"Experience" doesnt equate to "time served (or seniority)" with a particular employer! Relevant experience may be gained from another employer and so will the use of "experince" in place of "seniority" only open another can of worms?

If someone has had 10 years "experience" in a relevant part of the industry and an employer is paying increments dependent on "experience" then he will be able to join the company with serveral years of increments!

This is the situation in teaching - A newly qualified teacher is more attractive to a school as they are on the lowest pay scale. A teacher with many years service will have to be paid the salary scale comensurate with there "experience in teaching" and not time served with the school. The net result is the dilution of experience as companies recruit the lowest common denomintor and the more experience you have the less attractive you are to a new employer!

Well not really Knight Hawk as the report goes on to say :

It added (the court) that there was "no need to show that an individual worker has acquired experience during the relevant period which has enabled him to perform his duties better".

I suspect this issue is a litttle more complex than "some" may wish! Rewarding 'experience' is one thing, however....

It becomes more complex when someone joins at the bottom of a 'seniority' system, perhaps from another organisation, when patently more 'experienced' than people apparently senior to him/her.

Also, the levels of reward (not financial) associated with being 'more senior' may be judged excessive when justified purely on the basis of greater experience.

The new law will only become clear once tested.

The full judgment can be read here.

It is time that more thought was given to "portable seniority", based mainly on flying hours,hours rather than it being confined to years within the current employer only. This system traps people into one company, often to their long term disadavantage. It certainly puts many into a career straitjacket. The unions have supported single company seniority lists,- probably to protect those in the legacy companies as they form the big battalions of membership,- but it is very unlikely that this is to the benefit of the pilot community as a whole. Big opportunity for some new thinking.

I disagree.

Seniority reflects the length of time served with one employer rather than within one industry. Obviously there are many examples where seniority is taken from one employer to another such as in management positions etc. However these tend to be structures where there is often a unique requirement for one individuals talents. Airline flying comprises a large number of similarly qualified individuals who basically fall into two camps, Captains and First Officers. The only differential within these two groups is time served with the employer. Promotion and opportunity is normally offered the closer each group gets to the top of the respective list. There may be situations where a specific requirement exists based on an individuals experience generally, demeanour and suitability that precludes seniority selection (training being one example). However in the normal course of events it seems fair and proper to reward those individuals who have served the longest time with that employer.

A bit like a taxi queue. If you have waited your turn you eventually get to the front. You would be very unhappy if somebody was then allowed to push in front of you on the basis they had waited a long time in another queue. In airlines it is often the case that those pilots who have served the longest are generally offered (with exceptions) the choice of new fleets, better trips, greater choice, and promotion from one rank to another where applicable. The fact that an individual who may have jumped from one employer to another over the years should join a company with an entrenched seniority that places them over an existing employee who has displayed perhaps decades of loyality would be totaly unreasonable.

I suppose if you are in the "unloyal" or "unlucky" camp that arguement may hold little moral sway, but there is no reasonable rationale for it.

Bealzebub

Well, I agree with you. I think the age versus seniority versus experience argument won't go away, though. I was pleased to hear this on the BBC http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/5407376.stm .

Out of interest, the MoD abolished seniority considerations some time ago. Long and loyal service is not considered a virtue these days.

A lot of people are considering the terms "long serving" and "loyal" as interchangeable.
In most other responsible, or professional jobs one could not argue against the 20yr service person on the home straight being overlooked for promotion against a keener or more capeable colleague with 10 yrs. That is just real life.
Seniority systems discriminate against, for example those who have been made redundant, and who may have shown the utmost loyalty to their previous company.
I have never been convinced by the benefits even though it worked for me, as I was "lucky" enough to join my company ahead of a recruitment bulge (by a few days!).
With the state pension system now assuming workers will retire at 70, the raising of the retirement age is good news, and I think potential returnees should view the extended career as a bonus, or at least not expect sympathy from new f/os with an 8yr (and now increasing) wait ahead!

Is it true that Tompsonfly have changed their pay scale in order to comply with this legislation?

No. The salary scales changed because of fresh faces on the CC pushing through a radical amendment to our pay structure that addressed the inequity of salary scales that were designed back when Britannia was a Man and Boy operation (August 2006 I think). Apart from those on the very top of the scales nearly everyone has benefited from a good increase in basic pay, especially junior FOs and junior captains which makes us more competitive on salary in the employment marketplace.

Quite correct
I work in a law firm (dealing with aviation).
Law firms operate on the basis of post qualification experience (PQE). This is very similar to the way that airlines operate - be it on a seniority basis or indeed even on hrs.
I have noticed several law firm job ads drop any reference to PQE of late.
To my mind it is not ageist to "require" 3 yrs PQE or indeed 5,000 hrs a/c type. After all one could start as a pilot at 20. Another at 30 etc.
Many employment lawyers (i am not an employment lawyer) disagree with me and I am sure will be able to present strong arguments as to why.
It is an interesting question.
As far as employment law goes anyway...... :8

studentInDebt,

When you state "apart from those at the very top of the scales" do you mean the very last increment or was there a wider percentage of senior pilots "towards" the top scales who didn't benefit?

Are you absolutely sure it had nothing to do with this new ageism law?

I mean those on the top increment of the previous scales. There was a limit to the number of pilots who could exist on the top increment of the higher scale. There are far more pilots on the highest increment on the new scale than there were before the change. I'm no lawyer, pehaps there was a benefit in relation to the new leglislation.