Should seniority be scrapped in airlines?

[Caboclo]

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Re-Heat

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]

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

[bugg smasher]

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]

@ 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]

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]

Originally Posted by Re-Heat

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]

Agree

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.