of work for equal pay' e.g it could easily be shown that a newly hired FO is less valuable than a 10 year one, but it would be very hard to show that a 9 year FO is less valuable than a 10 year FO.

7Q Off

10th Aug 2007, 22:01

Most of the guys that hates seniority are those that pretend to get inside a major airline to be captains right from the start. Big egos instead of big brains. They dont care if they by-pass 100 o 1000 workmates. Most hate unions and will rape their own mother just to wear 4 bars. Why dont wait just like everyone?

Seniority is the only thing that will protect your career as a pilot. On major airlines, where you are FO 8 to 14 years seniority absolutely necessary. Is the only system to avoid injustice. Or to avoid mother rapist. When your turn comes you will be upgrade (Off course only if you pass the command course).

On small or new airlines that expand rapidly is a different story.

parabellum

11th Aug 2007, 00:35

Would a manager for, say, Barclay's Bank ever be likely to transfer to another banking house? Is the banking world a fair comparison to aviation?
Seniority lists come into their own when you have a lot of similarly qualified and experienced people all clamouring for a limited number of better jobs, (the LHS).

7Q Off

11th Aug 2007, 02:25

This is aviation not banking. :}
Beside that, the only guys in the banking industry that succeed are the owners. :ugh:

ray cosmic

11th Aug 2007, 02:59

First off, it is not fair to compare with the corporate world.

In the corporate world, you can try to stand out from the crowd and be a rising star.

We pilots are not meant to be like this. We do our job good, or not. Very black-and white.

We are as well dispensable. If I call in sick, someone with the exact qualifications will be available within one hour.
So, it is a nice job, but we are not valued on our individual performance.
We are expected to be "On Standard", perform "By the Book" etc. Clones, if you will.
I do not lack self respect, but fail to see why I am so much better than many of my colleagues. So who's first to be promoted if seniority is not considered?

SMOC

11th Aug 2007, 05:22

A certain seniority system should be in place while within a company to be able to sort out such things as a bid lines, requests, leave and staff travel for example, however I do believe the current system of say being a Captain or F/O at one airline and not being able to move to a company that is more suitable (money, lifestyle/roster, location, quick command, family matters or whatever) and not be able to retain your current rank is outdated and being used against us, face it, as others have said airlines would have to improve money, lifestyle/roster, location, quick commands, family matters or whatever to keep employees, so not to waste money on training/endorsments and the like. Also not all pilots are after the same thing, as you get older your priorities change so why shouldn't we be able to change companies as our lifestyle changes! Some may stay, some may go but staying because I have to take a demotion or a pay cut to join another company just isn't right.

FullWings

11th Aug 2007, 07:51

however I do believe the current system of say being a Captain or F/O at one airline and not being able to move to a company that is more suitable (money, lifestyle/roster, location, quick command, family matters or whatever) and not be able to retain your current rank is outdated and being used against us
Be careful here. It sounds like a good idea until you bring human nature into it... Those who have chosen aviation as their career range from the guys working for nothing (or even paying for experience) in small outfits to senior trainers/management in legacy carriers. Do not underestimate the temptation to undercut those in better jobs to gain a personal improvement in lifestyle, even though it is to the detriment of others.

On-MarkBob

12th Aug 2007, 21:00

I've always believed the seniority system was something invented by our ex-military friends who cannont bare it unless they are a higher rank than someone else. So having got the maximum amount of stripes they can get, they then have to be able to 'out rank' others because they are 'more senior'. The system sucks and is particularly juvinile in my opinion. Bleating F/Os should understand that people die, get ill, or just get pissed off with the whole industry and leave vacancies for them. Their time will come, if they are good enough. I myself have been party to hideous management 'bullying'. "if you don't like it, you know where the door is", knowing full well that if I walk through the door I would have to join someone else's list at the bottom. I took the door and was lucky, they paid out and I still got a job commensurate with my ability and experiance. Many don't!!
Those guys who have suffered redundancy have my whohearted sympathy.
Can you imagine if you were a senior surgeon doctor at some hospital, not being able to take your skill with you if you moved because you would only get a job as a junior doctor anywhere else. It's absurd.
As one person has already said, perhaps there should be a National seniority list, held by the authority and updated annually depending on what you've done.
Anyone who thinks a seniority list is a good idea has not been the the industry long enough, or never been out of work. Just wait you guys, your time might surely come when like me and others you will curse this disgrace. And while you're waiting, take a gun and shoot yourself in the foot like you have done to the rest of us!!!

jpsingh

13th Aug 2007, 11:23

A very interesting and for a change a reasonably mature debate !!I think BelArgUSA has put forward a very mature point of view with Dan Buston debating it with relevant reasoning. The point here is that NO PROFESSIONAL management can afford to give the position to the lowest bidder.
Direct entry Captains are required from time to time and so would Direct Examiners and Instructors.The comparisons to Surgeons /Scientists/Professors etc is the most appropriate. There is a talent pool .....a National resource which has been built up and if everyone says that the training is pretty similar then I dont understand why we cannot have an ICAO SENIORITY based on no. of your ATPL license/Flying hours/Examiner,Check Pilot, Instructor Status/Accident free flying record/Simulator Reports/Check Rides/Refresher etc etc.At the end of the day in any Airline we always know the good ,professional guys and I dont see why someone should grudge a better guy from getting WHAT HE DESERVES.In the Airline Profession we wear our Seniority on our sleeve....literally !!!!!!

parabellum

13th Aug 2007, 11:34

Well, problem number one, who is going to pay for and administer an ICAO seniority system? Those pilots with little or no seniority may offer to pay but those with considerable seniority won't pay and there is no way you will get an international law agreed that says pilots must pay.

It has all been said already, seniority isn't a perfect system but in our industry/profession it is the only system that works and can be seen to be fair.

Megaton

13th Aug 2007, 11:41

Have to disagree with OnMarkBob's remark regarding the seniority as a system beloved of ex-military guys. Seniority disadvantages ex-mil guys since they may have spent up to 20 years in the military before leaving only to find themselves sitting in the rhs beside some wet-behind-the-ears capt 10 years their junior. If you look at a Big Airline, very few of the guys with long-haul commands are ex-mil. Now it it is true that many ex-mil pilots choose management posts but that option is also open to the purely civil avaiation guys.

ps happy to continue discussion in pub at end of village ;-)

Hand Solo

13th Aug 2007, 11:52

I've flown with loads of ex-mil guys who are skippers on Big Airlines 744's, they're just not senior skippers. One could equally say that the non-mil guys are disadvantaged. While Sqn Ldr Smythes was doing 200 hrs a year, living in the mess and having jolly good times flying fast jets around at low level everybody else was slogging their guts out doing 800 hrs per year on the 5 am Paris in the snow. Also why does 20 years in the mil trump the experiece of someone ten years their junior who's been doing real airline flying?

Just an alternative view.

Alpine Flyer

13th Aug 2007, 13:04

The only thing I would abandon seniority for is national or global seniority.

Many posts above have outlined all the flaws of promotion by merit and I can't believe anyone could actually believe in that based on actual experience.

Let's keep seniority for the career decisions and as a bias only for "lifestyle" things like rosters and vacation. I am quite senior within my airline and I can live with not having the pick on all the routes, off days, etc. I desire.

As for seniority being detrimental to women, you can simply keep accruing seniority while on maternity leave. Not outrageous, simply acknowledging the fact that we Machos won't give birth to Joe Future Pilot..... Most ladies prefer part-time work anyway, much better to keep your skills honed and a few hours away from diaper world every week don't hurt either.....

There is ample opportunity for merit-based promotion where it's common already, i.e. management pilots like fleet chiefs, etc and instructors. For all those seniority as a bias would be ok. I.e. if you have several people well qualified for a position, you take the senior one first. Nevertheless if the most senior guy lacks instructing skills, you'll take a junior guy who has them.

I don't think seniority is a free lunch for airlines. It serves both management (as an incentive for pilots to be loyal to their company) and pilots (for the same reason). Most posters arguing with better salaries without seniority forget about the lower salaries no seniority would entail (especially in a downturn where those willing to do it for less would stay rather than those at the bottom of the list.)

Seniority may be old-fashioned but so are the laws of aerodynamics. Let's keep the first until the latter get overthrown. :)

Hachet Harry

13th Aug 2007, 13:23

I can't agree with On-MarkBob's comment.

As a military chap who is looking to join commercail aviation over the next 12 months, the seniority system fills me with dread. I'm used to working hard to achieve the next promotion and if I don't and I'm not good at my job, I won't get promoted. Makes sense to me! At 37, I am unlikely to find myself in the LHS of any major airline this side of 50; no matter how hard I work, how good a pilot I am or how flexible I remain.

Alternatively, the seniority system that most airlines observe rewards nothing but time done. Pretty much every other industry is capable of recognising hard work and success and yet the Airline Industy says that any other system would by un-managable. Why?

As has been said before, the seniority system is a very socialist approach to a very capitalist industry.

Basil

13th Aug 2007, 13:32

our ex-military friends who cannont (sp) bare (sp) it unless they are a higher rank than someone else . . . . particularly juvinile (sp)
Oh dear, the teuchters have arrived! You let them into the Greenock polis and next thing they're telling you how to run the show :)

Basil
4th Engineer 1 stripe
Flight Lieutenant 2 stripes
SENIOR First Officer 3 stripes
Captain 4 stripes (Oh, BTW, was SENIOR CAPTAIN GRADE1)*
Oh, no! there are still people SENIOR to me - how can I correct this dreadful anom (check dictionary) anomaly?

Bob, you knew how the system worked when you joined it. Sometimes seniority rules and on others it doesn't (e.g. at interview, some companies outside EU & NA etc)

* It's a time in the airline thing - not an indication of competency (apologies to those who've been telling their friends otherwise) :}

Bograt

13th Aug 2007, 14:10

Try reading Ernest K Gahn's "Fate Is The Hunter" regarding the very early, pioneering, years of airline operations across the USA, how the seniority list idea evolved and what he thought of it.

He thought it was a good thing...

Personally, I don't, and I'm ex military. I regularly moved squadrons and went back to the right hand seat of a new type until I'd gained the requisite experience. The additional stripes only ensured a greater load of the administrative burden on the ground.

Basil

13th Aug 2007, 14:26

At 37, I am unlikely to find myself in the LHS of any major airline this side of 50
Well, I am not trying to be rude when I say it's no good hanging on in the mob and then bleating about it.
As I've just said, that is how things work in our industry.
'Hachet Harry'? so do you think you should be permitted to march into the big boys of civil aviation and hatchet your way to the LHS?
I've flown with FOs from Harriers, Reds etc; relaxed and competent people of the highest aviation calibre; and I never heard one of them complain about the system. I am sure they would have been welcome to remain in the military but chose to leave.
There are companies, such as Cathay/Cathay Cargo, which offer accelerated promotion but, if you wish to join a Western seniority based major, that's the deal. Don't forget that many companies are now increasing their normal retirement age to 60 and, now that the Yanks and Frogs have got their act together, you can fly in command to 65.
When we had a bunch of ex mil guys join some years ago we were a little concerned that they would have difficulty losing the attitude to work which, whilst absolutely correct in the military, makes one a soft touch for the beancounters. We need not have concerned ourselves; they learnt fast that civil life is a marketplace - we work, they pay us and a seniority system offers some protection.

Hachet Harry

13th Aug 2007, 15:07

Well, I am not trying to be rude when I say it's no good hanging on in the mob and then bleating about it.

Sorry Basil, I didn't realise I was bleating about it, I thought that I was joining the debate and offering an opinion that differed from Bob's. :confused:

'Hachet Harry'? so do you think you should be permitted to march into the big boys of civil aviation and hatchet your way to the LHS?

No, of course not. := I am very aware that the Industry employs such a system and by joining it, by definition, I would be accepting it. My point is that it is an antiquated system that does not reward hard work in the same way that most other industries do.

whilst absolutely correct in the military, makes one a soft touch for the bean counters.

Whilst I also don't want to appear rude, it sounds as if maintaining the status quo is ideal for you. If being willing to work hard and wanting to succeed at my chosen occupation makes me a soft touch to the bean counters, so be it. You on the other hand want to get paid top notch and receive cushy benefits for doing as little as humanely possible. Good luck to you. One day though, you might be made to realise that the world doesn't owe you a living.

Hand Solo

13th Aug 2007, 15:11

At 37, I am unlikely to find myself in the LHS of any major airline this side of 50; no matter how hard I work, how good a pilot I am or how flexible I remain.
I'd say Ryanair and Easyjet are major airlines and you could have a command in those well before you are 50, especially as you are willing to work. Flexibility would certainly be an asset as a willingness to accept any base can accellerate that command. There's always Emirates, Etihad, Qatar Airways and the like too. Or do you just want a command in a big British scheduled airline?

Hachet Harry

13th Aug 2007, 15:23

Hand Solo,

Fair point! I suppose I was referring to the likes of BA and Virgin as examples of the seniority system at it's most significant. I would certainly be interested in working for some of the Middle Eastern companies you mentioned. :O

Santas Little Helper

13th Aug 2007, 15:28

lets face it whatever seniority system is used, someone is going to feel disadvantaged.
What surprises me though, is there is no legislation to force employers to pay the pension contributions into a national airline pension fund. Perhaps then pilots (and others) would then be able to build up seniority with a decent pension regardless of whether they changed companies during their careers.

jafar

13th Aug 2007, 18:28

Sorry to join so late, just got back from leave;
Let us take a major European airline with a very strong union culture, and a very strict seniority list. That airline goes bust. (that is unfortunate but happened a few years ago). Guess what....all the guys move for jobs everywhere in the world...but nobody talks about seniority anymore...but mention "experience" and all the ex captains try to join as Direct Entry Captain etc...

Is this wrong? When a guy enters the survival mode, should he care about a "seniority list" at a potential employer?

I guess the bottom line is that seniority was a good system or at least the best one, but is now a thing of the past. Emirates, Etihad, Singapore to name a few have recruited DEC's for a long time.

Let us face it, seniority is dead at least as far as promotion is concerned. Perhaps we should focus on a LIFO method (Last IN first OUT) of protection when the **** hits the fan.

Food for thought :sad:

Basil

13th Aug 2007, 18:50

Last IN first OUT
That's seniority in action.
No objection to anyone trying to get the best possible deal for themselves so the seniority system is the way FOs in an established airline protect their go at a command course.

Ladusvala

13th Aug 2007, 20:18

Hatchet Harry,
Stupid question perhaps but I ask myself how I can work harder?
Every pilot in my airline gets his roster and works accordingly, ther´s no way of affecting the amount of duty. The only way I see is by working on your days off.
If you work hard by selling your days off, your reward will be money and that´s it. I don´t think it should qualify for earlier promotion. Everyone gets his shot at it when it´s his time.
(I´m absolutely sure you don´t mean working harder by taking less fuel, accepting aircraft of questionable servicability, going below minima etc, though the bean counters and managers at some airlines would certainly love that.)

llondel

13th Aug 2007, 21:07

When the chips are down, we all look after no.1 because ultimately no employer is going to do so if cutting costs or going bust. Anyone who's had an involuntary decruitment experience will be looking for what's best for themselves, at which point the seniority system is a problem. Conversely, those that have built up the time and are still incumbent want to keep the system because ultimately it protects them from the competition. You'll never solve the problem because a system that benefits everyone doesn't exist, all you achieve by changing the system is vary who's in the pool of winners and who's in with the losers.

Hachet Harry

13th Aug 2007, 23:35

Stupid question perhaps but I ask myself how I can work harder?

I suppose I meant a general state of mind and attitude towards the job. Preparing yourself fully for your next sim check perhaps, making yourself available on your days off; not always, but sometimes. Being flexible with holiday; not always, but sometimes. Willing to drive to the other airport; not always but.........................

I appreciate that the above examples are not necessarily accurate, but I'm sure you get my drift. It's very easy to tell the people who have a positive attitude toward their job from those that are there for an easy ride. Not that there is anything wrong with that, after all most of us work to live not vice versa. But maybe there should be some reward for those that are willing to go that extra yard.

(I´m absolutely sure you don´t mean working harder by taking less fuel, accepting aircraft of questionable servicability, going below minima etc

I'm absolutley sure that that doesn't require an answer.:=

Dan Winterland

14th Aug 2007, 00:29

Seniority is great if you have it, and if you do - you tend to be in favour of it. But the truth is, it reduces our terms and conditions. The management like it because it ties us to the job and they don't have to offer use more money to keep us there.

Can you imagine a barrister having to start again as an articles clerk because he changes chambers, or a Senior Consultant becoming a Junior Houseman because he changes hospitals?

7Q Off

14th Aug 2007, 05:33

I read to many guys wanting to be hired by British Airways, Virgin, lufthansa as Direct Entry Captains for 747 400 with the max pay with CPL and 200 hs. If you want to fly for a major with a big UNION you will have seniority and you will have to wait your turn to upgrade. Lots of more senior and equal qualified guys before you. Period. Nothing will change that.
Big boys play with big boys rules. :ugh:

BelArgUSA

14th Aug 2007, 11:58

Gentlemen (and Ladies) -
xxx
When I got hired by PanAm 1968, it was clear to me that there was a strict seniority system in force, as per our ALPA contract. Was fine for me, no objection. Then, of course, I was 25 of age, did not know much, and we were told that we would be captains some 5 years "later", as PanAm was to take delivery of 25 B-747s, and 12 B-2707 SSTs, and was even considering to take options on Concordes...
xxx
I was not happy with seniority because of base... I lived in Los Angeles, where I could not be based, because my seniority. All the senior pilots from New York, Chicago and Boston did bid San Francisco and Los Angeles to make a little extra money on longer Pacific flights... So, where was I based...? MIA with the 727... and JFK with the 707...
xxx
All went fine, quickly went from F/E 727 to 707, then F/O 727 to 707 in a matter of 3 years, with P1 type rating on both types... Big smile... Then the October War hit in 1973 (can't these idiots ever stop fighting and mess-up our airline pilot careers...?) -
xxx
Layoff... by chance, I got jobs overseas... Then, recall in 1979... Retraining... then National Airlines got absorbed by PanAm (to gain USA domestic routes) since PanAm was only an international airline with NO domestic USA routes... After a brief 3 months recall, layoff again... because our union decided that the merge of seniority lists was "2 PanAmigos" for "1 Maytag (NAL)"... There were pilots from National (who had been hired by National in 1971 or 1972) junior to me who became senior to me on the PanAm pilot list.
xxx
In 1987, PanAm sold their Pacific division (and many airplanes) to United... Many pilots left, to join United (with their full seniority - date of hire)... I could have elected to go to United, but my heart was with PanAm (good guys wear white hats). Then all went to hell, PanAm bankruptcy in DEC 1991, with Delta taking most of our routes to Europe... but not the pilots...
xxx
Of course, Delta was "nice enough" to give me an interview... I was captain and pilot instructor... and offered me to be 727 F/E with... new hire wages, and probably to teach Delta pilots how to speak ICAOese on the radio outside of the USA, on the routes they "stole" from the PanAmigos...
xxx
I rest my case.
God bless Argentina which gave me direct entry 747 captain.
xxx
:)
Happy contrails

parabellum

14th Aug 2007, 12:05

"Can you imagine a barrister having to start again as an articles clerk because he changes chambers, or a Senior Consultant becoming a Junior Houseman because he changes hospitals? "

Well, let's see.

Barrister changes chambers, only if he gets a better offer because he is good, or sacked,** if the latter he won't have too much choice about his position, (as a barrister), in his next firm will he? He will be a junior barrister within his new firm and not a partner one would think, until he has proven himself and overcome the reason for his sacking, unless, of course, he gets sacked by a big firm and then joins a small firm, hardly a 'step across' or 'up' is it?
** Major personal confrontations between senior barristers/partners of proven qualities excepted.

Senior Consultant becoming a junior houseman because he changes hospitals. Senior Consultants usually have their own rooms and only do what they want to do at hospitals. Hospitals are not famous for going bust either, always more than enough customers, so not a reasonable comparison is it? Compare it to there always being a need for DEC.

Sorry Dan, you haven't made a point. (Well, that is my 2cents, anyway,;)).

Bad Robot

14th Aug 2007, 15:39

I thought seniority was great, until 9/11.
Then it became a nitemare for me also. 10 years in my last airline, the last 5 wasted, with not a lot around for a few years after 9/11. The clock was ticking away and not getting any younger! Thousands of Jet hours under my belt and not even getting interviews during all the recent recruitment but all the younger guys getting in and away to escape to pastures that are greener. I had to finance a Bus rating myself to make myself employable again. Thankfully the gamble paid off but to the bottom of another seniority list I go. At least I'm happier now and the FTL's are actually used as a guide and not a target any more.

BR.

900

14th Aug 2007, 18:49

Parabellum,
You should be aware that barristers are most typically (other than the few corporate counsel) self-employed and pay rent for their chambers. They can't be sacked, but solicitors can refuse to engage them!
Incidentally, barristers are (were when I was studying that milarky) immune in UK law from law suits for negligence / incompetence. Now that is something the pilots' unions should aspire to!!
Doctors have highly regulated processes and procedures to adhere to (like pilots) with worrying disciplinary consequences for mistakes (like pilots) but with sometimes publically accessible hearings (unlike pilots) - still a better comparison than lawyers to your trade.
Anyway, for what it's worth - seniority is indefensible in law and sooner or later will be successfully challenged. As will the arcane medical practices.

Mat Tongkang

15th Aug 2007, 01:32

At every college and varsity reunion I get laughed at when my former mates get to know about the archaic pilot seniority system. The other professionals in airline companies know this very well and plot their ways on dealing with the " not so smart" bunch of fly boys. Yes, imagine a barrister becoming an articled clerk or a CPA becoming an audit clerk or senior consultant specialist having to be an intern:ugh::ugh:

Hand Solo

15th Aug 2007, 01:43

Thats weird because my college and varsity mates rather like the idea of a guaranteed year on year pay rise and the prospect of a reasonably well defined promotion path that doesn't require brown-nosing or working such excessive hours that you make yourself ill. The other professionals in airline companies can plot all they like but in my firm the pilots are earning more than 95% of them.

Re-Heat

15th Aug 2007, 02:20

parabellum

15th Aug 2007, 04:21

Thanks 900, I had a vision of junior barristers working for senior barristers who were the partners and bosses in a law firm, hadn't realised that they were mainly all self employed.

You say: "seniority is indefensible in law and sooner or later will be successfully challenged".

How would you go about proving your point? Take a typical airline situation, say three vacancies for captains and ten equally qualified and experienced first officers awaiting promotion? By equally qualified and experienced I mean holding the company's requirement for promotion to captain, such as licence and experience, not the oldest, the one with most hours, the one who has been a captain before, elsewhere etc. etc. all of which can be very subjective. Surely date of joining can be the only fair and non discriminatory form of selection for command training?

SMOC

15th Aug 2007, 05:41

I think the only seniority people are talking about is being unable to retain your current rank when moving jobs, I think everyone would agree that any in house promotion should (but it's not a perfect world) be done on DOJ (seniority) and suitability i.e. have the minimum qualifications. Also 7Q off, direct entry Command positions still require minimum qualifications (often greater than in house requirements), A/C type experience so on and so forth, so don't expect to walk into a 747 Command with a Major carrier with $$$.

Ladusvala

15th Aug 2007, 06:59

Hatchet Harry, it wasn´t a question, it was a statement.

Hand Solo

15th Aug 2007, 12:35

Yes, but do you tell them that you typically go back to the bottom once you change outfits?

Edited to add: where it certainly addresses the point of "people getting their turn", it fails entirely to address the problem of very, very strong potential commanders failing to get their turn until far later than in other locations.

Yes I tell them that that is a possibility, but not an absolute. There are plenty of companies out there that take DECs or have much shorter time to commands. All you have to do is be willing to move.

How do you define a "very, very strong potential commander", and indeed why do you think they are more entitled to a command than just a quite good potential commander? A lesson frequently taught in engineering is not to over-specify things as it leads to higher costs and complexity for little gain. Given that all commanders must work to a very high level of competency in any decent airline why is there any case for "very, very strong potential commanders" to jump the queue when they will bring little extra to the operation but cause a large amount of discord?

Re-Heat

15th Aug 2007, 12:52

As I believe solely in mertitocracies, and have no faith whatsoever in systems designed to benefit those who have been there the longest.

But it is an opinion of course, to which we are all entitled.

Hand Solo

15th Aug 2007, 13:00

It must be nice to live in your perfect world.:) Hands up anyone who's seen a true meritocracy in action in the real world.

Krueger

15th Aug 2007, 13:48

Seniority is the best system (so far) that protect you from nepotism, brown nosers, and from a constantly downgrading of your T&Cs. When somebody says that this system forces oneself to get stuck to a company , the same applies to the management, so they can't bully you around. So I don't really follow the logic when they say that this system pushes down our T&Cs.

From what I read, the only ones who are against this are the ones who were unfortuned in their careers (airline going bust, etc). The other ones are happy with it.

I am an ex-mil guy. I had my fun flying real Jets! Did my war time and now it's time to take it easy.
I flew with captains younger than me and less experienced and that didn't bothered me at all. To be a good professional you should be as good in the RHS as in the LHS.

I had the chance to go directly to the airlines , like some friends of mine did, but if I could go back I would do just the same although by now I would already in Long Haul.:sad:

There's plenty of airlines that accept DECs so why all this bitching around. Leave the regulars as they are because we're happy with it.

Check Six Krueger...

Raas767

15th Aug 2007, 21:19

Krueger essentially summed it up.
Getting rid of the seniority system would be foolish for a lot of reasons.
First and foremost it would be a detriment to safety. Airline captains today ( at least in the U.S.) can make decisions in regards to fuel, diverts, fatigue, emergency's, calling in sick, refusing trips, kicking off pax etc etc.. with out fear of repercussions with regards to promotions, pay or job loss. This is a gigantic benefit.
I have been with a large U.S legacy carrier for 15 years. I probably won't make captain for another 5 at my base. But based on my seniority I know I will one day, if I can pass upgrade training and if the airline is still around. It doesn't require that I have a perfect attendance record or that I play golf with the boss or kiss every captains ass that I fly with. I don't know the name of my chief pilot and I don't care to know. As far as I know he doesn't know mine which is fine with me. All this promotes a sense of security that would be absent with a non seniority based system. Does it mean that it's a perfect system? obviously not but it is by far and away better than the alternative.
I think if we could go back in time ALPA probably should have gone with a master seniority list when things got started in the 20's and 30's but it's too late for that now. Overall it is a good system and I think it would be absolutely moronic to change it.

PanSardine

16th Aug 2007, 02:13

Maybe 2 seniority lists, one for f/os and one for the skippers. Once a skipper, stays a skipper and goes onto the captain's seniority list.

Wanabee,Gunnabee,Am

16th Aug 2007, 18:30

I believe seniority is a good thing, and I am sure that many training Captains would be a little upset that some people think that when you name comes to the top of the waiting list you get a command. In the companies I have worked for, one with a seniority list there were some F/Os who were bypassed as not suitable or did assessments and failed. The standards for Command were no lower than any other airline and you only got a command if you were up for it. What it meant was that the company didn't employ DEC when Senior F/Os were capable of passing the course.

My current company doesn't have a seniority list and I find that new F/Os joining from other airlines with more "Factored Hours" AFTER me will get their chance sooner than I do. Does this mean they are more suitable for Command, possibly, but that in itself doesn't mean I am not good enough. With waiting lists for some bases very long this doesn't seem to me to be a way of creating what the company call a "Career Airline".

Willit Run

17th Aug 2007, 14:04

Imagine a company with 3200 baristers or 2779 junior accountants. How would the promotions go then? Can you imagine a "barister check day" every six months with a medical thrown in.
Lets see, what would I do to advance my position? I know i'm not as good as Nigel there, but if I, well, get out my knee pads, yea, thats the ticket! maybe kiss a little arse, yea, i like the idea!

No one is perfect no matter how much you think you are. We all have good and bad days. some sim sessions will be good, some not so good. You may be an excellent pilot but have a short temper. You may get along with everyone, have excellent CRM skills, but be an average pilot.

Seniority is what we have because we have a lot of folks doing the same job, many hired on the same day. We need a system, and this works. Training and sim checks is our way of weeding out the chafe. Are we going to have a "fly off" in the case of a tie in our training scores?

OK, time to get the day started!

Hachet Harry

17th Aug 2007, 18:52

You may be an excellent pilot but have a short temper.

Then unless you do nothing but fly solo, you're not a good pilot!

bugg smasher

17th Aug 2007, 21:26

I am an ex-mil guy. I had my fun flying real Jets! Did my war time and now it's time to take it easy.

The seniority system generally prevents characters like the one quoted above from becoming captains too quickly. A little 'seasoning' goes a long way towards developing the maturity required for the position.

Krueger

17th Aug 2007, 22:43

That's a good example of seniority funcioning. The Bug Smasher above would have excluded me from being a captain because in his expertise I am not ripe for it.
Thank God for that...:ok:

Check Six Krueger

Lemper

18th Aug 2007, 06:45

...Human nature is mostly driven by fear or greed....sometimes both.

nugpot

18th Aug 2007, 07:25

Stupid question perhaps but I ask myself how I can work harder?
Every pilot in my airline gets his roster and works accordingly, ther´s no way of affecting the amount of duty. The only way I see is by working on your days off.
If you work hard by selling your days off, your reward will be money and that´s it. I don´t think it should qualify for earlier promotion. Everyone gets his shot at it when it´s his time.
(I´m absolutely sure you don´t mean working harder by taking less fuel, accepting aircraft of questionable servicability, going below minima etc, though the bean counters and managers at some airlines would certainly love that.)

Some sense at last.

After flying for 22 years, I have yet to meet a pilot who did not think that he was better than his peers. At least the seniority system saves us the cost of counseling when your junior is selected ahead of you for command because management thought that he was better than you..............

We are in one of the only jobs in the world where experience probably outweighs ability, certainly in the LHS. You can be a very good/safe captain without being the world's best pilot. The inverse is also true.

One thing about a seniority list and the avoidance of DEC, is that the people in the LHS are used to company procedures and routes and are known to the company. There are also years of flying in the RHS where ingrained errors/behaviours/high risk characteristics can be identified and addressed.

Sure, it is not a perfect system, but it is very difficult to measure command ability, even in the sim and that is unfortunately what you need to measure if you move to a merit based system. Flying ability counts for very little in the LHS (obviously there is a basic minimum requirement for stick and rudder skills, but most pilots have that by the time they get command).

Shouldnt experience and hard work be rewarded?
Unfortunately hard work does not make you a good captain, and neither is flying hours a true and honest measure of experience. The safe way for an airline or other large operator to avoid expensive mistakes in upgrades, is an apprenticeship phase (as FO). This just happens to correspond to the warm and fuzzy feeling provided by a seniority list for people already in an airline.

So, a good compromise all around.

swedish

18th Aug 2007, 13:21

Seniority list have probably had their day.
At the moment, in the UK, they are open to legal challenge on 2 fronts:
1. The higher up the seniority the generally older you are. Using seniority for pay, benefits etc is open to challenge as against the new age discrimination law.
2. A seniority list does not account for male / female split and therefore is open to challenge on sex discrimination law (this also applies to ethnic background or religion if the company keeps a record of these).
One disgruntled pilot taking private action could bring the whole system down, at least in the UK. This does not apply in the US where specific legislation allows use of seniority lists.
It’s also my belief that seniority lists also insulate pilots from market forces. When pilots are freely available it ensures peoples pay and position are protected. It also prevents companies from lowering their pilot cost during these times. On the other side when pilots are in short supply, like at present, it also prevents pilots increasing their salaries in line with the market, except for very low seniority guys, who are prepared to move to a new list. Companies benifit as pilot cost pressure is not that high.
Again, my belief, but every other profession mentioned are exposed to market forces, except pilots. Take lawyers, too many lawyers in an area, or someone not being as good as the others results in a reduction in salary. Too few or your an excellent lawyer, increase in salary. I don't really see why pilots should be different in this respect.

7Q Off

18th Aug 2007, 22:20

So swedish, how you measure a good pilot. Like a lawer??? if he win more cases he earns more money? Something like If he crash and kill 200 he will not get a pay rise???

Lawers and pilots, an excelent way to compare. My god.

Please, be serious.

7Q Off

18th Aug 2007, 22:26

If you want to earn like a 30 year old British Airways Captain you need to enter British Airways, became Captain, pass all the checks and wait 30 years.
Seniority is for big boys that like to play with rules.
Big companies have rules. Seniority is part of those big boys rules. Beside that, seniority prevents that some assholes blow some managment dick for a promotion.
Why people dont like to wait for their turn? Why people like to bypass all their senior mates just for a strip??

Hachet Harry

18th Aug 2007, 22:57

Seniority is for big boys that like to play with rules.

Big companies have rules. Seniority is part of those big boys rules. Beside that, seniority prevents that some assholes blow some managment dick for a promotion.

Thank you 7Q. Such a persuasive argument. :rolleyes:

bugg smasher

19th Aug 2007, 00:25

Krugs,

What's a 'real' jet, how much 'real' responsibility is involved with the lives of several hundred people, and can you clearly explain to all of our passengers out there, whose lives depend on what we do (and do not do) in the front end, and what you mean by 'taking it easy'?

Buggs

parabellum

19th Aug 2007, 01:07

Swedish - You said: "I don't really see why pilots should be different in this respect."

In fact there are very few professions that can be fairly compared to that of airline pilot and I don't think doctors and lawyers are a fair comparison at all, the whole structure of our working life is so different.

Doctors have to keep themselves up to date with changes in medicine and keep people alive who will eventually die anyway. Lawyers have to keep themselves up to date with the law and precedent etc. and it helps if they win a few cases, they usually still get paid when they lose!

In addition to pilots keeping themselves thoroughly up to date with their aircraft and the operation they have to pass two base checks, one instrument rating and one line check per year as well as two medicals. I don't see any similarity there at all with lawyers and doctors.

In addition I'll bet you that seniority lists are still legally in use in ten years time! It is very discriminatory to accelerate a junior pilot past his colleagues to a better paid job if those bypassed can all pass their checks and training too, far more so than rewarding length of service/loyalty by giving the best jobs to those who have been there the longest and can pass all the necessary training. Where is the unfair discrimination in a seniority system that rewards length of service providing all else is up to standard for promotion and would it stand the test of a court case?

7Q Off

19th Aug 2007, 01:49

Seniority doesn’t mean you will be captain when time comes. Seniority assures that you will have the opportunity to prove you can be Captain when your time comes. You still need pass the check ride as any other pilot.
If you scrap it one thing you will have is hundred of pilots flying aircraft not in flyable conditions just to gain a promotion. Or to maintain it because you are scare that the company will hire new Taliban pilots because they are cheaper or they fly in any conditions.

7Q Off

19th Aug 2007, 01:54

Hachet Harry: With seniority you still have guys performing oral sex to managment, but at least they cant bypass you when is your time to upgrade. :D:D

teghjeet

19th Aug 2007, 04:52

Seniority:

If you already got it, you'll want it.

Seniority should be for the following:

1. Years served for annual increments.
2. When available,you get a shot at command/Check Pilot/TRI/TRE
3. In case of redundancy, Last in First out.
4. In case of re-hire, hire insame sequence as before..(save cost of reselection and retraining, provided the pilot is still out of a job)
5. For management/ training posts , a sequence of lists to follow for consideration.

It should not be for:
1. Discriminate on account of sex, ethnic origin, etc. by factoring them in.
2. Making bids for sectors which pay more. since he is being paid more due to "seniority". Making bids bcoz of other reasons like family children studying etc IMHO are acceptable, but such reasons are often not bonafide.
3. ASSUMING COMMAND IS DUE AND A RIGHT., since I have the Seniority.

As for taking seniority with you for the next job, it is like eating your cake and having it.

In case of mergers, bankruptcy etc, there is still a form of protection. Commanders will get a job in preference to a "junior F/O" for any other airline,
albeit, not tohis liking, Look hard enough and experience always pays. It may not be where you want but a commander with x000's of hours will always be preferred to 200hcpl anywhere in the world.

Without it @sslicking and apple polishing will only rise.

The key is Seniority AND Skill set. with mgmt retaing flexibility to upgrade if the Skill Set exists and seniority may be waived off

Flying Lawyer

19th Aug 2007, 20:02

900 Incidentally, barristers are (were when I was studying that milarky) immune in UK law from law suits for negligence / incompetence.
Not any more.
We no longer have immunity.

FL

Krueger

20th Aug 2007, 23:05

Buggs,
What I mean by taking it easy is not having a SAM pointed at you, slepping in barracks and earning peanuts.
I really prefer slepping in a nice hotel, having a nice meal wherever I go and being able to pay the bills.

Ah ! And having an union to fight for my rights....

Check Six Krueger:ok:

Capt H Peacock

21st Aug 2007, 07:30

The analogy with the medical profession is compelling.

I've just passed out of medical school and want a Ferrari and a big house. I should be allowed to be a senior registar

Nuff said.

900

21st Aug 2007, 20:32

Some intersting posts.
Captain Peacock - I know you are not suggesting that an immediate post grad medic should operate on someone's mother. Seniority is not the issue but competence is.
Parabellum - When you joined your airline (my assumption) others attempted to join too but were unsuccessful. They were no doubt disappointed but would understand that the best person got the job (not the eldest or most senior). Presumably the difference between you and the unsuccessful applicants (let's say they could all actually fly planes) was somehow measureable and objectively justifiable. Similarly for those who are successful in gaining comand, becoming training captains etc. when in competition for finite places. So, how can we not measure performance generally? Why are pilots to be the only group of workers (outside of friendly Zimbabwean officials) not subject to robust objective scrutiny?
7Q you are a worry! 6 minutes to post an even angrier defence of the indefencible?
All other professionals are subject to CPD and manage to get by without providing oral sex to those in influence over their careers - or is it only pilots who do not? Perleeaase!!
Others have answered as to why seniority is on its last legs and I expect those of you who have suffered the ass end of the system will eagerly await your turn. Bad luck. If you aint gonna get it in 5, it will not happen via this system anyway. Someone (nice and junior, probably looking for greater flexibility) will challenge it and win under one to three heads of UK discrimation law.
Good luck to 'em I say

Re-Heat

21st Aug 2007, 20:53

The analogy with the medical profession is compelling.
I've just passed out of medical school and want a Ferrari and a big house. I should be allowed to be a senior registar

But entirely inappropriate - nobody gets a "shot" at being a consultant, let alone by waiting in turn. The best doctors go up the rungs far faster, and if an open position exists, can apply, and if they are the best, they get the job.

There are a fair number of consultants who are only 30. Some never make it, nor are interested. It is a meritocracy and not based upon seniority, yet remains entirely safe.

Clarence Oveur

21st Aug 2007, 21:05

I am curious as to why people who are not pilots, and are not affected by this question, feel the need to voice their opinion? Other than to feed the chip on their shoulder that is.

Re-Heat

21st Aug 2007, 21:18

Perhaps they themselves have insight, experience and knowledge that you do not know they have. Why do you feel the need to contain comment?

parabellum

22nd Aug 2007, 00:04

900 said: "Why are pilots to be the only group of workers (outside of friendly Zimbabwean officials) not subject to robust objective scrutiny?"

Well, how about two base checks a year, one instrument rating and a line check for objective scrutiny? These checks confirm that an individual, having reached a required standard, is maintaining it, so, if everyone is of the required standard what other measure do you have left to determine who gets promoted?

As far as who gets employed is concerned how do you propose to remove an employers right to employ the candidate they feel most suitable for the position on offer? Are you suggesting that an employer must advise all failed candidates of the reason they didn't get the job? I would have thought that if there are only a set number of vacancies the employer must be allowed to retain the right to decide who they want. If I were asked why I had chosen A instead of B my answer would probably be along the lines of, "As the CEO/Chief Pilot, in company with our Training Manager, HR Manager and a random selection of an 'available on the day' Captain and First Officer it was our collective decision that candidate A would fit in best with our company, maintaining the peaceful, harmonious and above all safe environment that we currently operate in" or words to that effect, as dictated by the company legal advisers.

I doubt very much if there will be a successful challenge in the courts any time soon bearing in mind that discrimination is everywhere, I am charged more than a child to travel on public transport, for instance, so I am being discriminated against for being an adult, is that fair? Well I think it is. To win a case in court won't it be necessary to prove unfair discrimination? As I have asked a couple of times already to those who think a legal challenge to seniority will succeed, how do you propose to prove your point?

On a practical note, the aggrieved FO will be just about able to afford his local solicitor and the airlines will retain Beaumont & Son.

7Q Off

22nd Aug 2007, 04:12

900 why I like seniority? Easy my friend, I am pilot in an airline. 99 percent of the guys like it. When I fly my aircraft I dont change the company SOP because I dont like what it say. I follow it. Here is the same. Big companies have rules and unions. Part of the rules is seniority. Why I must change a fair system just to satisfy some guy with a big EGO that pretends to be 747 Captain before senior guys?? :=:=
The day a become a lawyer or a doctor I will need to change the rules because things there are done different. But I am not a lawyer nor a Doctor :ugh:

Hand Solo

22nd Aug 2007, 07:23

I'm also curious as to why people think a legal challenge to seniority would succeed. In my company a sizeable proportion of the people junior to me are older than me. If they were to complain about discrimination in favour of youth the company would simply point to all the older people than I who are now 747 Captains. If they were to complain of discrimination against youth then they'd just point to anyone younger than them but more senior.:confused:

bugg smasher

22nd Aug 2007, 13:35

Seniority only works properly, of course, when the intake stream of new guys and gals is balanced by a measured number of retirements out the top end. Ideally, there should be a sufficient number 'old farts' to provide the experiential environment the 'young whippersnappers' so badly need.

It tends to break down in two ways; when the airline stops growing and all progression stops with it, leading to that frustrating place so many pilots know so well, the senior first officer syndrome.

The other, as in the 25 year-old commander thread on this page, happens when the airline grows rapidly and promotes pilots far too inexperienced for the position.

Given the choice of travel arrangements for myself and my family, I would not hesitate to stay away from, and recommend anyone else do the same, those airlines that place expansion plans ahead of safety by putting 25 year-olds in the left seat of complex modern airliners.

900

22nd Aug 2007, 19:56

I'm not a pilot nor am I someone who wishes to be. Clarence, I hope I'm not disqualified from having a view?
7Q - it's the 1% that should worry you 'cus that's where the claim will come from.
Parabellum & Hand Solo - I can't really see the power of your argument. Discrimination is lawful. We do it all the time. We choose and therefore discriminate. Unfair discrimination may also be lawful. Until October last year in the UK, it was perfectly lawful to discriminate on the grounds of age (though some would say that was unfair).
However, unlawful discrimination, either direct or indirect is the issue and in my view seniority will be proved to be unlawful no matter how unpalletable that seems or pushy viewed from those at the top looking at the bottom.
Age discrimination is unlawful in the UK. The vast majority of those at the higher end of the seniority list will be older than those at the lower end. I think that is normally the case, certainly in the legacy airlines.
If being at the upper end of the seniority list gives you better pay & conditions than those at the lower end? and there is a measurable average age difference twixt the two, in the absence of an objectively justifiable reason, the different treatment will be unlawful.
Question - other than huff & puff - is there an objectively justifiable reason? I'm confident that BALPA isn't confident. Is there a rogue in a hurry out there somewhere?
That's why I'm confident of a challenge.

Clarence Oveur

22nd Aug 2007, 20:32

Everybody can have a view. Some will even claim they are entitled to have one. Whether said view is of any relevance or concern is another matter entirely.

It is always important to understand the motives behind an opinion. Even when they are somewhat obscure.

Hobbes described it well I believe.

Re-Heat

22nd Aug 2007, 20:52

Man gives indifferent names to one and the same thing from the difference of their own passions; as they that approve a private opinion call it opinion; but they that mislike it, heresy: and yet heresy signifies no more than private opinion.
[Lev, Pt. I, Ch. 11]

I digress...

Hand Solo

22nd Aug 2007, 21:36

900 - I can't really see the power of your argument either. In fact I can't see what your argument is at all. All you are doing are saying that in your opinion seniority will be declared unlawful, yet you don't actually present a real reason why that should be. You allude to a general relationship between age and seniority yet, as already mentioned, that does not necessarily hold true. I know of 747 training captains in my airline who are younger than new entrants. Age discrimination? I think not. There are many captains flying with younger FOs. When one joins my company you sign up to a 24 year incremental pay contract, a contract you will progress through regardless of age. That contract is open to anyone who passes selection, regardless of age. So lets hear your reasons why seniority represents age discrimination rather than a "first come first served" principle. Perhaps next time I go to the bakery, join a queue of 20 people and then get to the front to find there are no pies left I should sue them for discrimination. After all, those ahead of me may be of different ages, but by your argument older people than me had the chance to get ahead of me in the pie queue by joining it before my birth and it's discriminatory that they should get a pie and I don't simply because they were in the line ahead of me. Probably breaches my human rights too!

parabellum

22nd Aug 2007, 23:02

Well said Hands Solo.

900 said: "That's why I'm confident of a challenge"

Don't doubt it for one minute. Nor do I doubt it will be unsuccessful. A seniority system does not set out to differentiate on the basis of age and age is not a factor, it is all about date of joining and time served, regardless of age, used as a final arbiter when all other considerations like qualifications, experience and suitability are equal.

"Seniority - a thing of the past (soon)" says 900, I wouldn't be placing any bets if I were you!

Still waiting for someone to outline a case that will support the theory that a seniority system in an airline is either unfair or unlawful discrimination. There is a huge difference between perceived discrimination and proven discrimination.

swordsman

23rd Aug 2007, 04:50

From legal point of view a company in the UK is within its rights to reward loyalty.
Hence senority.

Fareastdriver

23rd Aug 2007, 05:28

I do not think the government or the judicary would outlaw seniority in the airline industry as they would have to outlaw it in the military and also, good heavens, the Civil Service.

7Q Off

23rd Aug 2007, 11:43

There is not a legal chance to scrap seniority. Seniority does not discriminate by Age, by sex nor race. Seniroty reward loyaly. Beside that you have 2 kind of pilots in an airline. Competent and not competent. To be competent you need to have your medicals and pass all the check rides or sim test. If you have 1000 pilots competent the only way to be fair is having a seniority. You said that seniority discriminates. What you propose discriminates more. :ugh:
If you have 1000 competent pilots with 20 years of service and you promote a competent pilot with 1 months of service you are DISCRIMINATING 1000 pilots. Is worst what you propose.
900, you can have an opinion. But if you are not a pilot is very dificult to have a serious opinion.
I am not a doctor so I will not have a serios opinion of Brain surgery. :=

Beside that I dont see that the military will scrap seniority in the UK. I dont think you will see a 22 year old general in the near future.

900

23rd Aug 2007, 18:15

Folks, the anger is palpable.
Why can't you see that performance at work (in any job) and thus opportunities for promotion, transfer etc. or indeed, in reverse, redundancy can be measured by performance rather than length of sevice coupled with statutory checks?
What are you worried about?
Coach drivers, lorry drivers, train drivers, all roles that have a "standard" level of competence, beyond which some will argue there can be no differentiation. "I hold the licence therefore I can do as well as anyone else who holds the licence"
Smells like good old industrial restrictive practice to me. But what do I know, only pilots apparently (7Q?) can opine here with any worth?

qwertyuiop

23rd Aug 2007, 18:41

Problem is 900 (been said many times), how do you assess a pilot? What makes a good pilot, what makes a poor pilot? What makes a good captain?
Every method of selection is very easy to abuse.
By far the best method is to set a standard and experience level and then let those that reach this level wait their turn.

Re-Heat

23rd Aug 2007, 19:47

The problems with seniority are many and varied, including:

Selection on fleets - while not problematic in some airlines, seniority does not cater for fleet moves in others. Remember Concorde and how people were selected for that?

Selection in training roles - route checker, line trainer, base trainer, training standards & examiner revalidation: subject to interviews that may not be objective.

Promotion based upon flat standards - promotion up Pay Points does not have to demonstrate increased standards, just sufficient standards to pass line and sim checks.

Lack of fast-track for those with excellent standards and command potential - have to wait turn, which can vary if company is not growing at steady rate.

Healthy companies required - those unfortunate enough to work for companies that go bust or have no future prospects return to the bottom of seniority lists in new companies.

Stagnant companies - those not expanding stagnate progression up the list, particularly if there are few retirees.

Excess retirees - the opposite applies, and those with average standards can achieve commands too early.

Pay based upon loyalty is arbitrary - it depends where you have the luck to get a job.

To claim that the sim check is an objective appraisal is somewhat false - it is a tough, periodic assessment of minimum required standards to be demonstrated; an appraisal in other industries considers ongoing performance at ANY time as assessed by (a) peers, (b) seniors, and (c) juniors, covering not only technical skills, but people management (let's say those beyond the flight deck in this case), leadership, attitude, and general personal qualities.

What sim and line checks do not assess are: ongoing assessments of those that people fly with, both those junior, cabin crew, ground crew and management, instead assessing the technical skills demonstrated as observed by an objective assessor at a single point in time.

I can see the concern that a more "normal" assessment, including sim checks AND further appraisal processes would be open to abuse by "brown-nosers" etc, but I think that is a misplaced fear if you have not experienced the professionalism and objectivity with which HR runs these process in non-airline industries.

Furthermore, the only acceptable version of the seniority list in my opinion is an industry-wide, global list based upon experience - but that still does not address some of the further concerns bulleted above.

Dispassionate thoughts?

bugg smasher

23rd Aug 2007, 20:43

the only acceptable version of the seniority list in my opinion is an industry-wide, global list based upon experience

Interesting thought, wouldn’t work though. Loyalty to any one company is based largely upon one’s position and remuneration that advances and increases as one moves up the seniority list. A system that allowed outsiders to be ‘inserted’ relatively high up the ladder would create intense frustration and disloyalty within the pilot ranks of a particular company, as it now does, for example, when a British Airways captain retires at 55 and takes up a senior position within some of the Asian carriers.

7Q Off

23rd Aug 2007, 21:32

900:
I can not talk about brain surgery, I am not a doctor. :}

Bellerophon

23rd Aug 2007, 22:42

Re-Heat

...Remember Concorde and how people were selected for that?...

Yes, I remember it well, and also how people were selected for it. What exactly was your point?

Regards

Bellerophon

Re-Heat

23rd Aug 2007, 23:04

It was not strictly in line with seniority, undermining the argument above that seniority being the basis for BA fleet selection that has been so resolutely defended above by those at BA. (or conversely the argument for it, if you believe that system for that fleet to have been appropriate). You seem to think I insinuate something else - I do not.

I can not talk about brain surgery, I am not a doctor.
Yes, you can if you have some idea what you are talking about. If people did not have comment about others' systems, how do you expect anything ever to develop, progress or change?

Hand Solo

24th Aug 2007, 01:32

The problems with seniority are many and varied, including:
Selection on fleets - while not problematic in some airlines, seniority does not cater for fleet moves in others. Remember Concorde and how people were selected for that?

I believe there was another interview to discuss whether people really were interested in a 7 year type freeze, a 6 month conversion and a limited route structure, which doesn't seem unreasonable given the fleets unusual operation within BA. Anyway, Concordes gone now.

Selection in training roles - route checker, line trainer, base trainer, training standards & examiner revalidation: subject to interviews that may not be subjective.

I'm sure you mean objective, but nonetheless you are making our point for us. You are saying that interviews may not be an objective means for assessing means yet arguing that they are better than an objective seniority system.

Promotion based upon flat standards - promotion up Pay Points does not have to demonstrate increased standards, just sufficient standards to pass line and sim checks.

Why should it? Ones flying licence doesn't demonstrate increased standards. In my experience many of the old codgers can't fly that accurately anymore but they have a wealth of experience that more than compensates. How would you assess that?

Lack of fast-track for those with excellent standards and command potential - have to wait turn, which can vary if company is not growing at steady rate.

You've yet to explain just why there should be a fast track. You haven't even explained what 'excellent command potential' means. Let me tell you a bit about the real world of flying. In an airline like BA there are only three things that 'excellent command potential' might influence:

1) Your colleagues on the flight deck.
2) The cabin crew.
3) The passengers.

You can charm the passengers without being a good commander. That is no basis for promotion. You can charm the cabin crew, which might mean they'll come out for a drink downroute, but in a dysfunctional airline like BA they'll still ring the union to determine what they should do and in a functional airline they'll do as the company requires. Charming the cabin crew is no basis for promotion, as certain captains who have great skills with the crew but are sorely lacking elsewhere demonstrate. Perhaps you can even charm your colleagues on the flight deck, but in my experience most of them are free thinking individuals and will make their own minds up based on rational thought. In fact, there is little that your 'exceptional command potential' poster boys (and girls) can do that the average Joe cannot, and the difference really isn't worth a promotion.

Healthy companies required - those unfortunate enough to work for companies that go bust or have no future prospects return to the bottom of seniority lists in new companies.

Thus it ever was. I doubt the leading lights of Arthur Andersen walked into comparable positions elsewhere after the Enron fiasco. Once again you have confused salary and prospects with seniority. If an airline goes bust there are plenty of direct entry captains positions out there. You may be at the bottom of a seniority list but you can be well up the salary tree. FOs can take FOs postions elsewhere, earning more than SOs or cruise co-pilots but still lower in seniority. I hardly think a DEC or DEFO position could be described as having 'no future prospects'. Furthermore, should airline X go bust tomorrow, why should, and indeed how could, an unknown quantity pilot get a job at airline Y in a more advantageous position than a known pilot who has been with airline Y for years?

Stagnant companies - those not expanding stagnate progression up the list, particularly if there are few retirees.

No different to any other company. Show me a stagnating firm that keeps promoting from within or hiring from outside to a high level rather than ticking over with the status quo. If you don't like stagnation you go to a growing firm. If ten years for a command at BA doesn't suit you go to Etihad where it takes four years. Whats that you say? The pay at Etihad isn't as good? Well stay where you are then. Life is full of tough choices.

Excess retirees - the opposite applies, and those with average standards can achieve commands too early.

You demonstrate a gross lack of understanding of the job. Firstly, how high is the average? I guess there are 'average' pilots of the space shuttle. 'Average' graduates of test pilot school. Heaven forbid someone should be 'average', even if that average standard is very high. And what is 'too early'. Do you think standards are deliberately lowered in order to meet a quota? Do you think FO Jones will have the standards required of him on his command course lowered because bless his cotton socks his only been flying four years? When Easyjet couldn't get enough experienced FOs for their command requirements they hired DECs.

Pay based upon loyalty is arbitrary - it depends where you have the luck to get a job.

What a nonsensical statement. All pay in any profession is based on where you have the luck to get a job. Some firms are willing to pay more. Why do you think so many new graduates want to be accountants? Because they just luuuuurrrv counting beans?

To claim that the sim check is an objective appraisal is somewhat false - it is a tough, periodic assessment of minimum required standards to be demonstrated;

You tick the boxes, you pass the check. Thats pretty objective. Did you know you can know play back simulator flights with hard copies of flight profiles to prove you meet the standard?

an appraisal in other industries considers ongoing performance at ANY time as assessed by (a) peers, (b) seniors, and (c) juniors, covering not only technical skills, but people management (let's say those beyond the flight deck in this case), leadership, attitude, and general personal qualities.

Already worked in such a firm and have many colleagues still there. Peer appraisal has a huge amount of subjectivity involved, starting with who you choose to conduct the appraisal. Strangely enough the people who do best under this system are not necessarily the technically capable, which should be the case in a technical role, but those who network and play the office politics. Nobody is going to give their mate a bad review, but the technical expert can be damned with faint praise.

What sim and line checks do not assess are: ongoing assessments of those that people fly with, both those junior, cabin crew, ground crew and management, instead assessing the technical skills demonstrated as observed by an objective assessor at a single point in time.

I thought objectivity was what you were all about (but I think you mean subjectivity this time). Again, you demonstrate a distinct lack of understanding of what this job is actually about. Perhaps you'd reward jovial banter with the pushback operator at LHR? I wonder how that would go down at Beijing where the guy is utterly confused by your non-standard communications? Management? Haven't had direct contact with one of those for over a year! No need! How will you assess that? Interaction with those on the flight deck, junior and senior? Already assessed in the simulator and on the line.

I can see the concern that a more "normal" assessment, including sim checks AND further appraisal processes would be open to abuse by "brown-nosers" etc, but I think that is a misplaced fear if you have not experienced the professionalism and objectivity with which HR runs these process in non-airline industries.

Give me a break. Do you really think all those books on how to get ahead in the corporate world are there because HR is objective? It's such a truism that brown-nosing, dirt-dishing and office politicking gain career capital that I barely need state it, yet you have the audacity to hold that up as a shining example of an alternative to seniority?????

Furthermore, the only acceptable version of the seniority list in my opinion is an industry-wide, global list based upon experience - but that still does not address some of the further concerns bulleted above.

Well I hope I've addressed some of your bullet points with a dose of realism.

Re-Heat

24th Aug 2007, 03:01

Yes, somewhat patronisingly as well. Perhaps you assume that where I work means I have no idea of what I am talking about in the airline: on the contrary.

The focus of my post was that the current seniority system bears no relation to a full annual appraisal of abilities that one would find in any other industry - and many other industries have as many safety concerns and technical requirements that have to be met on a continuing basis. Do you really think that ever other industry in the land has huge problems ensuring an objective process due to brown-nosing etc? Come off it: I can't believe that you can really have had any realistic experience of other businesses if you say that - it is certainly not my experience anywhere.

This translates to one's year-round behaviour around colleagues in the operation. You know it is completely trite to suggest that someone's banter would have any reflection on this appraisal: an objective appraisal process takes account of the quality many pieces of individual possibly subjective feedback to produce a single objective outcome.

An appraisal is not a singular interview with a subjective outcome - it is the culmination of feedback from various sources. The very fact that old codgers have different, additional skills from the pure flying angle surely is a cause to argue for such a different system?

My argument for abolition - it was meritocracy, pure and simple. I cannot conceive of anything fairer and less discriminatory.

My argument against seniority? It is the same as any structure that ossifies a business to protect the position of insiders against a meritocracy.

I doubt the leading lights of Arthur Andersen walked into comparable positions elsewhere after the Enron fiasco.
Many in fact did. Most of them in Deloitte.

I have no envy, or issue with people inside a seniority system, however, consider why most people arguing for its continuation are its beneficiaries in terms of pay and promotion: it ossifies a structure that is not as meritocratic as I believe it should be. I do not believe that is right.

Re-Heat

24th Aug 2007, 03:09

I find it hard to square your reasoning that seniority should continue to penalise those who have the misfortune not to choose the most successful company, just because that is the way it has always been.

Such reasoning is hardly conducive to any sort of progress.

Management? Haven't had direct contact with one of those for over a year! No need!
Which is a somewhat telling reflection of the continuing dire quality of many of BA's pilot management community, and a relationship with the flight crew community that is entirely unhealthy.

Bellerophon

24th Aug 2007, 04:36

Re-Heat

...It was not strictly in line with seniority...

In fact it was, just like all other BA fleets, as a check of the results of the annual Posting and Promotions bid (called the Cassandra run) would quickly reveal.

Do you think that pilots who have missed a course they wanted, on any BA aircraft type, didn't check to see who got the course they wanted, and if that pilot was entitled to it?

Given that the relatively small number of BA pilots who actually bid for Concorde were (mostly) extremely keen to get on her, do you seriously think that even a single selection for a Concorde course, out of seniority order, would have gone unnoticed or uncontested?

As has been said, a few pilots, whose names appeared on the initial result lists over the years, subsequently withdrew after becoming fully aware of just what the course entailed, but no line pilot, in either seat, was put on a course out of seniority order.

The plain facts are, that the year I got my Concorde course, hundreds of captains senior to me had passed up the chance to bid for her, and scores of captains junior to me, many of whom would no doubt have made a better Concorde captain than I, were, fortunately for me, denied a course, solely on juniority.

I suspect a few Concorde F/Os might regard me as living proof that course selection for Concorde couldn't possibly have been done on any basis other than seniority! ;)

...undermining the argument above that seniority being the basis for BA fleet selection...

Or not!

As for the other points you raise, Hand Solo has replied, far more eloquently than I ever could, with views I would totally support.

Whilst it's always presumptuous to attempt to speak for others, in this case I do believe that the vast majority of BA pilots would share our viewpoint.

Best regards

Bellerophon

Ropey Pilot

24th Aug 2007, 10:59

Only managed to read the first half of this thread so far - so apologies if I am repeating but...

Everyone against seniority seems to think that it keeps T&Cs lower than they should be. Is that the case?

Most airline beancounters would love to have every seat filled by a year 1 FO and a year 1 Capt (assuming the airline has yearly pay increases).

A regional airline I know is practically rubbing its hands with glee as the more senior guys (particularly skippers) are getting pi$$ed off with their lot and jumping ship. They can then hire DECs (or promote the more senior FOs who haven't done the same thing) at Pay Point 1 prices!

The chances of an incident are still low (as everyone is qualified/capable for the job they are doing - something which apparently doesn't happen in seniority driven jobs; failed your Captains check, no worries you are next on the list so here you go anyway:uhoh:)

The promoted FOs even have worse T&Cs than the equivalently experienced (and in some cases significantly less experienced on type) new join Capts since they are historic from their original contract. In fact if HR would let them they would be better off resigning and reapplying (if it wasn't for their Type rating bond).

And personally (as a junior in my new airline) I am looking forward to choosing my roster in my 50s. In the non-seniority based one the guys were still doing the same old cr@p that I was up until the week they retired (the ones that stayed) That is something I don't want to do!

Re-Heat

24th Aug 2007, 17:59

Bellerophon - apologies, I stand corrected.

I know that most BA pilots agree with you - in fact I have not yet met one that does not: it would be far less interesting to have discussion with those who agree with me though...!

Surely however you can agree with the final point I made though - that it is protection for insiders, therefore, if you believe in meritocracy, it is not meritocractic?

Skylion

24th Aug 2007, 18:08

The seniority system benefits a) the airlines and b) the unions. For 90% plus of pilots it is a career limiting liabilty, restricting their ability to change employer and location depending on changing personal and family circumstances.It also means that if they are unhappy with their employer, particularly as they get older/more senior they don't have the real option of walking away and slotting in at much the same level in another company. This is a serious restriction on their freedom to sell their labour wherever they wish, as well as to build their own career as they would in most other walks of life.
This unholy alliance between employers and unions to the detriment of employees is both unusual and undesirable and to find people outside the promotion escalator of the legacy carriers with enthusiasm for this headlock is amazing. Even inside the legacy carriers there must be some who would like to make a bid to control their own lives without risking a massive income loss.

Raj Merlion

24th Aug 2007, 21:21

Skylion, exactly right! An unholy alliance does indeed exist between the airlines and unions; sad that so many pilots are really blind to this fact.:ugh:

parabellum

25th Aug 2007, 11:00

Skylion You make a good point in favour of the pilot who may, for whatever reason, wish to move from one company to another but why should the profession jig itself in such a way as to accommodate the 'movers' at the expense of people who choose not to move and have demonstrated a greater degree of loyalty?

Skylion

25th Aug 2007, 11:58

I think it's a point in favour of any pilot. Who can forecast the shape of the industry in 20 years time? Will the legacy carriers survive? There is no guarantee that they will, and if they don't those currently employed them will find themselves back at the bottom of the pile and trapped there by the seniority system. The freedom to choose one's own destiny is a very basic and valuable one and can not be left in the hands of anyone else but the individual.

parabellum

25th Aug 2007, 12:14

If you will forgive me for saying so, you are very much an idealist but not very much of a realist!

Hand Solo

25th Aug 2007, 17:16

Given that rigid, long term seniority systems are largely the preserve of 'legacy' carriers then whats the big deal if they are not aroud in 20 years? By definition the seniority systems won't be either. Besides, as I've previously said there are plenty of opportunites around for people to take their skills and experience to other operates as direct entry FOs and Captains. The only people who are inconvenienced are those who think they should be able to move to a large 'legacy' carrier, on similar terms, bypassing the internal candidates that the destination carrier would normally promote.

Barrack Room Lawyer

25th Aug 2007, 20:26

An interesting thread that seems to me to be throwing up some very entrenched views.

There appears to be very little appreciation of the fact that the new legislation, the Age Discrimination Act, which was introduced into the UK last year, significantly changes the way all companies (not just aviation) should operate in order to avoid or reduce the risk of a discrimination claim by an employee or group of employees. The new legislation allows companies to reward and promote their most talented employees and conversely gifted employees can expect to be rewarded for their capability regardless of a seniority based structure.

All unions, including Balpa, tend to ignore new legislation when it doesn’t suit and remain devoted to current and former practices until they are forced to change. As individuals we are very much of the same mould.

From where I sit it appears that airlines operate basically 3 systems for selection; seniority (BA), meritocracy (easyJet) or a combination of seniority and meritocracy (some of the smaller airlines and a few of the charters).

By seniority I think most will accept that date of joining is the key and not some hybrid system dreamed up and implemented by individuals in powerful positions of being either union reps or management or a combination of both. I would therefore be very surprised if any of the new management teams in either FCA/TFly or TCX/MYT would agree to implement and operate a seniority system that does not conform to strict date of joining based on when an individual joined. By implementing any other scheme it would leave both the union and the company wide open to litigation.

However, it should be also understood by all that Section 32 of the new Act allows companies, including airlines, to use a combination of length of service and performance when selecting individuals for promotion. Indeed, most employment lawyers take the view that the most robust system a company should use is one that can be objectively justified. This is understood to be a combination of length of service and performance and this would provide a company with the strongest defence against a claim. It is also the view that a pure seniority system is discriminatory in that it discriminates against the more talented and better performing individual (direct discrimination) or individuals (indirect discrimination) regardless of age (you don’t have to be old to be discriminated against).

It is naive to think that companies do not know who their best people are; after all there is no airline that uses seniority for the selection of their training captains or training F/Os. What is needed is a robust selection procedure that is open, honest, transparent and fair. A selection board chosen from colleagues within a workforce could achieve this. Pure seniority based methods of selection have been abused when management, with no input from anywhere else, have bypassed the next in line in order to promote an individual of their choosing.

So, in a nutshell, no system is perfect or ever will be, but seniority is, in my view, discriminatory, both when used in a company and as a restraint of trade between companies. There is no doubt in my mind that the seniority system in use today by airlines has been a factor in holding down terms and conditions, as well as restricting the employment prospects of individuals.

Surely, the time has come for an individual or group of individuals (F/Os?), with the help of Section 32 of the Age Discrimination Act, to challenge, in the courts, a pure seniority based selection system.

You never know, some companies, who want to change to a system of length of service and performance, may not put up a strong defence and hide behind the fact that the Act allows companies 5 years to demonstrate convergence to the legislation.

ZQA297/30

25th Aug 2007, 22:31

I am just a simple ex-pilot and I have been trying to think out the implications of the absence of seniority systems. No doubt experts will be able to point out all the errors in my logic.

It would seem to me that those pilots who were above average might be tempted to jump to the " prestige" carriers for less than the going rate, whilst the less desirable carriers would have to pay a premium to get "good" people, if they could afford it. All the less able pilots would gravitate to the carriers who were in the worst economic state.

It would be a true test of how pilot "abilities" affect accident rates.

Of course how one ranks a pilots ability, or desirability as an employee, would be a debate that could be quite prolonged.

Clarence Oveur

25th Aug 2007, 23:02

There are apparently still some who do not understand how seniority works in an airline.

Am I the only one who get the feeling, that those who argue that getting rid of the seniority system will be to the benefit of pilots, actually have the benefit of others in mind?

Slasher

26th Aug 2007, 03:02

Seniority gives everyone the knowledge of where he stands in the Company. In the case of FOs wether beatnik or ace, his turn will come and the chance for command given. The beatnik will fail while the ace will romp it in. Chomping at the bit to get rid of seniority demonstrates impatience and a desire for queue-jumping.
Seniority eliminates brown-nosing, @sslicking, and agendas that only benefit the favored.

7Q Off

26th Aug 2007, 03:27

Some guys still believe that seniority guarantee you will become a CAPTAIN yes or yes.

In my company like other airlines some senior FOs dont pass the checks and they are still FOs, and some more modern FO pass the checks and upgrade to captain. Safety is first.

Seniority only guarantee you will have the chance to upgrade when your time comes but you still have to pass the checks and line training. You still need to prove you are qualified for position.

Bellerophon

26th Aug 2007, 03:39

Barrack Room Lawyer

...It is naive to think that companies do not know who their best people are...

Not naive at all, I would call it refreshingly realistic.

Just how exactly are the management of a large airline meant to know or assess who their best people are?

What criteria should they use in their assessments? How would they measure or assess the criteria they select? How relevant would those criteria be? How would they ensure a consistent degree of difficulty on assessments that took place in everday line operation?

In all likelihood, I suspect they would soon come to rely on a quick simplistic look at only those areas of airline operations that are easy to measure. Punctuality, Fuel Load, Diversions, Extension of Flying Duty Periods etc, all come to mind.

The consequences of assessments based on this sort of data would bring about the complete reversal and eventual demise of the current safety-based and safety-first culture that so many pilots, in many airlines, have worked long and hard to bring in.

...there is no airline that uses seniority for the selection of their training captains or training F/Os....

Im not sure if you were implying that training captains or F/Os are the best pilots in an airline, but if you are - and I speak as one who has been selected for both jobs - I would strongly disagree, as, I'm pleased to say, would most instructors!

Instructors are pilots who were selected to do a different job (instructing) to a line pilot, a job which requires additional and different skill-sets and abilities. Many instructors are excellent by any standard, many are good instructors but average pilots, and a few, sadly, are neither.

Conversely, there are many, many excellent line pilots, who have no interest in instructing whatsoever, and to discount or downgrade those pilots on that basis, or to assume that all the best pilots are instructors, would truly be naive.

...What is needed is a robust selection procedure that is open, honest, transparent and fair....

Most amusing, you really don't work in the aviation industry do you! :)

Perhaps we could base it on the recent dogma-driven improvements in the NHS, whose new procedures earlier this year for the selection and promotion of junior doctors was such a success that it became known as Massacring Medical Careers?

If you think that a selection board which interviews pilots for promotion is the way forward, then all you will do is promote and advance those pilots who can interview well, and, in all probability, socialise well.

Personally, I think seniority is the worst system for selecting pilots for promotion....apart from all the others!

As for the ADA, I suspect someone will give your views a run in Court, in due course, but as for the interpretations the Courts will eventually place on its various sections, who knows!

Best regards

Bellerophon

7Q Off

26th Aug 2007, 05:24

It would be interested to see a laysuit against the ROYAL ARMY because some LT thinks he deserves to be a General. :D

parabellum

26th Aug 2007, 05:27

"However, it should be also understood by all that Section 32 of the new Act allows companies, including airlines, to use a combination of length of service and performance when selecting individuals for promotion."

It has ever been thus, the basic requirements for consideration for command are: licence, relevant experience, suitability and length of service. If an individual is up to the required standard he will pass, of not he will fail and someone more junior will take his or her command slot. The perfect example of length of service and performance combined to determine who gets promoted.

7Q Off

26th Aug 2007, 05:46

parabellum: Standing ovation

:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D

bugg smasher

26th Aug 2007, 11:33

Surely, the time has come for an individual or group of individuals (F/Os?), with the help of Section 32 of the Age Discrimination Act, to challenge, in the courts, a pure seniority based selection system.

BRL, would you, by some odd chance, be available to take the case?

Hachet Harry

26th Aug 2007, 12:04

It would be interested to see a laysuit against the ROYAL ARMY because some LT thinks he deserves to be a General.

I'm not sure of the point you're making in this particular post. The British Army (or RAF or Royal Navy) don't promote on length of service (with a few exceptions), they promote on performance. Of course to be a General you will have to have 'performed' over a considerable length of time and only the very best will make it, but that is not the same as the aviation seniority system. In aviation, a competent but average pilot will make captain in time whereas a competent but average soldier will not progress beyond a mediocre rank.

7Q. I think that comparing the two systems actually works against your argument.

parabellum

26th Aug 2007, 12:30

Personally I think it is high time we stopped trying to compare apples with nectarines. This is yet another Hamster Wheel and I am about to get off.

Hachet Harry

26th Aug 2007, 12:43

I-FORD

Agreed, which is why I said:

The British Army (or RAF or Royal Navy) don't promote on length of service (with a few exceptions),

In the British Armed Forces, Officers will generally promote to Lt (RN), Major and Flt Lt respectively on time served. But beyond that, promotion is based on merit and is very competitive and in my opinion, that competition promotes hard work and higher standards.

It's interesting that many contributors to this thread have equated accelerated promotion with brown nosing. In my experience most brown nosers get found out very early, not least because they act in this way to cover up their inadequacies in other areas. They don't normally experience much beyond mediocre success.

bugg smasher

26th Aug 2007, 13:29

It's interesting that many contributors to this thread have equated accelerated promotion with brown nosing. In my experience most brown nosers get found out very early, not least because they act in this way to cover up their inadequacies in other areas. They don't normally experience much beyond mediocre success.

Absolutely not true. Brown nosing is rife within, and endemic to, those companies that do not have a well-managed system of checks and balances such as the seniority system provides. It has been in my experience to witness some extremely repugnant, mediocre types rise to the highest management levels, bringing in the rear, so to speak, those that are of similar persuasion.

Re-Heat

26th Aug 2007, 18:35

20driver

26th Aug 2007, 18:42

To paraphrase Churchhill, it is a bad system but better than the alternatives.

It serves several good purposes but you give to get.

The recent rash of packaged bankruptcies in the US airline industry have being enabled by the fact that management knew their most valuable employees, the pilots, were bound to the airline like serfs.
Anyone with more than a few years in had simple and deadly math to deal with. Leave here and go there and take a 50% or whatever cut in pay and lifestyle or stay here and take a 30% cut and maintain some lifestyle.
The airlines most valuable assests are the gate slots, everything else is mortaged to the hilt. If the pilots and others were in a true free market and able to walk they have much less to loose if Delta etc goes tits up.

Someone will fill the void, the punters will not stop flying and flying punters need pilots.

As someone said earlier management loves senority. It makes so much easier to deal with and makes the employees beholden like not other industry.

20driver
# first and last on my company list.

bugg smasher

26th Aug 2007, 21:02

As I said above, this is complete and utterly incorrect, both within and beyond the airline industry.

As extreme examples of promotion policies turned into mayhem via favoritism, examine the ex-Air Force flying clubs that were KAL and CAL in the nineties, and the horrific hull losses they experienced as a result.

Caboclo

26th Aug 2007, 21:35

20Driver is right. Seniority is like democracy: many flaws, generally a poor system, but the best thing available. The human race has too much boneheaded imperfection for anything to work perfectly.

Re-Heat

26th Aug 2007, 23:24

As extreme examples of promotion policies turned into mayhem via favoritism, examine the ex-Air Force flying clubs that were KAL and CAL in the nineties, and the horrific hull losses they experienced as a result.
Yes, but that is an example of a company with no effective HR deparment to enforce a meritocracy. As others above have pointed out, there are successful airlines without seniority systems.

Hand Solo

26th Aug 2007, 23:28

Absolutely not true. Brown nosing is rife within, and endemic to, those companies that do not have a well-managed system of checks and balances such as the seniority system provides.

As I said above, this is complete and utterly incorrect, both within and beyond the airline industry.

You really must stop drinking the Kool-Aid Re-Heat. I could provide you with a list of blue chip firms across all spheres of industry where my contemparies work where brown nosing is rife, possibly endemic. I could give you examples of where office politics promotes the wrong candidate resulting in the destruction of an effective team, the exodus of key staff and the collapse of effectiveness in departments. If you really believe that a true meritocracy exists outside your world of BA beancounting then I suggest you retire from this forum as you will have about as much credibility as the chem-trailers who used to blight us here.

Hand Solo

26th Aug 2007, 23:40

Yes, but that is an example of a company with no effective HR deparment to enforce a meritocracy. As others above have pointed out, there are successful airlines without seniority systems.

I couldn't sign off without pointing out that HR departments are in no position to enforce anything in a technical role. They do not have the skills or the knowledge to make an objective assessment. There may be successful airlines without seniority systems (can you name them, just out of interest?) but the most profitable airlines in the world all have a seniority system.

Thirsty Re-Heat? Got a nice Kool-Aid here for ya!

7Q Off

27th Aug 2007, 00:25

Not only profitable, but safe airlines. Qantas can be an example. British, Lufthansa just to name other 2 .

bugg smasher

27th Aug 2007, 01:38

Yes, but that is an example of a company with no effective HR deparment to enforce a meritocracy. As others above have pointed out, there are successful airlines without seniority systems.

Re-Heat,

I sympathize with your views, they are based on an idealistic point of view, it is the way things should work. To expect it in the real world, however, is unrealistic. I speak from a 30-year perspective in the biz; the only way to prevent greed, favoritism and butt-jockeying is to have a well-managed, strictly enforced seniority system in place. The managers who control this must be absolutely pure, without agenda of any kind.

In its absence, we do a grave disservice to our passengers; we engender an environment so combative as to be conducive to accidents. The statistics will bear this out, and are there for all to see.

Re-Heat

27th Aug 2007, 01:39

@ Hand Solo

Successful airlines (defined as making a profit) without pure seniority systems:

easyJet
Emirates
Ryanair
flyBE (seniority list, but with DECs)

Although seniority has little bearing on profitability other than skewing it upwards for young airlines (JetBlue), where seniority ultimately depresses future profitabilitye, and through holding staff at below-market rates (Delta), where lowest industry costs agreed with unions prevent senior captains from moving to similar roles at the same seniority.

I could give you examples of where office politics promotes the wrong candidate resulting in the destruction of an effective team, the exodus of key staff and the collapse of effectiveness in departments.
And I can give you examples of airlines with seniority systems that have been unprofitable, dangerous, lethal, and awful places to work.

The fact is that there are many companies with effective HR policies; their job is not to assess technical aspects on ones role, but to ensure an objective technical assessment of ones role can be made. I realise you may not actually have experienced an HR department directly in BA, however, your friends' assessments of brown-nosing to the top, is contradicted by countless successful meritocracies whose continuing success is demonstrated by the best candidates succeeding. Big 4, investment banks, BT, Vodafone, KKR, BAe Systems: their success is build upon and continued solely by the meritocracies in place.

You confuse opinions that differ with yours and those who write uninformed, unitelligent posts. Let's keep this argument strictly adult, and to the facts.
PS - I am not a BA accountant, and I drink beer.

Perhaps you care to persue these stats of those with the highest operating profit margins in 2006. I notice a number of airlines with no seniority system.

Ryanair 21.1%
Copa Airlines 19.6%
Republic Airways Holdings 18.6%
Gol Transportes Aereos 18.4%
Pinnacle Airlines 15.5%
Qantas 14.5%
Kenya Airways 13.4%
Aeroflot Russian Airlines 12.6%
Emirates Group 11.7%
WestJet Airlines 11.2%
SkyWest Airlines 10.9%
Icelandair 10.8%
Thomas Cook Airlines (UK) 10.6%
Atlasjet Airlines 10.5%
Atlas Air 10.3%
Southwest Airlines 10.3%
Aegean Airlines 10.0%
Hainan Airlines 10.0%
LAN Airlines 10.0%
Air Wisconsin 9.7%

Re-Heat

27th Aug 2007, 01:47

I sympathize with your views, they are based on an idealistic point of view, it is the way things should work. To expect it in the real world, however, is unrealistic. I speak from a 30-year perspective in the biz; the only way to prevent greed, favoritism and butt-jockeying is to have a well-managed, strictly enforced seniority system in place. The managers who control this must be absolutely pure, without agenda of any kind.
Many thanks for appreciating my point of view; I agree, it is idealistic: I am simply presenting facts that I believe bear out a reality in many other industries that is very different from how a meritocracy is perceived by those who have not worked outside of a seniority system. I understand the concerns, which are valid, but are in reality mitigated in those industries that I mention.

I don't think those who work in seniority systems here mean to imply that those other airlines are more dangerous, but the words that are used to justify it imply, for example, that easyJet is dangerous, which we all know it clearly is not.

Going back to a previous poster's point, it is those within the systems who benefit from the stability, who also lose out on the ability to capitalise on other opportunities - not just those outside of such a system.

Hand Solo

27th Aug 2007, 08:28

The fact is that there are many companies with effective HR policies; their job is not to assess technical aspects on ones role, but to ensure an objective technical assessment of ones role can be made. I realise you may not actually have experienced an HR department directly in BA, however, your friends' assessments of brown-nosing to the top, is contradicted by countless successful meritocracies whose continuing success is demonstrated by the best candidates succeeding. Big 4, investment banks, BT, Vodafone, KKR, BAe Systems: their success is build upon and continued solely by the meritocracies in place.
You confuse opinions that differ with yours and those who write uninformed, unitelligent posts.

Curiously enough my example of the wrong employee being promoted and causing the exodus of key staff was taken from a large investment bank. That decison now costs the trading desk millions each month and was taken in order to save about £2000 per month from the wage bill. Meritocracy? By pure coincidence I was talking with a BAe Systems HR manager this very weekend and I doubt he would recognise your vision of meritocratic purity. The problem I have with your argument is that is dogmatically based upon a false vision of uncorruptible meritocracy in your example companies. Perhaps they are held up as case studies in the HR textbooks but the reality is that all the corrupting factors are still at play in all of these firms as I'm sure their staff will testify. The facts you present are not facts at all, they are simply your opinions and are not borne out by reality. You also seem to overlook the fact that many pilots have chosen flying as a second career and have seen promotion systems in action across many different professions. In my experience those on a second career welcome seniority systems as an escape from the old corrupt systems.

I am not sure what you are trying to prove with your list of airlines with succesful operating margins. I hardly think the success of Hainan airlines is down to the presence or otherwise of a seniority system amongst it's pilots, nor is it's safety. Lots of noise, no information.

galleypower

27th Aug 2007, 10:07

20Driver is right. Seniority is like democracy: many flaws, generally a poor system, but the best thing available. The human race has too much boneheaded imperfection for anything to work perfectly.

A simple explanation for a complex issue (seniority). I believe that seniority is generally a good thing and if applied correctly its good for company and employee. It becomes more useful in career-airlines such as LH or BA and to some extend less important when working for a no-frills (benefit) airline.

Re-Heat

28th Aug 2007, 14:34

I am not sure what you are trying to prove with your list of airlines with succesful operating margins. I hardly think the success of Hainan airlines is down to the presence or otherwise of a seniority system
Largely countering your earlier comment:

the most profitable airlines in the world all have a seniority system
You somewhat contradict yourself.

Clarence Oveur

28th Aug 2007, 15:03

Since you are so hot on rankings, let me ask you this.

Which airlines offer the most attractive T&C and career prospects? Those with a seniority system or those without?

Hand Solo

28th Aug 2007, 15:03

You somewhat fail to understand the point. I said the most profitable airlines in the world all have a seniority system, not the airlines with the best operating margin. Profit and operating margin are not the same thing. Nice try though.

Hand Solo

28th Aug 2007, 15:06

PS, I found this on the web:

2004 Data - From Airline Business Magazine (August 2005 edition):

Top Group Operating Profits:

1) FedEx
2) Lufthansa Group
3) British Airways
4) Singapore Airlines Group
5) Qantas
6) Emirates
7) ANA
8) Cathay Pacific
9) Air France / KLM Group
10) Southwest Airlines

Top Highest Group net Profits:

1) Singapore Airlines
2) Emirates
3) Cathay Pacific
4) Lufthansa
5) British Airways
6) Qantas
7) Air France - KLM Group
8) Korean Air
9) Ryanair
10) Southwest Airlines

Now which of those airlines don't have a seniority system?

Re-Heat

28th Aug 2007, 15:50

Absolute profit is dependent upon company size; operating profit margin denotes profitability of the operation regardless of size.

BA's profit margin is particularly low, which translates to mean that the capital invested in the business does not return much profit, as the profit has to be shared over so many shareholders.

The airline with the fastest growing profits, and the highest operating profit margin is the one and the same - Ryanair - with no seniority, while I also see Emirates in your list, and a number of others with DECs.

My measure is a far more useful portrayal of operating profit, but nice try, with your out-of-date data.

So have you changed your mind again, and are trying to prove to me that seniority systems do make an airline profitable? Your counter-arguments seem to be clutching at minor strands of my points, ignoring the bulk of the other bullet points I have set out earlier.

Hand Solo

28th Aug 2007, 16:13

I'm afraid that it is you clutching at those straws Re-Heat. Your position has been that seniority is bad for pilots and bad for the airlines. Your position is that true meritocracy is the only alternative and that true meritocracies exist. The latter argument has been blown out of the water: your example firms have been found wanting in the meritocratic world and you have failed to offer a reasonable explanation of your ideals could be translated into a practical application in the real world, preferring to hang your hat on a cover all position of "thats what the HR department is for".

Now lets address your smokescreen of listing airlines operating margins. Yes of course absolute profit reflects absolute size, but operating margin is not the be all and end all of economic indicators. I could start an airline with a single Cessna 172, be the sole pilot, top (and bottom) of my personal seniority list. If I can make a healthy profit in the first year I could have a 50% operating margin. Thats a long way ahead of Ryanair. If I could simulate Asian living costs and standards by halving my pay I could probably be even more succesful by your measure. Does it mean I can be compared with Lufthansa? If not then why not? In your list you are attempting to compare Copa Panamian Airlines, Hainan Airlines and Air Wisconsin with Qantas! Like for like? Do me a favour. The operating margin of a small regional operator in the USA does not provide a meaningful comparator to a large, hub and spoke long haul airline.

You state that British Airways operating margin is particularly low. Well at the moment it wouldn't be too far off your top 20 and a 10% operating margin is pretty good in an industry like long haul which has such huge costs of entry (and which you will be aware that Ryanair are not in). In fact the only two carriers in this category are Qantas (good for them) and Emirates (if you can get the Emir to build you decent airports, fund your aircraft and grant you almost unlimited unopposed expansion opportunities then you should do well). And they both have seniority systems!

The information and arguments you have presented do nothing to show that seniority systems have a negative effect on airlines. You have yet to present anything concrete to support your argument. You have yet to present a workable alternative system to seniority. I've never said a seniority system makes an airline profitable. I've simply challenged your idea that a seniority system makes an airline unprofitable.

By the way, my data was out of date but I never pretended otherwise, thats why I left the date on it. It's purpose was to demonstrate how easy it is to post meaningless lists of irrelevant data in order to cloud the issue.

Re-Heat

28th Aug 2007, 17:12

Yes, I completely agree that you could start with an SEP class aircraft, gain an AOC, and shoot to the top of the rankings, but the stats I presented were from the same source as yours (Airline Business), rankings of global airlines, including such airlines as Air Wisconsin, which as they state on their website is: "The largest independently held regional airline in the United States...performing flying services for US Airways, and ground handling services for both United and Northwest Airlines. Flying 70 CRJ-200 regional jets as US Airways Express...": hardly incomparable to any other airline, while Ryanair certainly is most comparable.

I've never said a seniority system makes an airline profitable. I've simply challenged your idea that a seniority system makes an airline unprofitable.
I think we are talking at cross purposes here - the main thrust of my points on post #153 were that this impacts the workforce - the only reason I mentioned the profitability element was your comment regarding most profitable companies having seniority systems - the data proves otherwise, depending upon the way you view it. This is largely irrelevant though, so let's leave that one.

Re-Heat

28th Aug 2007, 17:46

Let me go back a step, as I realise I have not responded to your earlier comment on BAe etc, and their HR systems.

In a bank, in a trading desk, people are assessed solely on the money they make - their profit & loss ("P&L"). While I don't quite understand what you are writing - someone being promoted to save £2000 per month, causing staff exodus - people are fired in trading for insufficient earnings, or being the lowest P&L in a declining market, and many junior traders and heads of trading desks earn far more than some of their bosses simply by virtue of those with management and leadership potential being the ones promoted into senior positions.

While you may think my argument is that is "dogmatically based upon a false vision of uncorruptible meritocracy in your example companies", the reality that is borne out, is that the most able people are promoted to the top such that the company is far more successful than would otherwise be the case, and those who are brown-nosing are typically discovered when their leadership and technical incompetence is exposed.

Furthermore, although some pilots have chosen flying as a second career, the vast majority (e.g. in BA) are ex-mil, cadets, or hires from copetitors, while a large number of those who have worked elsewhere did so for a brief period while saving for ATPL course fees: I do not think there is a very large number who really "have seen promotion systems in action across many different professions". In my experience, those who choose flying do so to fly, not to escape an "old corrupt system"!

My position is indeed that seniority is bad for pilots and bad for the airlines, and that true meritocracy is the only alternative and that true meritocracies exist. My latter argument is borne out by many real world of companies led by a large cohort of younger, more educated, and more capable staff managing their elders - HBOS, BA for example.

Few other companies require people to "wait their turn" for promotion, provided they have the requisite technical and leadership skills, and while HR staff are typically a frustation to deal with, the objective requirements they enforce permit the employees in my many examples of successful companies to thrive, both personally, and to the benefit of the shareholders and other stakeholders in the firm.

Yes, the HR department is the key in this - you don't experience that in BA as the result of the sim check/route check a simple pass/fail. Great for ensuring minimum standards, but greatly lacking if objective assessment of the most capable is to be made in a meritocracy.

You aren't suggesting that BA line training captains and FOs are selected by brown-nosing, or are incompetent as they are not selected by seniority - why are you so averse to the suggestion that this could apply to the whole workforce?

Hand Solo

28th Aug 2007, 18:51

The investment bank example I quoted is not on the trading desk itself, where people may or may not be promoted on merit. They are the big players, and I accept that the big players are often promoted on merit alone. However, beneath the big players in any industry are the small player, those who fall below the scope of the HR teams and the headhunters, and that is where the meritocracy falls down. In my example, top manager supporting the desk needs to cut his budget, perhaps so that he can be promoted meritocratically. Middle manager, who is capable but very expensive, does not have his contract renewed to save money. One of two junior managers must be promoted to fill the position. Is it the good, but expensive one, or is it the average but cheap one. It is, of course, the average one, promoted on cost beyond his ability. The other junior manager quits in disgust and the skilled technical people jump ship as they are sick of working beneath the less capable manager. The desk no longer runs efficiently and the losses start to rack up. Sadly the HR department cannot micromanage recruitment in a large company and this is where the meritocracy ideal falls down. Away from the spotlight of high profile appointments the meritocracy is bypassed in favour of economic requirements, cronyism and politics.

I agree with your view that those who are brown-nosing are exposed. This does turn the focus back upon the core subject of aviation. There is, generally speaking, only one promotion in ones career. Lets say in a meritocratic BA I brown-nose my way to an early command and then I am exposed. Too late! I've got the command and you can't take it off me unless I start to fail checks. I can't be passed over for promotion in the future due to my average performance, iIve already got as far is I'm going and as far as I want to go. Meanwhile the people I've bypassed grow increasingly disgruntled.

I think you would be very surprised by the previous professional experiences of BA pilots. I've met non-flying military types, police officers, lawyers, a doctor, several bankers, accountants, engineers, software programmers, sales reps, air traffic controllers and geologists too name but a few occupations off the top of my head. I'm afraid you are way off base with your suggestion that they are biding their time whilst saving for their ATPL. In case you hadn't noticed Hamble closed a long time ago and theres a new breed of recruit in BA.

My position is indeed that seniority is bad for pilots and bad for the airlines, and that true meritocracy is the only alternative and that true meritocracies exist. My latter argument is borne out by many real world of companies led by a large cohort of younger, more educated, and more capable staff managing their elders - HBOS, BA for example.

So why are so many pilots disagreeing with you? The pilots who joined from the real world of professions I listed above don't seem to agree with you. You are asking us to take it on trust that your meritocracy exists as you describe it in your examples. I'm sure there are young, capable managers in both of those examples. However that is not necessarily relevant to a flying operation. Experience can only be gained at a certain rate in this profession and to earn a promotion the new young things need to prove that they are smarter, better and faster than the older incumbents. We are going round in circles here but you still have yet to present us with a criteria for defining just how they are better. If you want the system you have to have the tools to support it because it won't stand on it's on. I'd also add that I almost choked on my tea when you held BA up as an example of good management!!! I'd consider it far closer to a system of cronyism than a meritocracy!

Few other companies require people to "wait their turn" for promotion, provided they have the requisite technical and leadership skills,

Back to the tail chasing again but what happens when they all have the requisite technical and leaderships skills, or even the large majority? What happens when the spread of those skills is too narrow to effectively define?

Yes, the HR department is the key in this - you don't experience that in BA as the result of the sim check/route check a simple pass/fail. Great for ensuring minimum standards, but greatly lacking if objective assessment of the most capable is to be made in a meritocracy.

There's much more to a check than straight pass/fail.

You aren't suggesting that BA line training captains and FOs are selected by brown-nosing, or are incompetent as they are not selected by seniority - why are you so averse to the suggestion that this could apply to the whole workforce?

Some trainers are indeed selected by brown nosing as they 'earn' the right to be trainers by climbing the greasy management pole. And no, they are not very good, in fact often the worst trainers despite being selected on 'merit'. I can also tell you that there are plenty who believe the selection is as much to do with whatever is 'flavour of the month' among the selection committee, with excellent skippers with prior training experience passed over in favour of arguably less capable individuals who know the right buzzwords. Would I like my command to be dictated by a committee who want to hear me recite the latest management catchphrase? No thanks!

Re-Heat

28th Aug 2007, 19:28

Your example does indeed expose poor management, nevertheless, this is an example of a senior manager running an empire, unchecked by any external force, be it another, more senior manager, or HR - would aviation really be exposed to this without seniority though - I don't think that is realistic. Not only would union membership protect from arbitrary termination of anyone other than the worst performer (or anyone!), but seniority in your example - promotion solely on length of service - would hardly protect those from the same poor manager.

Exposure of brown-nosing poor performers is neither going to occur at a the one-off promotion to commander in the airline, nor would exposure prevent the airline from demoting/terminating said employee - the promotion is not the only occassion to assess performance, with numerous sim and route checks in the preceding years, I would be surprised if were ever possible for the entire cohort of checkers and examiners to be conned to putting forward for promotion an individual whose technical skills were inadequate.

Indeed, the command course is not the only instance of promotion: FO to SFO, SFOs permitted to remain in charge when the commander is on a rest on long-range flights etc, are all "promotions" of a kind, although clearly FO to SFO is automatic in seniority airlines - need this remain so without seniority?

I am not surprised by the mix - I know the mix, as I have met many - but it is still a minority of the group as a whole.

I believe you disagree if you have not experienced alternatives, and particularly as there is often little trust of the management in airline operations: this need not be so, but clearly greater trust, checks and balances would be a prerequisite of any alternative system.

Young, capable managers are indeed relevant to a flying operation: yes, certainly, as you say, "experience can only be gained at a certain rate in this profession and to earn a promotion the new young things need to prove that they are smarter, better and faster than the older incumbents": but if they do so, why should they be prevented by a seniority system from moving upwards?

Certainly the case for a global, or at least national seniority system is the only defensible method of ensuring those with that huge experience are permitted to retain their position and continue to contribute to those of lesser experience when they move companies - presently they are unable to do so due to the company-based seniority system.

I am not sure I ever said BA was well-managed, simply that the CEO clearly demonstrated his ability, and moved ahead of elder candidates for that job solely on the basis of his perceived greater ability at the time.

Back to the tail chasing again but what happens when they all have the requisite technical and leaderships skills, or even the large majority? What happens when the spread of those skills is too narrow to effectively define?
Not choosing two co-chairmen like Airbus and EADS would be a start! Seriously though, there are always definable differences between staff: I have appraised people who very technically strong, but lacking leadership quality against another who can motivate a team but relies on others for technical support. Equally I have also seen two technically strong individuals - in that case unique experiences were different. It depends upon what skills are required for the role on who goes ahead, if anyone.

There's much more to a check than straight pass/fail.
Yes, but you know whether you have passed, require some retraining, or are atrocious there and then on the day - there is not input by HR, delivering any feedback from any other source. You have no contact with HR in this process is the point.

BA's selection of trainers clearly requires input from objective HR. Only then can the manager be overridden through inappropriate selection. Why is this not the case - because BA's employee management is completely broken, and you feel protected only as you have seniority and BALPA membership.

Which explains exactly why you and your colleagues only feel protected by seniority, but not why another system might be better, if correctly implemented.

Hand Solo

28th Aug 2007, 20:03

In my example I think you are putting excessive faith in the ability of an HR department to intervene. HR are good for touchy-feely things. Are you nice to your co-workers?, etc etc. HR are not good for hard technical details. If they are asked to assess the programming or software engineering abilities of two candidates do you think they could rise to that?

Exposure of brown-nosing poor performers is neither going to occur at a the one-off promotion to commander in the airline, nor would exposure prevent the airline from demoting/terminating said employee - the promotion is not the only occassion to assess performance, with numerous sim and route checks in the preceding years, I would be surprised if were ever possible for the entire cohort of checkers and examiners to be conned to putting forward for promotion an individual whose technical skills were inadequate.

You are essentially arguing for the ability to fast track promotion for experienced candidates. That completely undermines the opportunity for long term assessment. Will the high calibre Captain move companys on the promise that he may get that command in three years subject to assessment?

Indeed, the command course is not the only instance of promotion: FO to SFO, SFOs permitted to remain in charge when the commander is on a rest on long-range flights etc, are all "promotions" of a kind, although clearly FO to SFO is automatic in seniority airlines - need this remain so without seniority?

Actually the promotion need not be automatic. It isn't in BA, further career development is required.

Young, capable managers are indeed relevant to a flying operation: yes, certainly, as you say, "experience can only be gained at a certain rate in this profession and to earn a promotion the new young things need to prove that they are smarter, better and faster than the older incumbents": but if they do so, why should they be prevented by a seniority system from moving upwards?

To turn the question on it's head, why should they be given accellerated promotion. What does the younger, smarter, faster pilot actually bring to the operation that the older, slower but more experienced incumbent can't? As previously mentioned, there's very little scope to add icing to the cake in this line of work.

Certainly the case for a global, or at least national seniority system is the only defensible method of ensuring those with that huge experience are permitted to retain their position and continue to contribute to those of lesser experience when they move companies - presently they are unable to do so due to the company-based seniority system.

I beg to differ. It was only a handful of years ago that easyjet were desperately seeking Airbus TREs as direct entry Captains. Ryanair still take direct entry Captains. There are plenty of DEC positions available. What you are actually advocating is a system that tries to parachute people into senior positions in companies that recruit internally. There is no lack of opportunity for the ambitious Captain to jump ship.

Regarding your views on checking:
Yes, but you know whether you have passed, require some retraining, or are atrocious there and then on the day - there is not input by HR, delivering any feedback from any other source. You have no contact with HR in this process is the point.

What's so bad about knowing the result there and then? Does withholding the result somehow make it more meaningful? And what would HR tell me about my check? That I was nice to the cabin crew and dispatcher? That I did a good speech to the passengers? All communications with other groups are done by strict protocol using defined terminology, something best assessed by a qualified practitioner, not an HR bod.

It does appear from your responses that you think effective HR solves all recruitment/promotion problems. I don't believe HR is the silver bullet you make it out to be. Instead of having a transparent seniority system you are suggesting we move to an opaque system of HR managers reviewing candidates for a job that they themselves are not technically qualified to do and hoping that some internal system of checks and balances within the HR department will keep everything fair. It all seems rather too idealistic for my liking.

Re-Heat

29th Aug 2007, 00:22

Now, Re-Heat, how do you measure the superiority of one pilot over the other?
You're the professional pilot - you tell me. Your skills are assessed both in the sim and on the line - are you telling me that you cannot possibly rate one above another by rating the skills required to be demonstrated?

What's so bad about knowing the result there and then? Does withholding the result somehow make it more meaningful?
No, not at all - let me put it more simply - have you ever met anyone from HR in BA? The point is that they have no contact with you, which is not healthy.

Compared to this, we as airline pilots are first of everything else not there to make a profit
Don't tell that to the guys in the US/Singapore who earn more on larger fleets - at least those I know such as BA allow the older pilot to choose a European rather than a longhaul lifestyle...

In the normal biz world, in every career step the pyramid gets significantly smaller. There is absolutely no chance for everybody to move up the ranks. Every step up the ladder means at least a reduction of positions by a factor of 5.
This is a hugely significant point: and largely there are only 2 (or 3/4) on any single flight.

However, that does not influence the point that company seniority systems are far worse (for your financial position as a pilot, and for your career) than a wider seniority system based upon experience alone.

Re-Heat

29th Aug 2007, 00:24

You are essentially arguing for the ability to fast track promotion for experienced candidates.
Absolutely; subject to knowledge of operating procedures/areas of operation. And objective assessement.

Hand Solo

29th Aug 2007, 00:51

Quote:
Compared to this, we as airline pilots are first of everything else not there to make a profit

Don't tell that to the guys in the US/Singapore who earn more on larger fleets - at least those I know such as BA allow the older pilot to choose a European rather than a longhaul lifestyle...

I believe he means to make a profit for the company, not a personal profit.

No, not at all - let me put it more simply - have you ever met anyone from HR in BA? The point is that they have no contact with you, which is not healthy.

Why is it unhealthy? HR cannot assess my pre-flight brief. Perhaps they might be able to assess some small talk with the cabin crew or dispatcher but not the operational side of things. They cannot assess anything that takes place in the cockpit as they do not have the ability to relate the spoken words to the phase of flight or company SOPs. They might be able to assess my PA to the passengers. What exactly would be the purpose of my contact with HR, other than to help HR build an empire?

However, that does not influence the point that company seniority systems are far worse (for your financial position as a pilot, and for your career) than a wider seniority system based upon experience alone.

I beg to differ. I know I'll progress in BA and I won't be overtaken by somebodys mate from the Air Force slotting in ahead of me because HR thought it was a good idea. I am also protected from said candidate agreeing to work for less money than me, hence starting an unstoppable dive for the bottom. There are people out there who will fly for free and my company would probably hire them if they could. Once again, you are starting from the stand position that seniority is bad for us without actually producing a case beyond "HR will sort it all out". In other words, you simply think you know better than all the pilots on here.

Quote:
You are essentially arguing for the ability to fast track promotion for experienced candidates.

Absolutely; subject to knowledge of operating procedures/areas of operation. And objective assessement.

Once again, I challenge you to tell us how the candidates will be objectively assessed. Don't bat it back to us and say "you're the experts", we've already told you all the reasons why we think it's unworkable.