seniority lists discussion..... Again!
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Perth Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 280
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
1 Post
If there is an afterlife in Aviation when we so called eradicate this virus.
Whether we have a seniority list or rampant favoritism/brown nosing it will not really matter, the employers will shaft you, your so called mates from your Company or any other one will shaft you.
Pilots are a savage greedy bunch if not contained. by a transparent system, beware all on individual contracts as history will tell you
Whether we have a seniority list or rampant favoritism/brown nosing it will not really matter, the employers will shaft you, your so called mates from your Company or any other one will shaft you.
Pilots are a savage greedy bunch if not contained. by a transparent system, beware all on individual contracts as history will tell you
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: ??-ask crewing
Posts: 180
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When hiring starts again, it would seem fair to differentiate where the applicant came from before - If from a non-seniority airline, then a role commensurate with experience ... if formerly of a seniority airline, then a starter level position. Karma.
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,091
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just a reminder that when many of us started out on our aviation career the retirement age in the UK was 65, yes 65. The age was reduced to 60 quite arbitrarily and without any discussion between government, employers or the people most affected, the pilots. After years of campaigning we got the age lifted back to its correct place, 65, (sadly too late for me!). . For me 63 would have been enough and those extra three years would have made a lot of difference.
When hiring starts again, it would seem fair to differentiate where the applicant came from before - If from a non-seniority airline, then a role commensurate with experience ..
Furthermore, how does that FO ever get an upgrade to match the 'commensurate' experience. We all started somewhere remeber.
Seniority lists are a very real oddity in the modern world - but then so is the job TBH
very few jobs require exactly the same level of performance every day for the whole of your career. And even fewer that you perform the same tasks with a different set of workmates every day
The possibilities of promotion (in the normal business sense) are very very few and most people don't even want to manage others (outside the cockpit)
The companies don't want a work force that has a range of abilities - they want one where everyone has IDENTICAL abilities as far as possible
If people are happy with seniority I guess it's as good a way as the next to manage a weird situation
very few jobs require exactly the same level of performance every day for the whole of your career. And even fewer that you perform the same tasks with a different set of workmates every day
The possibilities of promotion (in the normal business sense) are very very few and most people don't even want to manage others (outside the cockpit)
The companies don't want a work force that has a range of abilities - they want one where everyone has IDENTICAL abilities as far as possible
If people are happy with seniority I guess it's as good a way as the next to manage a weird situation
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: uk
Age: 74
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What exactly is "retirement age" anyway?
Licence privileges currently allow for commercial operations (aerial work type stuff notwithstanding) up until age 65.
Governments change state pension age to suit themsleves. When I started my career, state pension age for a man was 65. (At the time, licence privileges allowed commercial operations to age 60). For a woman it was 60. For me now though it's 66.75! My wife has seen a more drastic change.
Company pension schemes have had ages at which "full" benefit is available at some notional age anywhere between 55 and 65, and is subject to change by negotiation with the employees. Legislation passed by various UK governments over the last 10-15 years have though made the Company retirement age somewhat of a variable. An individual can take pension benefits on reaching age 55. The employer can't compel an individual to leave the Company on reaching some arbitrary age (due to Age Discrimination legislation). Only loss of licence privileges at 65 are the backstop. One thing is generally true though (subject to financial markets), the longer you pay in to your pension for, and the longer you leave it before taking benefits, the more valuable it will be.
Contracts of employment which referred to a retirement age have been trumped by more general legislation. Some folks got lucky, others maybe not so.
What individuals have to grasp is that "retirement" is now a much more fluid concept than it used to be.
Edited to add:
My company doesn't exist any more. However, over the last 10 years or so hardly anyone "retired" because they had reached their 60th birthday. It was usually some event like fleet retirement/base closure/medical issue/divorce/bereavement etc that prompted them to leave the company. Sometimes they were already over 60; usually not. Sometimes they put their company pension in to payment, sometimes not straight away. Sometimes they got another job, sometimes commercial flying, occasionally something else.
I think I can say though that no one left so that they would create a vacancy for a younger person...
Licence privileges currently allow for commercial operations (aerial work type stuff notwithstanding) up until age 65.
Governments change state pension age to suit themsleves. When I started my career, state pension age for a man was 65. (At the time, licence privileges allowed commercial operations to age 60). For a woman it was 60. For me now though it's 66.75! My wife has seen a more drastic change.
Company pension schemes have had ages at which "full" benefit is available at some notional age anywhere between 55 and 65, and is subject to change by negotiation with the employees. Legislation passed by various UK governments over the last 10-15 years have though made the Company retirement age somewhat of a variable. An individual can take pension benefits on reaching age 55. The employer can't compel an individual to leave the Company on reaching some arbitrary age (due to Age Discrimination legislation). Only loss of licence privileges at 65 are the backstop. One thing is generally true though (subject to financial markets), the longer you pay in to your pension for, and the longer you leave it before taking benefits, the more valuable it will be.
Contracts of employment which referred to a retirement age have been trumped by more general legislation. Some folks got lucky, others maybe not so.
What individuals have to grasp is that "retirement" is now a much more fluid concept than it used to be.
Edited to add:
My company doesn't exist any more. However, over the last 10 years or so hardly anyone "retired" because they had reached their 60th birthday. It was usually some event like fleet retirement/base closure/medical issue/divorce/bereavement etc that prompted them to leave the company. Sometimes they were already over 60; usually not. Sometimes they put their company pension in to payment, sometimes not straight away. Sometimes they got another job, sometimes commercial flying, occasionally something else.
I think I can say though that no one left so that they would create a vacancy for a younger person...
Last edited by 36050100; 2nd Apr 2020 at 13:30. Reason: Additional content
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Far East
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There will be senior pilots who have led "interesting" lives , whom will need to keep filling their bank accounts for ex-wives and/or second ,third families etc etc .
They wont see why they should sacrifice their rights over their income just for a more junior crew to keep theirs do you ??
They wont see why they should sacrifice their rights over their income just for a more junior crew to keep theirs do you ??
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: A little south of the "Black Sheep" brewery
Posts: 435
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not a thought at all about how those older pilots are going to cope on the very much reduced pensions that will result (please just look at what has happened to pension savings so far this year before posting comments like that) and the three to four years minimum wait that they will now have before they even get a top-up with a state pension.
I do not like the morals of anyone thinking like that. So much for 'pilots sticking together for pilots' that we have heard mentioned here.
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: USA
Posts: 803
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 256
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Every airline that I have worked for (and it's been a few, see above) has taken on Direct Entry Captains. That has been airlines with seniority lists and airlines without seniority lists, When there have not been enough suitable (and that means minimum qualification and grades criteria), or willing (!!), pilots to promote then captains have been recruited from outside. Every single one of them has stopped recruiting Direct Entry Captains when there have been suitable pilots from within to promote.
So the argument that recruiting Direct Entry Captains 'deprives' the existing pilots of promotion has just not been true in every airline where I have worked. Regardless of them being 'seniority list' or 'non seniority list' airlines.
Airlines understandably want to promote from within first as those pilots are 'known quantities' and that has been the strong feeling in all those airlines. A proper process and transparency are what is needed for promotion and that has absolutely nothing to do with a "place on a list". Having a 'mate' in the sim putting you through the grades with a nudge and a wink is just as possible in a seniority list airline as it is in a non seniority list airline, just as the chance of some @rse with a grudge could block your chances in both (neither type of airline has any particular monopoly on those...).
So could those banging on about that non-starter 'issue' just look at reality and not your emotions.
And getting back to my comment about 'willing': I have know pilots in seniority list airlines, who were totally capable of promotion, not being willing to be promoted because their position on that seniority list enables them to have the sort of lifestyle that would be impossible for them if they took promotion. I haven't heard any of the seniority list proponents mention that!
However, I don't see this getting anywhere, both sides have already 'taken to the trenches' and many, many, many pilots' jobs will have to be lost before a victor emerges. (And I, personally, don't see the eventual victor as being the one using old fashioned methods in this 'battle'.)
So the argument that recruiting Direct Entry Captains 'deprives' the existing pilots of promotion has just not been true in every airline where I have worked. Regardless of them being 'seniority list' or 'non seniority list' airlines.
Airlines understandably want to promote from within first as those pilots are 'known quantities' and that has been the strong feeling in all those airlines. A proper process and transparency are what is needed for promotion and that has absolutely nothing to do with a "place on a list". Having a 'mate' in the sim putting you through the grades with a nudge and a wink is just as possible in a seniority list airline as it is in a non seniority list airline, just as the chance of some @rse with a grudge could block your chances in both (neither type of airline has any particular monopoly on those...).
So could those banging on about that non-starter 'issue' just look at reality and not your emotions.
And getting back to my comment about 'willing': I have know pilots in seniority list airlines, who were totally capable of promotion, not being willing to be promoted because their position on that seniority list enables them to have the sort of lifestyle that would be impossible for them if they took promotion. I haven't heard any of the seniority list proponents mention that!
However, I don't see this getting anywhere, both sides have already 'taken to the trenches' and many, many, many pilots' jobs will have to be lost before a victor emerges. (And I, personally, don't see the eventual victor as being the one using old fashioned methods in this 'battle'.)
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: Bonvoy Marriott
Posts: 408
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Noel, totally agree. With a slight side note though. Some companies prefer to hire (type rated) DEC as they only need to train one person whereas if they promote from within they have to train two.
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: USA
Posts: 803
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think you’re conflating two lines of thought that are seemingly against the seniority system, but one of them isn’t, and is actually a part of it.
It’s perfectly sensible that there are minimum qualifications for upgrade, and if they are established and applied in a consistent and transparent manner (X hours total time, Y hours time in type, etc.) that is not only right, but necessary. And it may be that a junior pilot meets these quals before a senior one does, and therefore receives an upgrade slot first. Maybe even at the time of hiring, if the company training program includes that provision, in the case of DEC’s. However, the senior pilot who later meets the quals and takes an upgrade, would then be bidding above the junior pilot if they’re bidding at the same base, etc. (Also, the position on the list and the bid award determine the entry into upgrade training, which can then be passed or failed based on demonstrated aptitude. It’s a red herring that the seniority system disregards aptitude.)
That’s different from an ill-defined nebulous “meritocracy,” which would allow management to pick the winners and losers based on economy, nepotism, etc. under a fig leaf. It’s also different from someone entering at “commensurate experience” at a seniority level above pilots who have already been paying their dues at their company under the pre-agreed terms of their contract. And this is not right.
As far as people choosing to remain in the right seat, that’s an exercise of their option to bid anything their seniority level can attain (or less) based on the multitude of factors in their life. You say that seniority system proponents fail to mention that, but here it is; and I don’t see what part of our argument is undermined by it.
Also you note people’s entrenchment in their position, and it’s certainly human nature to be entrenched in argument positions, especially when they’re self-serving, and/or confirming of their biases. Like a senior pilot favoring seniority, or an unemployed pilot being against it. But I’m not so entrenched, and as I said before I’d be willing to honestly entertain a national seniority system vs. a company one, for example. But only if a way can be devised for the transition from one system to the other, that does not violate existing pilots’ contractual agreements!
It’s perfectly sensible that there are minimum qualifications for upgrade, and if they are established and applied in a consistent and transparent manner (X hours total time, Y hours time in type, etc.) that is not only right, but necessary. And it may be that a junior pilot meets these quals before a senior one does, and therefore receives an upgrade slot first. Maybe even at the time of hiring, if the company training program includes that provision, in the case of DEC’s. However, the senior pilot who later meets the quals and takes an upgrade, would then be bidding above the junior pilot if they’re bidding at the same base, etc. (Also, the position on the list and the bid award determine the entry into upgrade training, which can then be passed or failed based on demonstrated aptitude. It’s a red herring that the seniority system disregards aptitude.)
That’s different from an ill-defined nebulous “meritocracy,” which would allow management to pick the winners and losers based on economy, nepotism, etc. under a fig leaf. It’s also different from someone entering at “commensurate experience” at a seniority level above pilots who have already been paying their dues at their company under the pre-agreed terms of their contract. And this is not right.
As far as people choosing to remain in the right seat, that’s an exercise of their option to bid anything their seniority level can attain (or less) based on the multitude of factors in their life. You say that seniority system proponents fail to mention that, but here it is; and I don’t see what part of our argument is undermined by it.
Also you note people’s entrenchment in their position, and it’s certainly human nature to be entrenched in argument positions, especially when they’re self-serving, and/or confirming of their biases. Like a senior pilot favoring seniority, or an unemployed pilot being against it. But I’m not so entrenched, and as I said before I’d be willing to honestly entertain a national seniority system vs. a company one, for example. But only if a way can be devised for the transition from one system to the other, that does not violate existing pilots’ contractual agreements!
I’d be willing to honestly entertain a national seniority system vs. a company one,
How do you treat the pilots of a carrier with international basings, or pilots of a foreign carrier with a basing in your own country?
How is one eligible for seniority in this national system? Is it having a current licence of that nation? How does that system adress people holding multiple licences who may or may not be a national of that country anyway?
Does this system actually fix any problems that exist in the system we know today, or merely create new ones?
The only argument I really hear against traditional seniority systems is that it prevents 'senior' pilots from moving from company to company without penalty.
Unfortunately it is a zero sum game and someone has to cop the penalty. I dont believe it should be the existing staff at a given airline, but those against seniority obviously disagree as I'm sure it wouldn't affect them.
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,091
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When I did a course at Boeing, Seattle, I was told that in Pan Am, which was still alive then, it wasn't unknown for a senior first officer, based in Hawaii, bidding continually for either Pan Am 1 or Pan Am 2, both round the world flights, (one east bound and the other west bound), turn down the opportunity of a command as that would have been on a New York based 727, which didn't appeal!
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That still goes on in other Majors. Plenty of career copilots knocking around the trade. To be fair, there are freezes in pay and salary rises after a certain number of years.
If it comes to lifestyle vs money, most pilots I know (been in the industry a couple of years mostly longhaul) will chose lifestyle over money every single opportunity. I don’t know a single pilot in my company that either isn’t on the part time waiting list or seriously considering it.
so people deciding to be “career” FO’s isn’t that surprising in my book.
so people deciding to be “career” FO’s isn’t that surprising in my book.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: World
Posts: 2,563
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I dont see the strict relation between hours flown and profitability.
I haven’t flown more than 650 hours in the last many years, and the same most of my full time collegues, yet the company has been profitable every single year, including 2009 and 2001.
I haven’t flown more than 650 hours in the last many years, and the same most of my full time collegues, yet the company has been profitable every single year, including 2009 and 2001.