Pros and cons of seniority lists

[S76Heavy]

Hi all,

I have been discussing this topic with several professional pilots working for both major carriers as well as small domestic ones, and quite a number of them feel that a seniority list is not so much protecting pilots, rather hampering them in these days of mergers, bankruptcies and take overs. I would like to get some informed opinions on this subject from fellow Ppruners, preferably from both sides of the fence.

Informed and professional responses only, please, I know this can be a sensitive subject but I'm not trying to provoke anything or anybody here.

Thanks.

[Avius]

As a professional pilot, you are considered "qualified", when you pass all checks, which are required according to legal and company internal standards, no more and no less - just plain "qualified". There is no such a thing as "higly qualified" or "extremely qualified"

Naturally, there is only one question left.... How to provide a meaningful career path in an Airline with hundreds, if not thousands of pilots, when all are considered "qualified" ?

I don't know the answer to that question, other than seniority. Obviously, there are many ways how to implement the details of a seniority system.

Most large US Airlines have an extremely strict seniority system. Seniority decides how much money you make, if and when you have time off and many other things which have a profound impact on one's lifestyle. This obviously creates a great spread between pilots. There are those, who fly their butts off and get little pay and time off. Others make a lot of money and basically work very little, while they are certainly not better or necessarily more experienced pilots.

On the contrary, European and most airlines in the rest of the World have seniority systems, which are much less extreme on both ends and reward in many cases previous experience financially (ie. Flight Time).

I personally agree with the second version, because there is no reason, why somebody should be paid more for working less and vice versa.

In other words, Seniority system YES, but not US style.

[S76Heavy]

Mmm, lots of views but only one reply (thank you, Avius). Does that mean that everybody agrees with Avius?

[Dan Winterland]

As I see it, these are the pros and cons for the pilot in working for a company that employs a seniority sytem.

The pros of seniority:

- Time in the company is rewarded. Those who have been employed longer are rewarded with commands, better routes (and in some companys better renumeration as a result), better choice of leave and more protection from redundancy when things aren't going so well (providing Last In First Out principles are applied).

The cons of seniority:

- Starting at the bottom is bad for morale (once the initial enthusiasm has worn off), especially If you have just joined the company at the end of an expansion and will stay there for a while. (Poor leave, poor routes, first out etc.) This is especially so in a company, who for example, only operates long haul routes and has quite a high minimum hours requirement on joining.

- If you enjoy seniority in a company which goes under, you end up starting again at the bottom again, unless you are lucky enough to join a company who doesn't use seniority or is starting up and has DE command places.

- If you have seniority and are not happy, you are stuck if you can't afford to move. The prospect of leaving and starting again is generally too daunting.

- Seniority stifles pay. Companies who operate seniority systems know this and it reflects in pay negotiations. They know there won't be a mass exodus to a competitor when the offer doesn't meet the pilot's expectations - again!

- Promotion is restricted. Waiting for command and watching younger, less qualified, less able pilots with less hours being put in command seats just because it's their turn is poor for morale for those more experienced pilots who have joined from another company.

- The pilots who get training and management positions aren't necessarily the best for the job - if it's done on seniority. This is especially so in management where it is impossible to bring new blood and fresh ideas in. This can have the effect of stifling the company's developement to both the detriment of the pilots and the company.


You have probably gathered that I am not a fan of company seniority. Last year, I joined a large company which has contaracted in the last year (9/11 - no suprises!) and will not have any significant growth for a long time to come. Despite leaving a company with lots of experience (a training Captain) I am faced with the prospect of being a career F/O - as the company has to more than double in size before it's my turn to swap seats. I have seen all of the problems outlined above in my company - not from just my perspective, but from all my fellow F/Os. It was my choice to move. But the company had a better perceived future when I joined.

But I am doing something about it - by joining a company which is expanding. And a lot of my fellow F/Os close to the bottom are moving on as well. this means the company is now losing out on it's training investment and is having to recruit. I think it will find that it won't be able to recruit the same calibre of people it could in the past once pilots realise that they will be in the right hand seat for a very long time. There's another con - for the company this time!

OK, so I hear you say "these is just the rantings from a guy at the bottom". May be so, but if you examine all my cons objectively, perhaps you will agree with me that company seniority is not a good thing.

The solution? Perhaps an industry wide acceptance that experience is seniority. A formal system could be managed by an independant body such as BALPA or the IPA - but the senior Pilots (with their own senioity) in these organisations wouldn't agree, so this is probably a non starter. The airlines themselves wouldn't administer it either, as they see seniority as a good way of restricting movement of the workforce to their benefit.

So it won't work and we are stuck with company seniority and all it's disadvantages? Well, maybe - but maybe not. The low cost airlines with their non seniority based systems, are growing and will continue to do so, generating new business and taking business from the more traditional (seniority based) companys. Pay, especially Command pay in these operations is good, and doesn't seem to be restricted by movement between companys.

Perhaps things are improving! :)

[SLT]

I feel that seniority can be a good thing, however I agree with some of the previous comments re. the cons.
The company I work for has 2 separate lists - F/Os and Captains. Nothing wrong with that. F/Os join at the bottom of the F/Os list by joining date. When more than one joins on the same day - age rules. Captains join at the bottom of the Captains list in the order in which they are promoted. No problem with that. (No Direct Entry Capts)

Where I feel there is problem is in the fact that there is no Master List, which is by joining date. Let's assume that pilot A joins the company in a certain year, with 500 hours. 2 years later, pilot B joins the company with 4000 hours. No problem yet - A is senior to B by 2 years. After one year in the company, pilot B is promoted. Pilot A is not due to his lack of experience. Still no problem - that's the way it should be. After another 2 or 3 years, pilot A is promoted and joins the bottom of the Captains list. No problem there either. Where the problem arises is that now, officially, pilot A is 2 or 3 years junior to pilot B, despite that fact that he has been in the company 2 years longer.
There is no problem with the fact that B is a more senior Captain - he is more experienced after all. But when leave allocation etc come into play, and recession bites, pilot B is secure higher up the list, while those who have more time in service than him, but less hours, pay the penalty. Not fair me thinks.

Seniority can be a very fair system for administering some very sensitive topics (everyone gets a crack of the whip in the end), but it should be fair in the way it itself is administered. If it is not, then what is the point of havin it in the first place?

Cheers!!:)

[S76Heavy]

Dan, SLT, both very informative replies. Personally, I think that for redundancies there should be a last in, first out policy, if only to keep it fair.

But I do agree with the observation that strict seniority lists have a detrimental effect on both the individual pilots as well as the company they work for, as they seem to me a way of rewarding mediocrity. Keep your head down, don't cause waves and eventually you will end up on top. Whereas more adventurous pilots with experience in different operations and companies may end up as "career F/O's", both bad for morale as well as it does not allow the hiring company to put a pilot's experience to good use.

Thanks everyone, I learned a lot.

PS I work in the helicopter industry, where there's a mix of seniority lists and DE slots over several companies. In our case it seems like the most passionate advocates of the seniority system are the F/O's coming up for command, for understandable reasons. The rest don't seem so bothered until contracts change operators..

[Land ASAP]

Seniority lists for employers.

Good in times of pilot shortage. Bad in times of pilot surplus.

Seniority lists for pilots.

Bad in times of pilot shortage. Good in times of surplus.

Solution.

Employers ignore seniority lists in times of surplus (hello BA!)

[ETOPS]

S76Heavy

Every time this topic is raised I put forward my simple and easy to understand solution - which is then ignored by almost everybody!

Seniority should be based on the initial issue date of your Air Transport Licence. Thus when you join a company you fit in to their list below all others with older licences and above those with later dates. For the guys with shiny new licences that would be at the bottom of the list and for the more experienced further up amongst their peers. Changing seats would not be a problem, if seperate Captains & F/O's lists were used, as you would still be in the correct order relative to your colleagues on that list. Changing companies would be less of a daunting prospect as you would not "lose" seniority in the move.

To keep the ex-mil pilots happy they could have credit for the time spent before civil flying - say the date of their first operational squadron......

[BlueEagle]

ETOPS - If your suggested system is to work then it would have to be the date one became fully qualified to hold an ATPL. A date of issue of a 'frozen' ATPL would not be a fair start point as not everyone is able to dive straight into the 'frozen' state, some are obliged to go the CPL, SCPL route. Yes?

[Land ASAP]

ETOPS,

I wouldn't benefit at all if it was implemented at my company (being young and senior), but I would accept that the overall benefit to the pilot community would leak back into my pay packet 5 years later when the laws of supply and demand were finally given a free reign over our freedom to roam from company to company. Best idea I've heard in ages.

Unfortunately, I can see LCG saying "over my dead body" to that one.

[S76Heavy]

Gee guys,
Thanks for bringing the topic back to life. One problem I see with using the date of the ATPL is: how does one compare pilots where one has flown, say 300 hrs/ year with lots of sby time, and another has done 800 hrs/year? It happens in our industry..

[Avius]

S76Heavy,

I think, that once you have 3000+ hours in a commercial jet type enviroment, it does not realy matter whether you fly 300 hrs a year or 500 hrs a year, or even 800 hrs a year.

If you fly 800 hrs/year on B747-400 long-range routes, you probably spend 300 hours either in the bunk or observer seat, giving you 500 hours actual operation. Consider average 7hrs level flight with A/P on, you have slightly over 70hrs stick time. Divide that by 2 (=pilots) and you get 35 hrs actual stick time. So out of 800 logged hours, you actually fly 35hrs yourself.

A B737 domestic pilot would have appx. 200 actual stick time assuming the same situation w/ 2 hr avg. sectors.

Yet, the B747 guy has to make many more operationally significant decisions than the B737 pilot, who probably has better manual flying skills of the two.

Bottom line is, that besides a special personality, this profession about the combination of good flying skills, combined with decision making skills which are based on experience. Depending on type of operation, one quality is more developed than the other.

The idea of ATPL license issue date as basis for seniority makes sense in my view and sounds like a good idea....

[dogsnutz]

How about date of type rating as a more viable alternative to date of issue of ATPL?