Management And Pilots Should Read This!
 

Labour disputes are back on the agenda around the world as pilots attempt to claw back the wage concessions made after the last recession. But as the
familiar labour rituals are played out, could it be time for a more fundamental rethink of
how pilots are engaged with the business?
It could all be summed up by a single
image - a long line of Cathay Pacific pilots trooping to a mass union meeting. What
started a year or so ago with labour action at the US majors has since gone global. While
a few eyebrows may have been raised at the extent of the action (and certainly at the size
of some of the settlements), this round of pilot wage negotiations is not much different
from any other. Pilot unrest has, it seems, become accepted as an inevitable, if
unfortunate, fact of airline life. Perhaps it is time to step back and ask why?
The pilots wending their way to strike meetings are not, after all,
the disenfranchised workforce of some smokestack industry fighting with their bosses to
raise the minimum wage. These are highly paid and, for the most part, highly motivated
professionals, with stable careers and in command of some of the world's most advanced
technology. It is hard to think of any other professional group which so regularly
punishes its employer with strike action. In fact, it is hard to think of a blue collar
workforce in the recent past which has been so consistently militant.
The desire for better pay and conditions is, of course, the
presenting problem. But in reality the issue goes much deeper. Pilots hold a deep-seated
suspicion of airline management, built on years of mutual mistrust. You do not have to go
any further than the online pilot chat rooms to feel the level of bitterness about decisions taken above.For its part, airline management has been tempted to see pilots as
an unpredictable and difficult group of individuals.
In part, the problem is institutional.Wage negotiations are stuck in
a rigid cycle which invites confrontation. Pilots make wage concessions in the bad times
only to claw them back again in the good. The game on both sides is to give as little as possible. The mechanics of the negotiating ritual are also rigidly laid down and even occasionally involve intervention from government.
Airline structures too do not help. While to the outside world
airlines may look like modern creatures, those that work in them know that they can be as
monolithic as any smokestack factory. It is put well by Jospeh Schwieterman, who directs
the Chaddick Institute at Chicago's DePaul University:"The idea of changing from a machine-shop culture has got to come centre stage. Airlines are still like factories, where people punch in on a time clock and follow very detailed rules." He adds that there have been few sustained efforts to make airlines "a more intellectually engaging place to work".
To be fair to smokestack industries, most of those have already
taken on the message of cultural change and moving beyond the work-to-rule mentality. Some airlines too have started to change - even the once doggedly unfashionable American
Airlines allows casual dress for office staff. But to engage pilots in the business will
take more than a change in dress sense.
Pilots are, almost by definition, absentee workers, distanced from
the rest of workforce. The closest that many come to an office is the pilot briefing room.
No wonder that, as a group, they have tended to develop a finely honed locker-room mentality.
Not only that, while pilots may have highly developed professional
skills, few have any commercial experience. Their view of the airline therefore tends to
be heavily skewed towards its operational rather than business needs.
There have, of course, been attempts to bring pilots in from the
cold. Employee equity plans have been much in fashion, but recent history would suggest
that they are not the answer. Both United and Northwest Airlines launched pioneering stock plans in the mid-1990s, but they were also hit by the opening strikes in the latest wave
of unrest. Even supporters admit that the schemes have rarely been tried except in
desperate circumstances when the alternative was bankruptcy. Neither do these engender the
sense of belonging and participation in the business that is required.
What is needed is a more radical rethink of how pilots are engaged
in the business. Opportunities for regular contact with other managers, or even external analysts, will help more than any number of in-house newsheets - often viewed as no more
than management propaganda. One model could be to start viewing pilots as home-workers,
connected to the office by IT as in other industries.
Business education too could help with a more rational understanding
of how and why decisions are made. Pilots also might be included in making those decisions rather than left to work on conspiracy theories.
Above all, pilots and management must learn to trust each other.
Airline alliances are a case in point. Unions have pressed ahead with their own defensive crossborder action groups. Meanwhile, executives dare not even talk out loud about alliance synergies in the cockpit for fear of union reaction. Facing such fears may hold
its risks, but maintaining the status quo is almost certainly storing up trouble ahead.

Yep

That about sums it up.

The "T" word..in a nutshell.

Perhaps I could add the following question all drivers should ask themselves.

Q: What do you do for a living?
A1: I work for XXXXX airline OR
A2; I am an airline pilot and I fly B747,777,737...A340,330,320...

Which answer would you give??

I know many who used to go for A1 ...I suspect more and more are opting for A2.

There is another point which is being missed here. Pilots are now being worked to the limit of their legal duty hours, and sometimes beyond into discretion. Where would they get the time, the energy and the inclination to spend extra time going to meetings which are conducted at the convenience of office staff?

Furthermore when I am working I am physically out of touch with anyone who would need to contact me, even in an emergency. This is the most inconvenient aspect of being an airline pilot, not the other reasons which are often quoted by those who do not do the job. Responsibility and the studying required for the job are accepted by us all as what we are paid for.

QAww - all valid points - but the same could be said for all airline employees across many airlines. Having worked in several other industries before arriving in this one I have seen good and bad management practice and good and bad industrial relations. For such a technologically advanced industry as ours what I find bizarre is how dickensian the industry is in its management of people -all of its people. More enlightened industries have learned that the way to beat your competitors and deliver consistently high standards of service across your business is by taking your people with you, both in body and in spirit. That requires respect, good communication and team-work to achieve a commonly held vision of what the company and its people stand for. Sounds like b*ll**ks I know but people are not robots, and money is not a prime motivator for those who have sufficient of it to live on comfortably. What most people seek is to be valued by colleagues, customers and their employer, to have a say in how the company is organised and run and to feel that they have a stake in the future of the business. To achieve this the airline industry must come out of the dark ages and start managing people as individuals and not as units of production. No signs of that happening right now.

-------------------------------------------
Pobody's nerfect.

Very well said, fishbed.

Very well said indeed Fishbed.

A company, in any industry, has to look at all of its staff as crucial and necessary team members, and not as a necessary evil.

Any company with low employee morale will never succeed. Maybe they'll see some small gains during the fat times but in the long run, forget it.

Fishbed,

You're spot on when you say that poor (man) management is not confined to aviation - it is a British disease.

Changing the subject, I've just noticed where you're from. Is the Hop Sing still open? I last went there 30 years ago when I was at Sleaford Tech!

I've worked for non-union airlines (VERY profitable ones BTW) and strong union airlines (also profitable). Without a labor contract the rules can be changed at managements whim and at anytime -- AND THEY DO. With a contract, there are known rules that both management and the workforce must follow. Even then often times they break the contract and say "if you don't like it, grieve it" with an army of lawyer behind them.

In this industry, you'd have to be nuts to want to work for a non-union airline. I'm sure there are a couple of exceptions, but certainly not many.

[ 21 November 2001: Message edited by: Roadtrip ]

The trucking industry has experienced all the same problems, alienation, lack of contact, mistrust, heavy organizing pressure. (However, unlike pilots, drivers could leave one employer and obtain a signing bonus and essentially equal earnings potential from another employer.)

From my view, the trucking industry has been able to satisfy many of the endemic problems with two relatively simple actions.

Trucks now carry satellite communications devices, which can receive and transmit internet-generated messages from drivers' families. As well, drivers can interface with home office regarding pay, benefits, and to offer complaint.

Secondly, most truck lines have appointed driver ombudsmen. These people are trained in effective communication, and are charged to take the driver's side in any dispute or in resolving complaints.

Even though neither action affected pay or working conditions, turn-over and confrontation are greatly reduced in companies that have taken these actions.

What I find a very good quote is:
Wage negotiations are stuck in a rigid cycle which invites confrontation. Pilots make wage concessions in the bad times
only to claw them back again in the good.

I don't disagree with much that has been said here, but those of us that fly in the U.S. are a generation of pilots that have been raised with Icahn, Lorenzo, Crandall, Wolf and Ferris. Very few Kelleher's around indeed. That being the case we are a very suspicious bunch. Any meaningful change in this business has to come from the very top, and quite frankly,I don't see it.

My own oft-repeated views are simple.

First, trust between all parties is an absolute priority. It doens't matter how good (or bad) people's conditions are, as long as there's consistency and fairness any negative aspects can be overcome. Southwest Airlines is a perfect example of a company where that mutual trust and respect exists.

Next, everyone should benefit from the good times and share in the bad - which is why I'm a strong advocate of employee share schemes in which everyone from the Chairman to the teaperson should be a member, on equal terms.

Finally, we need to get rid of that outdated anachronism - the seniority system. No other industry in the world has it, and as tmusser pointed out that without it you can move companies and maintain (or improve) pay rates and conditions.

OK, so we all know what the problems are; and we have a pretty good idea what the solutions should be. So let's do something about it rather than just talking! :rolleyes: :eek: :rolleyes:

Yep, let's set up a company with 44 L-1011s!

I agree with much of what has been said on this topic. Moreover, I have worked in management in another industry as well as other airline operational areas on both sides of the Atlantic. I currently fly with a small (but growing)US domestic airline which, @ the moment is non-unionized. Without doubt, trust on all sides is crucial to provide long-term harmony & fiinancial success - on BOTH sides. Work rules are fine but only if both sides respect them. With a contract, you are more orless bound by them. Yes, some of the wage awards in recent years have been obscene. Now some of those carriers are paying the price. Whatever happened to compromise?
Indeed, there are few CEOs like Herb Kelleher, Richard Branson et al. who value their employees and treat them as individuals not just some number.
If you have a look @ a recent copy of Airways magazine, there is an excellent article about airline managment styles and labor relations which should be compulsory reading for everyone. Finally, a qoute from one CEO: "It's not labor unrest per se that encourages unions on to the property but bad management". Enough said...... :confused:

Guv.
Rumour has it that you once ran an airline. Were you able to apply your utopian ideas there? Perhaps you could enlighten me on how you would run a company like, For example AA, with 14000 pilots 30000 flight attendets and an overall staff count of around 125000 without seniority lists or unions.
This has all been tried before. Remember Peoples Express? The reason things are the way they are is that despite obvious problems it works. It has worked for the last 60 years and I would wager you that it will prevail for 60 more.

Guv,

let's try another time.

Why you don't join some high-perspective-management-forum where you can find people like you, discussing your nice and advanced ideas of running airlines?

Cheers,

Fly safe & enjoy life.

Fishbed, point taken, but what about the doctors and nurses, who have just as much responsability, with peoples lives and work 70+ plus every week, not every month.

The industry has changed, its not the same, and unfortunately, will never be.

Jockeys are going have to get used to being fully utilised, its going to be a fact of life and an industry norm, accept it or not, its up to you.

I agree with what Fishbed says, and I believe we need to be managed differently. If we are going to be working more, then perhaps we should first look at working more effectively i.e deploying people more efficiently, having fewer people criss- crossing the country on their way to do a sector - that happens a lot in my company. We are looking at new IT software which should make us more effective with what we've got, and also improve our quality of life with better rostering.

We need to bring changes to management techniques: how many of your airline management have MBAs? If we're going to have to work more, then we need the quality of life at work and around work to be better. Slim down the paperwork, use IT instead, so you can communicate from remote areas with modern gismos on palmtops. What about salary incentives for having to live in an expensive area? Want me to work more? Give me some help to live in the expensive SE of UK so I can be at work more often without it being so intrusive on my free time.

We could make better use of our captive audience, ask a marketing bod how much he'd like to have 300 people looking at screens for many hours. There's money to be made there. I'm a pilot, but I want my company to survive, and make lots of money. My cabin crew are our sales people: the first thing they sell is a safe operation, but do they feel valued enough to sell more?

If we want to be valued more, we've got to add value to what we do. I reckon the airlines are in the dark ages where managment is concerned. That's not necessarily the fault of individuals - they need some new tools. Sorry, but not all "new management speak" is garbage, we've got a lot to learn.

Good observations.

Alexb757: I read that interesting magazine article and it suggests that USAirways was only managed by Wolf and Gangwal in order to sell it to Untied, I mean United. These two corporate "leaders" had supposedly never created a back-up plan, but their immense personal pay/stock contracts were never in jeopardy. Guys who have been CEOs sometimes say, well they charged the "going rate" for experienced airline CEOs/presidents. Is this true?

By the way Alexb757, do those pilots on the anonymous 737s which go to "Dreamland" from LAS, stay long with the company?

Raas767 - what you're saying about seniority is bollox and you know it. I can't think of one other industry that employs it in the same way that the airlines do - it's something that benefits the unions, not anyone else.

Are you trying to tell me that any sizeable operation cannot survive without formal seniority? OK, so how does it work at IBM? Ford? General Motors? BP? Microsoft? All of those companies employ rather more than 125,000 people globally and they seem to do rather well without it. Sure, they have unions. So?

By doing away with seniority, you can recruit staff for the specific positions you need. Short of 747 captains? No problem - go out and get them. Need RJ FOs? Same thing. Closing down a particular fleet? Then the people on that fleet's contracts terminate. Want to promote from within? That's fine - but based on ability rather than time served or 'dead mans shoes'.

Strangely enough, this is generally the away that things work in industries other than ours. Nothing wrong with it. It's the 21st century - the days of jobs for life have long gone.

Mowgli - what you're saying is spot on; I've been saying it for years. Telecommuting is very much the way to go - there's no need for grossly expensive infrastructure like Waterworld and the Compass Centre, for example. Rather do what JetBlue does and issue your crews with notebooks, mobiles and PDAs and trust them to be adult enough to check before setting off to see that the aircraft you're scheduled to fly isn't going to be a couple of hours late - which puts you out of duty time at the end of the day - and to check the weather, flight plans etc without having to physically go to Ops. Indeed, there isn't even a need for a physical Ops centre!

Another benefit is that you then don't need to spend vast amounts on living in expensive areas but rather can commute in from a rural setting where you can bring up your family in peace, quiet and safety.

The Guvnor

Oh dear, Guv, you’re slipping back into your old ways. You confuse what is your own, never humble, opinion with reality. And you are stooping to rudeness (to Raas767, at least) at the same time.

Let us get a few things straight, shall we? IBM, Ford, General Motors, BP, and MS do not operate commercial airlines. While some may own corporate fleets, they look to professionals to handle their aviation needs. And the vast majority of professionals have found that the seniority system, despite some of its more obvious drawbacks (particularly for the frustrated entrepreneurial types like your good self), is a tried and trusted system which has benefits far outweighing its acknowledged limitations.

You say Interesting. So, your model airline:

You clearly have no sense of equity, no sense of responsibility towards loyal employees and their dependants, and absolutely no awareness of the potential damage that might flow from such irresponsible attitudes as your own. God save us all from the wannabe employers of your ilk.

Sadly, you are right in one awful respect when you say: “It's the 21st century - the days of jobs for life have long gone.” Would you care to tell us why you so obviously believe that a hard working, dedicated and loyal employee does not deserve long-term stability in his/her employment? On second thoughts, don’t bother, for I’m sure we will be treated to more of the same old drivel from you. Oh, and how have these principles gone down in the past in the many airlines you have run and which no longer exist? Work well did they? :rolleyes: :D :D :D

Yes, I can see it all now. Your employees will be at home enjoying their rural peace and tranquility while being endlessly bombarded by the mindless drivel being transmitted through the ether from their verbose and lunatic employer. Oh yeah. Sure.
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[ 22 November 2001: Message edited by: tilii ]

An interesting thread.....Then the Guv gets involved as ever, and we're back to the playground. Guv, please stop referring to this industry as "ours". Those of us professionally involved in Aviation find the fact that you associated your "Walter Mitty" world with us, insulting.

here here

Yes indead, OUR industry hey, Guvnor...

I thought you were unemployed for the last few years now? (judgeing from your continuous flow of posts).
Anyway, it sure seems as if you have found a job for the rest of your useless life through this forum... :D

There's a middle way,tilii, in that pilots could be contracted as say a 747 pilot rather than a pilot.

If the company feels that the 747 fleet is no longer commercially viable then those contracts are sadly ended, rather than having the airline, and other jobs, crippled by some archaic rule than involves playing musical chairs.

If, however, the company replaces the 747 with 777, then they should be duty bound to give first priority to the redundant drivers.

Corporate loyalty (how does that show itself, by the way?) is fine and should be rewarded whenever possible, but not at an unacceptable cost to the airline and other employees.

This is how companies like the ones referred to above run their factories, plants, power stations etc.

Fair play should govern all industries equally - without some sort of special fair play restricting airline growth and survival.

[ 22 November 2001: Message edited by: Pete Otube ]

Pete

OK, fine, so we should all rush to the training establishments and qualify ourselves as a 'B747 pilot' or 'A380 pilot' (because jobs on these will surely attract the highest salary levels and thus the greatest return on our training investment).

Naturally, when the airlines need to recruit the common or garden 'B737-200 pilot' none of us will be there for recruitment. We will all be waiting for the next recruitment drive for B747 pilots.

Wake up and smell the coffee, dear chap.

For smaller carriers hiring experienced pilots on type is certainly the way to go. Why train new pilots when the marketplace offers a wide selection of type-experienced guys/gals?
A recent issue of Flight has a perfect example...Air Atlanta Icelandic needs B747 crews. Do they train their ex-L1011 crews? Certainly not, much more cost effective to recruit experience from outside. If MORE aircarriers did this, it would help provide a more reasonable return for shareholders, those long forgotten folks....who funded the carrier in the first place. Airlines do not owe any particular loyality to pilots...or any other employee for that matter.
And for those who say that..."what about pilot loyality, and the pilot shortage?"...as recent events have shown, there is no pilot shortage, and certainly not likely to be anytime soon.

tilii

Now you're using silly logic and tired old "smell the coffee" lines.

Look sonny, I'm drinking the coffee, and lots of us don't want to fly 747's or boring long haul. Rather have a little less money and better lifestyle. There'll always be pilots wanting to fly all types of craft. There's minicab, bus and limousine drivers out there, as well as fishing, ferry and liner skippers. You must get out more!

Care for a cup?

I think our friend has made a very good remark there, i.e. where are you going to find all those self-qualified pilots for small and medium sized airplanes?

Mind you a type rating for a B737 or a B747 is about the same price, so if I had to decide which one to pay myself, I'd go for the last one as it will guarantee me better pay and better duty rules. I think nobody would bother training to fly planes like the canadair, Avro Rj or even the B737 and A320.

Of course the first 10 or 20 years you wouldn't have too much problems finding qualified people for these planes, as they would still be around, but remember both airplanes and people get older and have to be retired one day.

If for instance the mechanism you propose was introduced worlwide in the 1980s, then there would hardly be any A320 flying right now, simply because you wouldn't manage to find sufficient qualified pilots for this very efficient new plane!

You'd be stuck with old and costly B727 or and B737classic at the very best and even that would turn into a problem as more and more pilots retire over time....

Something to think about.

As usual the Guvnor ignores the fact that seniority benefits the airlines as well!

What would be the extra training costs burden incurred in your system where pilots could ‘job jump’ and maintain their seat, be it LHS or RHS?

Or would you not bother with standardisation training?

And when the pilots took the experience your airline had provided and left to work somewhere where they were treated with some respect what would your attitude be then?

I suppose when a senior F/O got sick of seeing his chances of promotion killed by a never ending stream of Command qualified losers (why else are they coming to work for you?) and left you would just damn him to hell as a ‘typical bloody pilot’?

What a wonderful system which allows personalities to intervene in an individuals career! I have seen Check Captains and Fleet Captains score check rides on the basis of how they felt personally about an individual often enough to know that seniority is the lesser of evils.

I would suggest Guvnor that if this industry was ever burdened with a company run by yourself it would not be for long!

Chuck.

"scoring check rides on the basis of how they felt personally about an individual"

Must be some foreign jonny airline - that sort of thing ain't allowed in the UK any more!

Guv.
Do you and Frank Lorenzo play golf or something?

I have read this post with interest and can only suggest (gently and quietly) that the Seniority system will end. When is matter of conjecture but end it will.

I have been working in telecommunications for 23 years and worked in a wide range of industries on both permanent and consultancy contracts: Retail; Banking; local government; air freight; broadcasting; funeral trade; container port; pharmaceuticals and others.

In those 23 years I have seen companies move from 'taditional' to 'hire and fire'. Not one of them is the same as it was ten years ago.
Regrettably, the word 'loyalty' rarely comes into it now. This works in reverse too, as staff show no loayalty to the company and pick and choose to suit themselves.

Do I like this? No. Would I want to move back to a more 'traditional' kind of employment? Yes. It will not happen.

It is true that dumping staff is stupid and it is always better to re-train an already experienced member of staff but if the money looks better in the short term - they will dump the staff! If, four years later, they have to hire back staff with the qualifications that they dumped, the excuse is, "The market changed". Short term is a max of two years. The money boys cannot see any further than that because that is what the city looks at. It is a closed loop.

The observations about laptops, PDAs and so forth is spot on. One client of mine is looking at exactly this and they are not a cutting edge company but local government!

It is true, also, that one of your major problems is that your working lives are 99% spent away from the office. Consequently, you are not 'visible' and can more easily be discounted. The comparison with truckers is well made and anything that can draw you together in that way would be valuable.

It is very sad that your business is changing to one that cares less but you are only just catching up with the rest of us, who have already experienced that change over the last ten years.

The change may happen fast it may happen slow but a large part of it wil be a generational change. The people starting their careers now, will not have the same loyalty built into their hearts as those now 45 and older. Their loyalty is to themselves alone. Again, I can only say that I have seen all of this before.

The only possibility is not to hold back the change but to jump ahead and force the change to where you want it to be. In this regard, your work is against you. Almost any other profession can arrange a meeting (or a series of) and get you under one roof within a short period of time for consulation. That is all but impossible for you folks - and the money boys know it.

Further, a pilot is by nature and training, one to make decisions and think for themself. That makes it very difficult to think collectively. Again, I have seen this in other industries.

The way for you to meet is by what you are doing now - electronically. Through the good offices of the wonderful and fabulous Chief Pilot PPRuNe (doffs cap).

Pax boy.

The seniority system will not end for a very simple reason. Pilots are generic. We are selected for a very specific skill which make us all virtually identical. We are all qualified to be captains one day. If we weren't then the airline would not have hired us. This being the case seniority is the best way to determine promotion within an airline. Everyone still has to pass whatever course you are involved in but there is no politics involved in the selection. Even the most junior of us like this system and even management likes it. There has never been a contract opener my management at my airline through out it's history where they wanted to do away with seniority.
The posting about simply hiring a captain of the street is nonsence as well because of standardization problems, pairing difficulties and the like. I can just visualize the disaster of putting an off the street captain next to a senior first officer who should have the job by virtue of his seniority. CRM would be nonexistant.
I sense that alot of people on this forum are from many different aspects of this business and bring points of view tainted by their experiences( me included), but trust me, seniority is here to stay at the big carriers. The alternative would be Kaos.
Now, since I don't have much seniority I have to fly to New York on Thanksgiving.

PAXboy

While I accept your argument that the industries to which you refer have changed from whatever it is you describe as ‘traditional’ to what you say is ‘hire and fire’ (frankly the distinction escapes me), nothing you advance in your theory above has any relevance when it comes to the pilot seniority system as employed by the vast majority of major airlines.

We will forgive you for this, since your profile makes it clear that you have no relevant aviation experience other than as a passenger. However, given the said lack of experience, I question whether you are equipped to comment upon what pilots are, or are not, ‘by nature and training’.

There are many ways in which pilots ‘meet’ as you so quaintly put it. Perhaps the most effective way is through their professional associations or through their ‘on the job’ communications. Without wishing to offer any offence whatsoever to your ‘wonderful and fabulous Chief Pilot PPRuNe’ (what a sycophantic and presumptuous phrase that is!), only a very tiny minority of our professional pilots have ever posted on PPRuNe. The great majority would never dream of engaging in discourse through this medium.

Perhaps you would do well to read again the words in red at the foot of these pages and to ponder upon the fact that, while many here profess to be highly experienced airline jet jockeys, the vast majority of PPRuNe contributors are still very wet indeed behind the ears. This is blatantly obvious when you read some of the drivel that is posted by the likes of The Guvnor, Pete Otube and 411A.

Let this not detract from those whose presence here is highly professional and who care very much about PPRuNe. ;)

And let this not distract you, PAXboy, from your continued enjoyment in ‘reading with interest’ anything you may see written here. :D :rolleyes: :D

[ 22 November 2001: Message edited by: tilii ]

Guvnor & Paxboy:

I´ve had this discussion with my father(ex "multinational" manager who used to fly more as SLF than I do now) rather often.

PLEASE let us know:

HOW do/would you "measure" a pilot´s "ability & aptitude"?

WHO would/should assess a pilot´s "ability & aptitude"?

Please think long and hard, about the "how" and "why" and what consequences they ultimately have.
(Hint: A SAFE operation is the task with the highest priority for all pilots.)

Thank you.

From the top

tilii - you're either being dense (which I have on very good authority you're not) or you're being deliberately disingenuous when you ignore what I specifically said several times - I'm talking about the named companies as a whole rather than their flight departments!

Let me reiterate - no other industry uses a seniority system such as that used by airlines.

I find it amusing that you're so anti one form of 'serfitude' - bonding - whilst completely supportive of another.

As I said previously, jobs for life have gone. If you want loyalty, get yourself a dog. What you have are two groups that each have something the other wants: the employers have money; and the employees have skills. The employees trade those skills for the employer's cash. That's life in a nutshell - unless of course you happen to know differently?

Where you have crews responsible for their own ratings - which obviates the need for bonding - they will be able to select what type they want to be qualified on and with no seniority system they can move from airline to airline as they wish, moving straight into a position for which they are suited and qualified.

This is what happens in most other industries - if someone who has been, say a teacher, wishes to become a computer programmer then they will go off and get themselves suitably qualified and find themselves a job. If an employer is prepared to retrain an employee - whether it's a teacher as a computer programmer or a DHC8 pilot as a 737 one then it should be a privilege and not a right.

By operating on a 'muggins turn'/'dead man's shoes' seniority system, not only are you denying your most skilled and able people the opportunity for rapid advancement; but you are not properly utilising your resources - which goes a long way towards explaining the current state of the industry.

Abolishing the seniority system would also get rid of such insanities as scope clauses.

In return for their investment in themselves, crew members would be able to seek - and obtain - higher pay rates which both reflect supply and demand and the fact that the employer would not have to invest further money training them.

The laws of supply and demand would of course apply to ratings. If everyone goes off and gets themselves an A380 rating, then the oversupply of crews would drive down salary levels which would make it less attractive for people to do the ratings. Come on, this is basic economics - you know this already! :rolleyes! :D

Pay rates would actually end up about the same for all aircraft types - which again is as it should be - and therefore the real decision factors will be the base, type of operations and the lifestyle.

Incidentally, I note that whilst you accused me of "stooping to rudeness" all of your posts on this subject have been remarkably vituperative towards anyone that disagrees with you. Whilst calling a spade a bloody shovel might be a trademark of your fellow countrymen, could it be that your change of domicile from the Antipodes is as a result of your forgetting who signs your pay check and reviews? :D :D :D

raas767 you are supremely arrogant when you say: "We are selected for a very specific skill which make us all virtually identical. We are all qualified to be captains one day."

That's completely untrue and I trust that you are a very junior FO and simply haven't had much experience in the industry! Pilots are human, with human failings. We are not all leaders, imbued with leadership skills and abilities - and that, rather than time served, is what's needed to be a commander of an aircraft. I know a lot of pilots who are perfectly well aware of their own limitations and who are happy to remain in the right hand seat. Equally, I know a number of captains who frankly should never have made it into the left hand seat. There are many airlines that demand that FOs become Captains - and if they fail the checks to do so, will be fired. Where's the loyalty there?

Wonderbusdriver - how do they assess people's ability and merit for promotion in any other large business? As your Dad - as an ex multinational manager he'll know.

Hint: if your pilots are not SAFE they should not have been employed in the first place.

The Guvnor

My dear chap, thank you so much for your very kind words. I am pleased you take heed of your 'very good authority', though the fact that you rely upon it here is simply evidence of how wide of the mark idle gossip can be (born and bred in Blighty, I'm afraid).

I like the way you have responded here on the issue of the seniority system. It's good, plausible stuff, Guv, as found in the vast majority of your posts. But it is wrong, as only time will tell. FWIW, I think that in the short term your prophesies may come true. But I do think that in the fullness of time even you will sing a different tune. Let us wait and see.

Meanwhile, I must say that you had earned my grudging respect over recent times. I had begun to believe I had yours. Sadly, your contributions to this thread are a huge step back in time. I do wish you would tone down your rampant capitalism and ease up on trying to be the eternal know it all. ;) :cool:

And let me reiterate - no other industry but the 'aviation industry' operates airliners. Therefore, the fact that no other industry uses a seniority system such as that used by those airlines is utterly unsurprising and largely bloody irrelevant. How's that for calling a spade a shovel?

[ 22 November 2001: Message edited by: tilii ]

tilii, note please that this is simply my prophecy of the way that things will go - and one which I am interested to see you fully concur with.

There are many things in life that we do not agree with; and wish we can change - but lack the power or ability to do so.

For what it's worth - and I've said this many times before as well - I'm of the Herb Kelleher school of management; where trust mutual respect and job enjoyment reigns paramount.

Working practices will change - and telecommuting will be a way of life that for many will be a positive advancement; and for other, less technologically minded people, a serious problem.

I do, however, believe that the seniority system is an anachronism and one which causes as much disservice to the employee as it does the employer.