Air crew seniority.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: CANADA
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Air crew seniority.
Hello Fellow Pilots,
I am working on our CBA and I am gathering information from other Air Carriers as to their seniority structure..
Our company is somewhat behind the times in regards to a proper Seniority list.
Past management created a biased list(s) to meet his own needs , not the needs of the entire pilot group...Two separate lists one for the entire group and another for the captains, with the idea to protect his buddies...
Any information as to how your Union/association has created their list + the pros and cons of the list...
I am working on our CBA and I am gathering information from other Air Carriers as to their seniority structure..
Our company is somewhat behind the times in regards to a proper Seniority list.
Past management created a biased list(s) to meet his own needs , not the needs of the entire pilot group...Two separate lists one for the entire group and another for the captains, with the idea to protect his buddies...
Any information as to how your Union/association has created their list + the pros and cons of the list...
Some legacy carriers have straight line date of joining seniority and stick rigidly to it, subject only to pilots meeting the required standard. Most first officers would endorse this as the fairest and best, because they know exactly where they stand.
Maybe ex-military jocks with heaps of prior jet time would not support that concept and would prefer some merit-based system. Merit-based systems have to be handled very carefully because they are open to corruption and brown-nosing if there are not suitable checks and balances to remove bias. I like a combination of merit-based and time-in-service, whereby 'points' are allocated for performance and years with the company. That weeds out those who sit back and do nothing other than meet the minimum standard. But that's my view.
Most low cost operators have rather loose systems a bit like you describe. Often driven by beancounters not wishing to allocate money to training.
Looking after 'old mates' is endemic in this industry, and with union power so weakened, you are on a hiding to nowhere trying to change it for the better.
As for the fairness of those hybrid seniority systems that are honoured, do research on these forums and you will find much debate.
Maybe ex-military jocks with heaps of prior jet time would not support that concept and would prefer some merit-based system. Merit-based systems have to be handled very carefully because they are open to corruption and brown-nosing if there are not suitable checks and balances to remove bias. I like a combination of merit-based and time-in-service, whereby 'points' are allocated for performance and years with the company. That weeds out those who sit back and do nothing other than meet the minimum standard. But that's my view.
Most low cost operators have rather loose systems a bit like you describe. Often driven by beancounters not wishing to allocate money to training.
Looking after 'old mates' is endemic in this industry, and with union power so weakened, you are on a hiding to nowhere trying to change it for the better.
As for the fairness of those hybrid seniority systems that are honoured, do research on these forums and you will find much debate.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Location Location
Posts: 448
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agree with GB. Keep it simple. Date of hire, and within each date, oldest, if more than one hire, on top.
This way, seniority reflects time in line with service for staff travel concessions, pension, redundancy order etc.
Military pilots, or anyone else with experience should not get any enhanced seniority.
If you use any other system, you are setting a time bomb for the future.
This way, seniority reflects time in line with service for staff travel concessions, pension, redundancy order etc.
Military pilots, or anyone else with experience should not get any enhanced seniority.
If you use any other system, you are setting a time bomb for the future.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: CANADA
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seniority
I am new to this forum..I want to make sure I dont break rules!!!
IS there a way that pilots can forward excerpts or sections of CBA's?
our company is way behind the times...older management really screwed our pilot group...created quite the mess...We are now faced with making it right...
We finally removed this individual from his corrupt role....!!!
IS there a way that pilots can forward excerpts or sections of CBA's?
our company is way behind the times...older management really screwed our pilot group...created quite the mess...We are now faced with making it right...
We finally removed this individual from his corrupt role....!!!
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 730
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is no perfect system. So called merit based systems, as favoured by the locos, are open to abuse by corrupt managers and nepotists. However, while seniority lists are less open to such abuse, they have a very strong negative indirect effect on terms and conditions - they prevent migration from company to company, trapping individuals in airlines with poor terms and conditions, allowing the airlines to get away with it, and while those airlines with seniority lists tend to also have better Ts and Cs, those are being gradually eroded as the conditions of the others plummet (market forces and all...).
Seniority lists also guarantee weak pilots a chance to be captains while flying with superior FOs. A merit based system, if run with a measure of integrity, will ensure that only the better pilots are promoted, and those who study hard and work hard progress faster.
So, while many uphold seniority lists benefits, the long term negatives are usually overlooked. Which system is better is open to debate, but I would argue that their disappearance would encourage pilot migration to the better outfits, forcing those with poorer conditions to up their game and market forces then requiring the top employers to increase their terms too to compete for the best crews. It's a system which, on a closer and cynical analysis, seems to favour airlines more than pilots. This is why such systems are not allowed by unions in any other profession I can think of - medicine, law, education, engineering, banking, politics, bureaucracy, you name it...
I shall now don my nomex suit.
Seniority lists also guarantee weak pilots a chance to be captains while flying with superior FOs. A merit based system, if run with a measure of integrity, will ensure that only the better pilots are promoted, and those who study hard and work hard progress faster.
So, while many uphold seniority lists benefits, the long term negatives are usually overlooked. Which system is better is open to debate, but I would argue that their disappearance would encourage pilot migration to the better outfits, forcing those with poorer conditions to up their game and market forces then requiring the top employers to increase their terms too to compete for the best crews. It's a system which, on a closer and cynical analysis, seems to favour airlines more than pilots. This is why such systems are not allowed by unions in any other profession I can think of - medicine, law, education, engineering, banking, politics, bureaucracy, you name it...
I shall now don my nomex suit.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Everyplace
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is not an ideal system, but a seniority based system is the best of both. In my airline Seniority only guaranty you an upgrade slot. Then you need to pass the upgrade, pass the 2 line cecks, pass the first sim check. So no matter if you are a weak FO or Maverick, you need to pass. Aprox 40% of FO failed their upgrade to CPT on the last 3 years.
Last edited by 7Q Off; 24th Nov 2013 at 11:31.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Hampshire physically; Perthshire and Pembrokeshire mentally.
Posts: 1,611
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with AS. I have worked under both systems and I know which I prefer. Pure seniority, in other words "Buggins's Turn, stinks. It protects the weak and indolent at the expense of the strong and diligent whom it can discourage if there is no obvious reward for effort. That said, an intelligently constructed and openly applied combination of the two would probably be the fairest for all.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,211
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mach E Avelli
Points awarded for performance is what you said, can you expand exactly what you mean by performance because surely everyone needs to be judged by the same standard objective and isn't that passing an OPC and LPC and line check?
There is only an objective pass or fail for a LPC and not a subjective strong pass or weak pass grading system, except for behavioural type indicators for a line check and OPC which is subjective depending on the line training captain, so I am waiting for someone to explain how performance is graded within the pilot group.
Also, as someone else said, seniority only allows someone the right to be assessed, it doesn't guarantee them a pass.
I believe the points based meritocracy opens up the likelihood for favouritism and formulating policy to reward a group that the designer of the system wants to reward.
Points awarded for performance is what you said, can you expand exactly what you mean by performance because surely everyone needs to be judged by the same standard objective and isn't that passing an OPC and LPC and line check?
There is only an objective pass or fail for a LPC and not a subjective strong pass or weak pass grading system, except for behavioural type indicators for a line check and OPC which is subjective depending on the line training captain, so I am waiting for someone to explain how performance is graded within the pilot group.
Also, as someone else said, seniority only allows someone the right to be assessed, it doesn't guarantee them a pass.
I believe the points based meritocracy opens up the likelihood for favouritism and formulating policy to reward a group that the designer of the system wants to reward.
Last edited by south coast; 24th Nov 2013 at 09:27.
As I said, any leaning towards a merit-based system needs to be very carefully handled. I agree that checks should be simply pass/fail and should not be graded, as this leaves it open to individual check pilots to apply favouritism or prejudice. When a pilot fails a check it is important that the follow-up check is done by another check captain.
The only items I allowed to be assessed subjectively were presentation, punctuality, flight management and commercial awareness. Flying was either within tolerance = PASS, or outside tolerance = FAIL. Ditto for memory items on the emergency checklist; either known = PASS or not fully known = FAIL. I never required them to be word perfect, but if they were procedurally wrong it was one strike and you are out.
The basic system:
1. If several pilots join on the same day, and assuming all hold ATPL, relative seniority decided by marks attained in the induction examinations (performance, flight planning, EPs etc) = MERIT.
2. A pilot joining with an ATPL would be senior to one with only a CPL = recognition of experience and qualification. I did not, and do not subscribe to the theory that the oldest person should automatically be the most senior. Why?
3. A pilot could bid for an upgrade based on date of joining/seniority (awarded as above) IF he/she had the minimum hours required -sometimes this was a client requirement and therefore beyond the company's control. Where the client was not the controlling factor the Operations manual criteria could credit time served within the company against total hours for upgrades; e.g. for DEC the minimum could be 4000 hours, 1000 command on jet, or for internal upgrade 3000 total, of which 500 on jet within company - this is only an example, the exact details are long forgotten; but the idea was to prevent too many First Officers being bypassed by DECs. DECs would only be employed if no-one within the company met the experience criteria.
4. Assuming the experience criteria was met, all applications would be considered in order of seniority, so a pilot with, say, five years service would get 5 points and one with four years, 4 points etc.
5. Assuming the experience criteria was met, the pilot's training files would be reviewed - if no failures ever recorded, seniority alone was the determining factor. So someone with two years' service, 3000 hours and 500 on jets within the company would automatically be ahead of someone who had one year in the company but had acquired 10,000 hours elsewhere. Bear in mind that in this part of the world pilots don't get anywhere near a jet airline until they have anything from typically 1500 to 5000 hours.
6. However, each failed exercise on any simulator or line check would mean that the pilot was penalised one point - so for example, the five year pilot with two recorded failure items would now have three points and so the four year pilot with no failures could bypass him/her. A certain number of 'repeats' could be allowed for some simulator exercises, so it was not totally draconian.
7. Pilots who bypassed others by virtue of performance (as above only) or because at the time they had the requisite experience which the others did not, would not later 'lose' seniority to those they had bypassed - unless their performance declined and they started to record failures, or were in some other way unsatisfactory and had been subject to disciplinary action.
I don't claim this to be the perfect system but it is a reasonable compromise between straight-line seniority and pure meritocracy.
The only items I allowed to be assessed subjectively were presentation, punctuality, flight management and commercial awareness. Flying was either within tolerance = PASS, or outside tolerance = FAIL. Ditto for memory items on the emergency checklist; either known = PASS or not fully known = FAIL. I never required them to be word perfect, but if they were procedurally wrong it was one strike and you are out.
The basic system:
1. If several pilots join on the same day, and assuming all hold ATPL, relative seniority decided by marks attained in the induction examinations (performance, flight planning, EPs etc) = MERIT.
2. A pilot joining with an ATPL would be senior to one with only a CPL = recognition of experience and qualification. I did not, and do not subscribe to the theory that the oldest person should automatically be the most senior. Why?
3. A pilot could bid for an upgrade based on date of joining/seniority (awarded as above) IF he/she had the minimum hours required -sometimes this was a client requirement and therefore beyond the company's control. Where the client was not the controlling factor the Operations manual criteria could credit time served within the company against total hours for upgrades; e.g. for DEC the minimum could be 4000 hours, 1000 command on jet, or for internal upgrade 3000 total, of which 500 on jet within company - this is only an example, the exact details are long forgotten; but the idea was to prevent too many First Officers being bypassed by DECs. DECs would only be employed if no-one within the company met the experience criteria.
4. Assuming the experience criteria was met, all applications would be considered in order of seniority, so a pilot with, say, five years service would get 5 points and one with four years, 4 points etc.
5. Assuming the experience criteria was met, the pilot's training files would be reviewed - if no failures ever recorded, seniority alone was the determining factor. So someone with two years' service, 3000 hours and 500 on jets within the company would automatically be ahead of someone who had one year in the company but had acquired 10,000 hours elsewhere. Bear in mind that in this part of the world pilots don't get anywhere near a jet airline until they have anything from typically 1500 to 5000 hours.
6. However, each failed exercise on any simulator or line check would mean that the pilot was penalised one point - so for example, the five year pilot with two recorded failure items would now have three points and so the four year pilot with no failures could bypass him/her. A certain number of 'repeats' could be allowed for some simulator exercises, so it was not totally draconian.
7. Pilots who bypassed others by virtue of performance (as above only) or because at the time they had the requisite experience which the others did not, would not later 'lose' seniority to those they had bypassed - unless their performance declined and they started to record failures, or were in some other way unsatisfactory and had been subject to disciplinary action.
I don't claim this to be the perfect system but it is a reasonable compromise between straight-line seniority and pure meritocracy.
Last edited by Mach E Avelli; 24th Nov 2013 at 11:17.
However, each failed exercise on any simulator or line check would mean that the pilot was penalised one point
On arrival at the small Pacific republic ready to hop back in the 737, I was met by a person who had just been to a cocktail party on the island. She had overheard a conversation at said party where a check captain quietly informed a minion "Centaurus is back and we are going to give him a hard and rocky road in the simulator." Therein started three long months of the worst excesses I have seen in a simulator in my long career. Subject closed.
Is it any wonder that promotion on perceived merit is wide open to abuse of the principles of fair play? They walk among us
I was subject to very similar treatment in the very same small Pacific airline. The instruction from on high was to prolong my line training until I got sick of it and walked away. The guy did not want me there because he knew that I was a likely candidate to replace him (he had been a naughty boy). After about three months of this nonsense, pulling full pay and living very well in hotels thank you, I casually mentioned to one of the local politicians that the republic's money was being squandered on excessive training - of a foreigner, no less. With the pollie taking an interest, then I demanded a check ride with a CASA observer (the airline was running Australian registration).
Rather than have CASA aboard, they hastily agreed to do the check.
Shortly after what was the most unpleasant time in my career, Karma kicked in and my tormentor self destructed.
Yes, one must be very careful with any merit system to ensure examiners are kept honest.
Rather than have CASA aboard, they hastily agreed to do the check.
Shortly after what was the most unpleasant time in my career, Karma kicked in and my tormentor self destructed.
Yes, one must be very careful with any merit system to ensure examiners are kept honest.
A simple, but somewhat hypothetical solution;
Pay all the captains the same salary (& flight pay/allowances etc to remove any financial fleet incentive), pay all the first officers the same salary etc, divide up the workload equally and randomly (easily done in these computerised times)....problem solved. Don't think that the "senior" people would like it though.......or management for that matter
Pay all the captains the same salary (& flight pay/allowances etc to remove any financial fleet incentive), pay all the first officers the same salary etc, divide up the workload equally and randomly (easily done in these computerised times)....problem solved. Don't think that the "senior" people would like it though.......or management for that matter
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a Flying Officer pilot in the Air Force I was paid the same rate regardless of the type of aircraft flown. Same pay for flying a helicopter as a Hercules or a Tiger Moth. Pay was by military rank - not by seniority in the Service. Same pay policy for check captains (QFI's in Service parlance). Paid by current military rank. Never heard of any complaints or protesting or running screaming to a union.
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: MOON
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seniority supports the weak, and protects the company from pilot migration.
We have it at Cathay and its a disaster. Dozens of contracts, but all less than the former, but leaving as a Captain generally means starting at the bottom somewhere else, so the company continues to slow erode benefits over time.
No seniority, free movement is the only way to better T and C.
This will result in the poor pilots feeling threatened and that is of course not at all palatable. So we are stuck with it.
We have it at Cathay and its a disaster. Dozens of contracts, but all less than the former, but leaving as a Captain generally means starting at the bottom somewhere else, so the company continues to slow erode benefits over time.
No seniority, free movement is the only way to better T and C.
This will result in the poor pilots feeling threatened and that is of course not at all palatable. So we are stuck with it.
This argument for various seniority systems could go around in circles and never reach a conclusion. Pilots rarely reach consensus, because everyone sees it from their own perspective - how they could be disadvantaged if it goes a certain way, or make rapid progress if it goes the other way.
By now the OP should have an idea of the pros and cons of typical seniority systems.
Next step in the process is for the OP to get his pilot union members all singing from the same sheet of music. This will be very difficult, but for the common good some will have to go the way of their peers. Until they do, and for as long as there is any sign of pilot group dissent, management will do whatever suits their purpose. Which is of course to drive down costs - at all costs. In today's anti-union world, the pilot group will have to put something useful on the table - like increased productivity - to have any hope of achieving change.
By now the OP should have an idea of the pros and cons of typical seniority systems.
Next step in the process is for the OP to get his pilot union members all singing from the same sheet of music. This will be very difficult, but for the common good some will have to go the way of their peers. Until they do, and for as long as there is any sign of pilot group dissent, management will do whatever suits their purpose. Which is of course to drive down costs - at all costs. In today's anti-union world, the pilot group will have to put something useful on the table - like increased productivity - to have any hope of achieving change.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: A little south of the "Black Sheep" brewery
Posts: 435
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All the discussion about 'seniority vs meritocracy' seems to revolve entirely around command upgrades. It appears very much that those getting their upgrades under the 'seniority' systems have to jump just as many grading and qualification hurdles (i.e. they need to merit their upgrade) as those in 'meritocracy' systems. So all the 'brown nosing' and unfair grading complaints that have been made are equally as possible under each system (you can be held back from an upgrade when your turn comes up under a seniority system by the same unfairness). So if you are concerned about unfair treatment then it is a risk under both systems.
But seniority based systems do not only regulate command upgrades, they strangle all sorts of other movement in airlines, such as base or fleet transfers, leave allocation, etc., etc.
Why is it right that if for example pilot A wants to transfer to XYZ fleet or base and has had an application in for it for over a year, yet two weeks before the vacancy that he/she has wanted becomes available, pilot B suddenly decides that he/she would like that fleet or base transfer and 'trumps' pilot A (who has really wanted that transfer for quite some time) solely because of their positions on a seniority list.
Likewise, why is it right that first officer C who is very well qualified and passes all the command criteria with very, very good marks but can't get an upgrade because things are moving a little slowly in that airline and has waited over a year since 'ticking all the boxes', then just as that much awaited command is almost there, first officer D who had joined with low hours and has just barely scraped through all the grades required finally manages the bare minimum hours for upgrade and 'trumps' first officer C solely because of their places on a seniority list.
Wouldn't a 'first-come-first-served' system be much fairer?
When pilot A puts in an application for that transfer to XYX fleet or base he/she goes on a waiting list. If pilot B decides a year later that he/she would like that same transfer he/she goes on that list behind everyone else who had already made their applications. When that vacancy becomes available then the pilot who applied first gets it first.
When first officer C 'ticks all the boxes' for a command upgrade, he/she goes on a waiting list and anyone who subsequently 'ticks the required boxes', such as first officer D (above), goes on that waiting list after first officer C. When a command vacancy is available first officer C, who has been qualified and waiting longest, gets that first opportunity.
(I cannot think of any other industry where a lower qualified person, like first officer D above with is 'only just good enough' grades and only just attained flying hours, gets promotion ahead of someone who is more able and better qualified simply because of their positions on some list.)
Why should a very competent and experienced captain whose airline has gone bust (due to something way out of his control, such as terrorist activity) be condemned to having to work as a first officer for the next decade or so simply because he is at the bottom of any seniority list in any other airline that he joins and is behind that cadet fresh out of flying school who joined the week before?
Seniority systems are simply a 'tyranny of the senior' and a tool of management to keep Ts & Cs down as pilots will be reluctant to leave to go elsewhere for a potentially better deal because they'll loose their precious place on that list (and possibly need to start on the bottom of someone else's list). It is amazing that such a modern industry (public air transport hasn't been around for a full century yet) is bedevilled by such archaic workplace practices.
And this is not a new problem: if you read Ernest K Gann's "Fate is the Hunter", which was first published closer to Bleriot's crossing of the Channel than to today, he refers to positions on a seniority list as "Those miserable numbers!".
The industry needs to be modernised and get rid of seniority lists. Fortunately it appears that some airlines are doing so.
But seniority based systems do not only regulate command upgrades, they strangle all sorts of other movement in airlines, such as base or fleet transfers, leave allocation, etc., etc.
Why is it right that if for example pilot A wants to transfer to XYZ fleet or base and has had an application in for it for over a year, yet two weeks before the vacancy that he/she has wanted becomes available, pilot B suddenly decides that he/she would like that fleet or base transfer and 'trumps' pilot A (who has really wanted that transfer for quite some time) solely because of their positions on a seniority list.
Likewise, why is it right that first officer C who is very well qualified and passes all the command criteria with very, very good marks but can't get an upgrade because things are moving a little slowly in that airline and has waited over a year since 'ticking all the boxes', then just as that much awaited command is almost there, first officer D who had joined with low hours and has just barely scraped through all the grades required finally manages the bare minimum hours for upgrade and 'trumps' first officer C solely because of their places on a seniority list.
Wouldn't a 'first-come-first-served' system be much fairer?
When pilot A puts in an application for that transfer to XYX fleet or base he/she goes on a waiting list. If pilot B decides a year later that he/she would like that same transfer he/she goes on that list behind everyone else who had already made their applications. When that vacancy becomes available then the pilot who applied first gets it first.
When first officer C 'ticks all the boxes' for a command upgrade, he/she goes on a waiting list and anyone who subsequently 'ticks the required boxes', such as first officer D (above), goes on that waiting list after first officer C. When a command vacancy is available first officer C, who has been qualified and waiting longest, gets that first opportunity.
(I cannot think of any other industry where a lower qualified person, like first officer D above with is 'only just good enough' grades and only just attained flying hours, gets promotion ahead of someone who is more able and better qualified simply because of their positions on some list.)
Why should a very competent and experienced captain whose airline has gone bust (due to something way out of his control, such as terrorist activity) be condemned to having to work as a first officer for the next decade or so simply because he is at the bottom of any seniority list in any other airline that he joins and is behind that cadet fresh out of flying school who joined the week before?
Seniority systems are simply a 'tyranny of the senior' and a tool of management to keep Ts & Cs down as pilots will be reluctant to leave to go elsewhere for a potentially better deal because they'll loose their precious place on that list (and possibly need to start on the bottom of someone else's list). It is amazing that such a modern industry (public air transport hasn't been around for a full century yet) is bedevilled by such archaic workplace practices.
And this is not a new problem: if you read Ernest K Gann's "Fate is the Hunter", which was first published closer to Bleriot's crossing of the Channel than to today, he refers to positions on a seniority list as "Those miserable numbers!".
The industry needs to be modernised and get rid of seniority lists. Fortunately it appears that some airlines are doing so.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Smogsville
Posts: 1,424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's refreshing to see the number of people who are realising that while seniority appears to be good it's actually driving down pay and conditions, years ago a thread like this would have been taken over by the "how dare you think of abolishing seniority" crowd.
I like twotigers quote "it prevents pilot migration" why pay more if they can't leave?
I like twotigers quote "it prevents pilot migration" why pay more if they can't leave?
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Courchevel
Posts: 848
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Saw an email recently between a staff member and manager at ANZ that described seniority as and I quote 'rapidly becoming illegal' with reference to allocating fleet and holiday leave. It went on to mention that this was with respect to age legislation that came into force last few years in the UK. I'm guessing that it's safe until challenged in the courts which might throw the whole system into question. I also heard the DFO at BA say he thought seniority would be gone within 5 years! Not my beliefs folks, just what I've seen and heard recently.