Management And Pilots Should Read This!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Gantenbein
Must I really offer you a lesson in English grammar?
The phrase, "wife's hairdresser" is entirely unambiguous, dear chap, in that the apostrophe makes it clear that we are talking here about the 'hairdresser of (in the possessive sense) my wife'.
And, if my taxation solutions were to be introduced, it seems likely that 'the hairdresser of my wife', together with 'the aircraft refueller boyfriend of (in the possessive sense) the said hairdresser of my wife' will no longer be able to afford airfares to the said drunken orgies in Antigua, this because flying will have become a 'privilege and not a right', a phrase used by friend The Guvnor to describe promotion prospects for pilots in his theoretically perfect, and seniority-less, airline.
If you have a problem following any of that, I respectfully suggest that you take whatever steps are necessary to locate a forum where the English language is written in more simplistic terms. My children recommend the CITV website, for example. OK?
Must I really offer you a lesson in English grammar?
The phrase, "wife's hairdresser" is entirely unambiguous, dear chap, in that the apostrophe makes it clear that we are talking here about the 'hairdresser of (in the possessive sense) my wife'.
And, if my taxation solutions were to be introduced, it seems likely that 'the hairdresser of my wife', together with 'the aircraft refueller boyfriend of (in the possessive sense) the said hairdresser of my wife' will no longer be able to afford airfares to the said drunken orgies in Antigua, this because flying will have become a 'privilege and not a right', a phrase used by friend The Guvnor to describe promotion prospects for pilots in his theoretically perfect, and seniority-less, airline.
If you have a problem following any of that, I respectfully suggest that you take whatever steps are necessary to locate a forum where the English language is written in more simplistic terms. My children recommend the CITV website, for example. OK?
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Les Portes du Soleil
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Back to the topic…
IMHO, abolishing the seniority system may occur, but it can only work if it is done worldwide. If only half of the world’s great airlines decide to do without it, they will quickly discourage those on the lower rungs of the ladder, and find they cannot replace those who leave to pursue a more promising career elsewhere. Alternatively, there will be a huge mistrust between those who feel they have no chance of getting command and those who have had it to begin with.
And even if the whole world adopts airlines without seniority… Managers can find jobs in a host of different companies, since managing one will not be very different compared to managing another. Airline pilots, however, are endowed with skills that would not help them in any other line of business. So their services are restricted to airlines. While the US is special in the sense that several major airlines can exist side by side, with all of them vying for the same pilots, who have similar backgrounds, share the same work ethics, and speak the same language, the rest of the world is not the same single market. If you think only of the communication that is necessary between two pilots in an emergency situation, it becomes unthinkable that these two pilots don’t speak the same language… fluently. So pilots cannot be employed just anywhere, and airlines cannot employ just any pilot. So seniority will continue to exist, naturally, in large parts of the world. This can be overcome, but I can’t see this taking place within a generation or two. Even in management, only a few, very special people succeed in countries they were not familiar with before accepting the post.
Airlines would be like other industries, if it weren’t for the fact that many countries have only one major airline. The pilots who work for them are specialists.
Airline pilots would be like other specialists, if it weren’t for the fact that they work in possibly urgent situations which require instant communication, improvisation and decisiveness. For this to work, you need a team in which each member understands the other.
While there are other industries that are poorly represented in many countries, few work with stress situations. While other professionals work with stress situations, few work in multinational teams. And few stand to lose millions of euros of equipment if they don’t perform. Not to mention hundreds of lives. So isn’t that a good reason for management to treat us kindly?
IMHO, abolishing the seniority system may occur, but it can only work if it is done worldwide. If only half of the world’s great airlines decide to do without it, they will quickly discourage those on the lower rungs of the ladder, and find they cannot replace those who leave to pursue a more promising career elsewhere. Alternatively, there will be a huge mistrust between those who feel they have no chance of getting command and those who have had it to begin with.
And even if the whole world adopts airlines without seniority… Managers can find jobs in a host of different companies, since managing one will not be very different compared to managing another. Airline pilots, however, are endowed with skills that would not help them in any other line of business. So their services are restricted to airlines. While the US is special in the sense that several major airlines can exist side by side, with all of them vying for the same pilots, who have similar backgrounds, share the same work ethics, and speak the same language, the rest of the world is not the same single market. If you think only of the communication that is necessary between two pilots in an emergency situation, it becomes unthinkable that these two pilots don’t speak the same language… fluently. So pilots cannot be employed just anywhere, and airlines cannot employ just any pilot. So seniority will continue to exist, naturally, in large parts of the world. This can be overcome, but I can’t see this taking place within a generation or two. Even in management, only a few, very special people succeed in countries they were not familiar with before accepting the post.
Airlines would be like other industries, if it weren’t for the fact that many countries have only one major airline. The pilots who work for them are specialists.
Airline pilots would be like other specialists, if it weren’t for the fact that they work in possibly urgent situations which require instant communication, improvisation and decisiveness. For this to work, you need a team in which each member understands the other.
While there are other industries that are poorly represented in many countries, few work with stress situations. While other professionals work with stress situations, few work in multinational teams. And few stand to lose millions of euros of equipment if they don’t perform. Not to mention hundreds of lives. So isn’t that a good reason for management to treat us kindly?
The real problem here is that airlines, as all industries,are run by "bean counters" whose only concern is the bottom line. It doesn't matter a jot how the Operational Management want to treat their aircrews (both front end and cabin) with regard to enough crews to assure sufficient crew rest, and I DON'T mean min rest over the entire duty cycle, cover for sickness and holidays etc etc, it will ALWAYS be the accountants who call the shots.
Trust me on this one....been there, done it and been stuffed by the bean counters.
Doc C.
Trust me on this one....been there, done it and been stuffed by the bean counters.
Doc C.
Hate to be seen to be agreeing with The Guvnor, but what was wrong with his reply to Huck's scenario. Huck asked him to put himself in a position and he answered as any responsible airline manager should.
It is NOT the Chief Pilot's (or any other Manager's) place to blackmail or order a pilot to take an aircraft that has a defect that the MEL says should not fly or that the Captain is unsatisfied with in ANY safety oriented way. The Captain is the Commander of that flight and its safe conduct is his responsibility and his alone, not the chief pilot's and not the managing directors or anyone elses.
As for fuel loads, Ops may ADVISE but as to final decision again it is up to the Captain.
Has Guvnor bashing become such a way of life for us PPRuNers that even when he says something sensible it must be greeted with phrases like "are you just visiting this planet?" OK, he is controversial and some of his ideas may not please us all, but has anyone ever stopped to consider that he may make some posts just to add a little controversy and to get a debate going?
OH Gawd, stuck up for Guvnor... where are my pills?
Doc C.
It is NOT the Chief Pilot's (or any other Manager's) place to blackmail or order a pilot to take an aircraft that has a defect that the MEL says should not fly or that the Captain is unsatisfied with in ANY safety oriented way. The Captain is the Commander of that flight and its safe conduct is his responsibility and his alone, not the chief pilot's and not the managing directors or anyone elses.
As for fuel loads, Ops may ADVISE but as to final decision again it is up to the Captain.
Has Guvnor bashing become such a way of life for us PPRuNers that even when he says something sensible it must be greeted with phrases like "are you just visiting this planet?" OK, he is controversial and some of his ideas may not please us all, but has anyone ever stopped to consider that he may make some posts just to add a little controversy and to get a debate going?
OH Gawd, stuck up for Guvnor... where are my pills?
Doc C.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: here to eternity
Posts: 577
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DrC, I agree with quite a bit of what you say. However, no airline will ever admit to blackmailing a pilot over safety issues, nor will they ever be seen to apply commercial pressure to take no more than minimum fuel, etc. etc. etc.
However, this all happens. I know. I have seen it, in several outfits of varying sizes. I have seen huge amounts of pressure put on pilots who were seen to be "troublesome" or "stirrers" when they raised questions of safety, or pointed out aspects of poor management that had impacts upon operations and operational effectiveness or safety. There are many, many pilots out there who have seen much the same as I have.
The Guvnor gave the only reply any member of management could or would (aoutside a court of law) give. Yet such a reply is, in the context of this forum, slightly naive.
And now I think I've just blown my chance of getting a decent Havana cigar at the Xmas bash!
However, this all happens. I know. I have seen it, in several outfits of varying sizes. I have seen huge amounts of pressure put on pilots who were seen to be "troublesome" or "stirrers" when they raised questions of safety, or pointed out aspects of poor management that had impacts upon operations and operational effectiveness or safety. There are many, many pilots out there who have seen much the same as I have.
The Guvnor gave the only reply any member of management could or would (aoutside a court of law) give. Yet such a reply is, in the context of this forum, slightly naive.
And now I think I've just blown my chance of getting a decent Havana cigar at the Xmas bash!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Actually, HugMonster, surprisingly enough it didn't blow your chances of getting a decent Havana at the Chrissy Bash.
I am though rather surprised that you seem to have a single track approach to this: ie that all management is bad and crews are good. Sounds a bit Orwellian to me.
The recurrent message that has been mooted is that there has to be trust between crews and management. I gave a perfectly honest answer about what I would do in the situation given. Certainly, the management team that I have assembled are, I believe, professional enough not to to let safety concerns be overridden by economic ones.
Equally, we would trust that the crews do not seek to take improper advantage of that position.
This is one of the main reasons I have long been a strong advocate of employee shareholding and keeping everyone in the loop, with respect to the company's finances: if it's your money that's at stake (or at least part of it is) then that tends to focus peoples' minds wonderfully.
[ 27 November 2001: Message edited by: The Guvnor ]
I am though rather surprised that you seem to have a single track approach to this: ie that all management is bad and crews are good. Sounds a bit Orwellian to me.
The recurrent message that has been mooted is that there has to be trust between crews and management. I gave a perfectly honest answer about what I would do in the situation given. Certainly, the management team that I have assembled are, I believe, professional enough not to to let safety concerns be overridden by economic ones.
Equally, we would trust that the crews do not seek to take improper advantage of that position.
This is one of the main reasons I have long been a strong advocate of employee shareholding and keeping everyone in the loop, with respect to the company's finances: if it's your money that's at stake (or at least part of it is) then that tends to focus peoples' minds wonderfully.
[ 27 November 2001: Message edited by: The Guvnor ]
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: here to eternity
Posts: 577
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not in the least Orwellian, Guv - I've known some real P'sITA of flight crew, and I've known some excellent managers.
The trouble is that there are (at least outside BA) far fewer management than crews, and it doesn't take many bad apples to sour the whole barrel. In even a medium-sized airline, two idiots "upstairs" making idiotic decisions, developing sloping-shoulder syndrome and covering their backsides can create a really bad atmosphere, particularly if the remaining members of management don't want to tackle the problem head-on.
Another aspect is that management have the whip hand. Most flight crew are considered "junior" to "management", and aren't seen as what they are - the people who have the most direct input to how well the company performs. If some are seen as "troublemakers", then ousting them or making their lives miserable is very easily done, and they generally have no reply available to them.
Next problem is that most managers are not pilots, and simply don't understand many of the safety implications of flying an aircraft. They think that, if the book says so much fuel is required, for a pilot to take more is simply wasting their money. Furthermore, management will not be in the air, up front when it all goes pear-shaped. Pilots are, and therefore, having a generally fairly well-developed sense of self-preservation, like to feel safe. Most that I have worked with over my career in aviation also appreciate that, if they waste money, it comes out of their paypacket at the end of the month. I'll do all I can to help the company be in a position to give me a nice, fat bonus at Christmas. But I won't ever do that at the expense of safety. One or two managers have tried to persuade me (by fair means and foul) to do so. I'm a rather stroppier so-and-so than many pilots, and have reported them ALL to the CAA for doing so. However, other pilots wouldn't, and therefore are pressured into reducing safety margins.
CRM is required throughout an airline, not just on board the aircraft.
I fully agree that trust is required on both sides. Unfortunately, that is a very rare commodity. You see that very often in the attitude of the more reactionary companies to unions.
Guv, in conversation you and I have thrown a few names around who should not be let out of the playpen any time aviation is involved... they are the sort of managers I am talking about.
The trouble is that there are (at least outside BA
) far fewer management than crews, and it doesn't take many bad apples to sour the whole barrel. In even a medium-sized airline, two idiots "upstairs" making idiotic decisions, developing sloping-shoulder syndrome and covering their backsides can create a really bad atmosphere, particularly if the remaining members of management don't want to tackle the problem head-on.Another aspect is that management have the whip hand. Most flight crew are considered "junior" to "management", and aren't seen as what they are - the people who have the most direct input to how well the company performs. If some are seen as "troublemakers", then ousting them or making their lives miserable is very easily done, and they generally have no reply available to them.
Next problem is that most managers are not pilots, and simply don't understand many of the safety implications of flying an aircraft. They think that, if the book says so much fuel is required, for a pilot to take more is simply wasting their money. Furthermore, management will not be in the air, up front when it all goes pear-shaped. Pilots are, and therefore, having a generally fairly well-developed sense of self-preservation, like to feel safe. Most that I have worked with over my career in aviation also appreciate that, if they waste money, it comes out of their paypacket at the end of the month. I'll do all I can to help the company be in a position to give me a nice, fat bonus at Christmas. But I won't ever do that at the expense of safety. One or two managers have tried to persuade me (by fair means and foul) to do so. I'm a rather stroppier so-and-so than many pilots, and have reported them ALL to the CAA for doing so. However, other pilots wouldn't, and therefore are pressured into reducing safety margins.
CRM is required throughout an airline, not just on board the aircraft.
I fully agree that trust is required on both sides. Unfortunately, that is a very rare commodity. You see that very often in the attitude of the more reactionary companies to unions.
Guv, in conversation you and I have thrown a few names around who should not be let out of the playpen any time aviation is involved... they are the sort of managers I am talking about.
Guest
Posts: n/a
The Guvnor
I trust the quote above contains a mere typo error. You surely don't mean what you've posted here, do you? 
[ 26 November 2001: Message edited by: tilii ]
Certainly, the management team that I have assembled are, I believe, professional enough to to let safety concerns be overridden by economic ones.
[ 26 November 2001: Message edited by: tilii ]
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The seniority system being fair presumes the hiring system to be fair. Which off course it is not, as all the negatives having been listed in this thread (favoritism, etc.) apply to it. Hence you start out with a potential wrong, which the seniority system in turn rigidly will prevent from ever being corrected.
It also presumes that all its pilots will progress professionally at the same rate. If you were equals as newhires, you´ll still be equals in performance 25 years later. Right.
With a seniority list good work does not get rewarded and poor work does not get penalized.
Pilots are overwhelmingly right of center politically, but for some reason when it comes to this particular issue they turn into hard core socialist.
Ernest K. Gann in ¨Fate is the Hunter¨ (again): The seniority system must ever persist if only because it is a protection of the weak, who are everywhere in the greatest number.
It also presumes that all its pilots will progress professionally at the same rate. If you were equals as newhires, you´ll still be equals in performance 25 years later. Right.
With a seniority list good work does not get rewarded and poor work does not get penalized.
Pilots are overwhelmingly right of center politically, but for some reason when it comes to this particular issue they turn into hard core socialist.
Ernest K. Gann in ¨Fate is the Hunter¨ (again): The seniority system must ever persist if only because it is a protection of the weak, who are everywhere in the greatest number.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Guv and the advocates of No Seniority :-
The world without seniority already exists in aviation. You are refering to "Contract Pilots" - you know, the ones that you get from Park Aviation and the likes. The trouble is that although you have the flexibility of a quick "Hire and Fire"regime, you have to pay way over the odds for them. (i.e. a 6 month contract in Italy or the Far East on $10,000+ dollars per month + Housing allowances + Medical etc.)
Hence Huge salary bill !
That should surely help you to reduce the recruitment and training costs ? But wait, lets look a bit deeper into this rather short sighted idea. All your pilots are on short contracts - but they all need to be cleared to line, hence loads of training - hence loads more Training Captains, (which will diminish in number and become even more costly than ever). Oh, and then the new guys to type can't fly with each other for a while until they have done 50 hours or 50 sectors (or whatever). And once they are trained and have 6 months on line they get a better contract closer to home and leave the company. Oh dear, more recruitment, more training, more cost, less experience, more headaches...
Who, by the way is going to pay for all these type ratings, to work for a 6 month contract, Snow White ?
You would have to be INSANE to work in an environment like this.
Just look at what has happened in the IT industry. This is a prime example of what would happen in our industry if we went down that route. IT "consultants" can earn shed loads more cash than most pilots, they work 9 - 5 Monday to Friday and they don't get fatigue, shift changes at the last moment. In short they don't get there lives ******ed up like we do. Their employer doesn't have the power to rule their lives and free time like airlines can do, by producing late rosters, loads of changes, not agreeing leave until the last moment etc, etc....
Guv, as you well know, moving from one airline to another is not always simple (only in the boom years ). Additionally on your planet, it would be impossible for anyone to get promoted higher than an FO, as nobody would employ them as a Captain, as they :-
A) Have not been trained as a commander.
B) Have no command experience.
C) Have nobody to reccomend them in the new airline.
D) Can't get any of the above under your proposed system.
If everyone is responsible for their own type ratings, There may be trouble ahead...
The world without seniority already exists in aviation. You are refering to "Contract Pilots" - you know, the ones that you get from Park Aviation and the likes. The trouble is that although you have the flexibility of a quick "Hire and Fire"regime, you have to pay way over the odds for them. (i.e. a 6 month contract in Italy or the Far East on $10,000+ dollars per month + Housing allowances + Medical etc.)
Hence Huge salary bill !
That should surely help you to reduce the recruitment and training costs ? But wait, lets look a bit deeper into this rather short sighted idea. All your pilots are on short contracts - but they all need to be cleared to line, hence loads of training - hence loads more Training Captains, (which will diminish in number and become even more costly than ever). Oh, and then the new guys to type can't fly with each other for a while until they have done 50 hours or 50 sectors (or whatever). And once they are trained and have 6 months on line they get a better contract closer to home and leave the company. Oh dear, more recruitment, more training, more cost, less experience, more headaches...
Who, by the way is going to pay for all these type ratings, to work for a 6 month contract, Snow White ?
You would have to be INSANE to work in an environment like this.
Just look at what has happened in the IT industry. This is a prime example of what would happen in our industry if we went down that route. IT "consultants" can earn shed loads more cash than most pilots, they work 9 - 5 Monday to Friday and they don't get fatigue, shift changes at the last moment. In short they don't get there lives ******ed up like we do. Their employer doesn't have the power to rule their lives and free time like airlines can do, by producing late rosters, loads of changes, not agreeing leave until the last moment etc, etc....
Guv, as you well know, moving from one airline to another is not always simple (only in the boom years ). Additionally on your planet, it would be impossible for anyone to get promoted higher than an FO, as nobody would employ them as a Captain, as they :-
A) Have not been trained as a commander.
B) Have no command experience.
C) Have nobody to reccomend them in the new airline.
D) Can't get any of the above under your proposed system.
If everyone is responsible for their own type ratings, There may be trouble ahead...
