Should seniority be scrapped in airlines?
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Camp X-Ray
Posts: 2,135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Last edited by Barrack Room Lawyer; 25th Aug 2007 at 21:13.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The Far Side
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Europe
Posts: 352
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
Join Date: Feb 1998
Location: Formerly of Nam
Posts: 1,595
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Seniority eliminates brown-nosing, @sslicking, and agendas that only benefit the favored.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Everyplace
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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
...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
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,096
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"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.
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.
quidquid excusatio prandium pro
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: New York
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: UK
Age: 55
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It would be interested to see a laysuit against the ROYAL ARMY because some LT thinks he deserves to be a General.
7Q. I think that comparing the two systems actually works against your argument.
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,096
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: UK
Age: 55
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I-FORD
Agreed, which is why I said:
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.
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),
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.
Last edited by Hachet Harry; 26th Aug 2007 at 12:54.
quidquid excusatio prandium pro
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: New York
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,608
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
what is the alternative?
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.
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.
quidquid excusatio prandium pro
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: New York
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I said above, this is complete and utterly incorrect, both within and beyond the airline industry.