No seniority list..how does it work?
 

I work for a charter airline where seniority has an effect on pretty much everything: promotion, leave, requested DOs, roster bids, basing, pay, redundancies etc.. and surely thats the fairest and most transparent sytem (that actually has been established by BALPA and recommended by their lawyers, although some people will still argue seniority lists are illegal and discriminatory)
I am wondering how it works without it. For example at EZY, how do you guys work it out when it comes to getting leave, getting a particular base, or more importantly what would happen if redundancies were on the agenda? Surely then its a matter of who's the closest friend to the chief pilot?

That is the problem with a meritocracy, can you trust the system. This industry is rife with cronyism (excuse my spelling).

Some airlines without seniority lists have 'unofficial' lists - These are generally lists of people with their rank, and date of joining.

Many disputes such as base changes, fleet moves are settled by these 'unoffocial' lists.

Some also use alphabetical order for sorting out holiday, RDO's etc....may seem unfair, but they generally reverse it every year, so you may have been last this year, but first next! seems to work ok.

Redundancies are generally last in first out.

So why not just have a seniority list then? :ok:

My take, for what it's worth, is that a seniority list might be fine for taking care of those kinds of adminstrative details, but shouldn't apply to things like promotion to command. I'd rather have the most capable and appropriate promoted first, rather than simply the one who's been there the longest. In that respect, seniority lists encourage a culture of entitlement rather than one of earning advancement.

Of course, this is predicated on the system being fair and a genuine meritocracy. The people deciding on who gets promoted have to be competent to make that decision and base it on fair and known criteria, and not let it decend into cronieism. There will always be doubters of any system, and one has to have some trust in the people deciding on the merit for promotion, but I still think that can't be any worse in promoting the untalented than a "who's been alive the longest" method.

The military, for instance, have a mixed system. You are only eligible for promotion when you've reached a certain level of seniority, but you still have to pass a promotion board who decide on your suitability. You still get some wasters promoted in that system, but it does tend to weed out the truly unfit for command.

Pitts
The seniority system is not used to select who is command suitable. It is ONLY used to decide who will get the command slot amongst the FOs who consistently have demonstrated command standard during their sim and line checks. In other words, 'the weeding out of truly unfit for command' occurs during recurrent training. If there is, for instance, 2 command suitable FOs but only one slot, it makes sense to promote the most senior of the two.. It seems to me the easiest and fairest way.

Monsieur,
Granted if you have two equally qualified candidates, not only technically but also in leadership terms, for the responsibility of commanding a crew, then I agree you're right. But in reality, how often does one truly get that situation? Your case is also based on the premise that those who aren't suitable for command, but are perfectly good FOs, get dropped by the company so that only command-capable people are left when their opportunity for promotion comes about. Is that the case or are all candidates believed to be command capable by the time their promotion slot comes about? Is it done on merit or merely time served?

Pilots would only accept a system based on meritocracy if "God" was the arbitor.

In the absence of that happening, seniority is the best alternative. In terms of promotion, you still have to tick all the boxes and pass your sim rides and line checks whether you are the ace of the base or not.

Sure, I understand the need for technical competence, but I'm suggesting that's not the discriminator (or shouldn't be). If you haven't got the hands for handing the aircraft or the head for making the final decisions, you shouldn't be in the left seat. No argument there.

But what about some of the other, more people-oriented things, such as leadership, promoting a healthy corporate culture (does one exist in an airline anywhere?), coaching and developing FOs for command as part of the job, looking after the entire crew downrange if needbe? To me, those are the real discriminators as to whether someone is worthy of "command" as opposed to technically able to handle the responsibility.

Playing devil's advocate, to some extent, but I think it's an issue around seniority that's worth discussing.

SPGo,

Well, if that is truly what is happening, and it's intentional, then that's neither one nor the other. That's a promotion system not based on ethics or standards but by cost or politics, neither of which are a sound basis for having the best people in the right jobs. A meritocracy has to be based on a management team who behave ethically and can be called to account when they don't. The onus there is on the management to be responsible, but I could be being naive to expect that (based on current evidence in the industry).

I think that kind of responsibility by management is possible, just not terribly common. Even in the military example, you get some dorks through because they need the numbers.

But why would you not want to promote the best as a matter of policy? Why merely go with "acceptable" when someone superior may be available? Would you do that if you were manning your own company and your house payment depended on having top performing people in place?

I think seniority is just the fairest and most transparent system. It is not by all means perfect, but when you join a company that uses it, at least you know what to expect and you know how things are going to be dealt with.

With regards to unsuitable FOs.. No one gets dropped. Every few months the command selection board review the training files of any FO who has bid for a command (that also includes any FOs who previously failed the course or hadnt yet achieved the standard)

Now what SpGO says about easyjet and madrid is out of order. I'm just wondering if there is any other system out there that actually works and people are happy with!? I doubt it though

No, its the easiest system and makes the HR Department's job simpler.

I agree with Pitts on this one. Performance/suitability based promotion works in pretty much every other industry, why do we consider our industry different. There are many faults with the military (that's why I'm leaving!), but I do think that they have their promotion policy about right.

Really seniority is the poison chalice. It is a device to keep our terms and conditions lower than they should be. The company knows they have you by the balls once you have 10 years seniority with a command around the corner. The only reason you will move (in most cases) will be for a lifestyle change.

Would I want to get rid of it.......not on your nelly (I'm not in the right squadron)

Just to clear up one point. We don't get command just because our number has come up. If your sim performance has been up to scratch for several years, you have passed the command assessment flights...THEN you will get an opportunity to pass the command course. Not everyone will get through first time.

Are you guys for real? What on earth makes you think that promotion to captain in a seniority based airline is based on time served only?

Firstly, you need a track record of meeting the required 'minimums' in terms of ability. This covers ALL command skills, not just technical but manage the operation including CRM, ability to make decisions, plan ahead, work methodically through problems etc etc etc. This is usually garnered through viewing your training file with records from previous LPC/OPC and Line Checks. Notice I say you only need to meet the 'minimum' grade for command suitability. This means that you have to reach a certain level of ability in all areas and sure, some guys are going to be better than others, just like in any walk of life, but you are assessed as being SUITABLE if you reach at least the minimum grade.

Secondly, you either enter a hold pool of Command Suitable F/Os if your airline likes to hold a pool ready for vacancies that occur, or you do some form of Command Selection Course which may mean a series of flights with a TRE or other suitably qualified trainer/assessor when you 'run the show' from the F/O seat and are assessed at how you perform on the line making all the operational decisions. Other companies may have a simulator based exercise where you are 'loaded up' with lots of issues and failures and your performance is assessed. Only then may you enter the 'hold pool'

Thirdly, a vacancy has to arise that needs filling and if this is any time after you entering a hold pool then you need to keep gaining 'Command Suitable' grades in any sims/ line checks that occur in the mean time.

Forthly, you must then pass the Command Course, and believe me, many fall at this hurdle.

Where does seniority come into this? Well, your 'chance' at entering the process is usually done in seniority order, i.e. the most senior F/O is looked at first, if not command suitable then the next most senior is looked at and so on. This means that if you have patiently waited your time in the right seat in a career airline, you don't get trumped by the Chief Pilot's son, Fleet Manager's daughter and every senior pilots' 'mates'.

Another pre-requisite in many career airlines is the bid system. If you don't bid for a command then you will be bypassed and a more junior pilot to you may get the command. This is particularly important when you look at fleet changes and the like.

So there you have it. Please don't interpret a seniority list as the sole 'unfair' criterion for deciding who gets a command first because it is NOT.

PP

Thankyou PP

A much more in depth description of the process than I posted.

But there a difference.

The seniority system works on the assumption that the IF (and I agree with PP, there is a big if) you pass the assesment then you are equal.....

In other words, if you had a good CP candidate and a excellent CP candidate (let's face it people have different previous experiences) they are then awarded the position not in order excellent, then good but rather senior to junior.

If the "pass" mark is set to high, candidates who may be suitable will fail and very demoralised.

If the "pass" mark is set to low, well then you end up in the situation that is mentioned by previous posters, that F/O simply wait for their time.

So I wouldn't say that it's quite that simple. still for other issues such as base bid, leave etc, it seems to work fine, especially if the system compensates for achieved bids etc.

just my 2c

But

That is not an issue of seniority, that is an issue of Command Selection process. The seniority has nothing to do with the suitability, merely when you get your chance to be looked at. Your argument is down to selection standards and would be equally true in an airline without seniority.

We are all individuals working within a 'system'. You have to set the bar where you (the pilot management/ pilot training management) judge it needs to be set to ensure the continued safe operation of aircraft under your regulatory system, thus protecting the best interests of your airline business.

If you set the bar too low you get unsuitable candidates passing who could go on to make serious errors in this safety critical industry (nothing to say that the suitable candidates won't have a bad day though, just that you are balancing the risk with your assessment).

If you set the bar too high you will only get exceptional candidates in the left seat, but will get many failures from us mere mortals who just don't make the grade and potentially not fulfil your left seat requirements which would have an effect on the business. You would also have many disgruntled right seat occupants who would potentially not be adding as much as they could to the operation. You will also lose many of them to pastures new.

This is why most airlines recruit 'future captains', not F/Os. They try to pick suitable candidates for command, based on their selection process, to ensure that they get a good number who, with experience, have demonstrated an ability to progress to command.

Having said all that, the short term needs of the business can come into play and it would be rare to find an airline cancelling flights because they can't find pilots........

PP

No seniority list..how does it work?
 

Simple! It doesn't work!

People just screw or try to screw all their colleagues under the motto "survival of the fittest."

Most people are naive enough to believe the company line that a seniority system is more expensive for a low cost airline. But why should it be so? Additionally, those same naive people also believe that the complicated and non-transparent company imposed systems in place (leave bidding, base transfers, upgrades) are "fair and balanced." And if it's not fair to you? Well, then you 'progress' into kissing the @ss of you base captain/OPS manager and you try to make a deal for just yourself.

Oh....and then there is BALPA, the British Airways Line Pilots Association for which a lot of easyJet pilots pay a monthly subscription fee... BALPA as a whole seems to be more concerned with BA related things like Project Lauren instead of the different European contracts EZY tries to introduce or trying to introduce a seniority system for this orange "career airline" for which we work. There is no vision from BALPA that Low Cost is here to stay, nor is there a vision about the related problems like fatigue, pension and seniority. It's all quick fixes, a new coat of paint over the same rusty surface.

No doubt the EZY CC tries very hard, but I wonder whether they are given the adequate resources from BALPA HQ to deal with the massive challenges that lie ahead.

:ugh:

Another company that operates (but is not based ) in the UK doing something very similar to Easy Jet manages (very badly) without a seniority list, well from the pilot's point of view anyhow. . . I believe the management are very comfortable with the enhanced "flexibility" it offers.

I pretty much started this thread to see how other airlines were doing without a seniority system and if anyone in these companies was actually happy about it.. It appears so far that our mates at easyjet are getting shafted quite often for basing/promotions. Is the EZY CC actually pushing to establish a seniority list? That would seem an almost impossible thing to do with bases in so many countries on different contracts..!

I Agree with you PP,
the issue isn't with seniority but In my opinion it is closely linked. Seniority is involved in many issues but I think it's fair to say that very few people jump of a seniority list because they can't get the leave they wish (for being to junior) but there are plenty of examples where junior F/Os have left an airline to get a command elsewhere.

In reality a command selection board will not look at all applicants as they have plenty of suitable applicants within the most senior pilots.
The key word here is suitable which relates to the previous issue of "pass" level.

Let me illustrate my thoughts with a example:
An airline have a need to train captains and they have a long line of applicants that fullfill the requirments. further down the list is another applicant that is comes highly recommended by the trainers. Maybe he possess skills and willingness to after achieving command move on to line training or has previous experience of such work. With most seniority systems you couldn't promote this individual.
One might say that there will be other with those skills but I think you agree that as you look at higher positions in a company the individual makes more of a difference (not everybody is cut out to be head of training etc). It is hypothetical, I know but I just want to point towards what I see as a bit of a backside of the system

In order to advance in a company a commands may be needed and it is a bit of a bottle-neck with seniority system.

Here we go again....

ok fair point but....what other options are there? anything other than seniority would just lead to who knows the chief pilot better or whoever is in the command selection board etc..
Like i said before it's not a perfect system, but it seems to be what works best, and when you join a company at the bottom of the list you know exactly what to expect..

No not a perfect system, but generally works well.
My main objection is that it's easy to get in the thinking that it's "your" slot and being upset when a more junior pilot gets promoted, something I don't think was the original idea!
If someone is really good they should be able to accelerate their career (in my opinion) without getting viewed as a brown noser by other pilots.
Please note that in the scenario I gave it wasn't the company management who said "let's take this guy!"

Depends on how refined your seniority list is and how it is used. In my airline leave is distributed on a points basis, so if you are junior you get a fair shot at a choice of leave dates.

Well, if the time to command is long, it tends to mean the airline is big and not expanding. People don't wait for 10 years to get a command in an airline with bad terms and conditions........

You will always get guys who leave for an early command if they perceive the grass to be greener. Equally you could probably argue that those continually passed over in a system without a seniority list will probably look to leave to get a command. So the difference is?

Not sure I understand where you are coming from there. With a seniority system they will look at you in seniority order, which is fair and transparent. If someone doesn't meet the required standard they look at the next one down and so on. If you 'apply' for a command in 1 year with the likes of BA you won't be senior enough to get looked at even if you are good enough. What's unfair about that when there are several hundred (if not thousand!) equally suitable but more senior applicants to you? What if you had 'done your time' and some young buck applied and was given a shot ahead of you? You'd be upset that it was unfair then!

If you don't like the seniority system, leave and join an airline without one and 'hope' your talents are rewarded with an early command, but if they aren't don't bitch about being passed over!!!!!

Agreed. What is to say that the hundreds in front of this individual don't have the talents to become trainers when promoted? That is the reality in a career airline with a big seniority list. Like I said before, when you join the process is transparent. If you don't like it go to an airline without a list. I could use BA as an example where training positions aren't handed out based on seniority, but on talent. They have F/Os who are trainers. My airline don't have F/Os as TRE/TRI or Line Trainers, but they do have GTPs who are F/Os. All training positions are filled through application and suitability, not based on seniority.

Depends what you mean by 'advance', some may see base and type as more important than command. That is certainly true in my airline where many, many F/Os with the seniority refused the command opportunity on a 737 because they didn't want the lifestyle change moving off the 'beach fleet'. Their choice. The seniority system protects them and (taking a gamble on future fleet structure) they are happy to wait for their seniority position to be considered for the 'big jet' command.

So no system is perfect and certainly a seniority system should not be used for everything within an airline such as rostering, leave, longhaul trips etc etc so that the most junior person isn't shafted on all fronts, but as far as commands go, it is a fair way of ordering for command selection suitability.

It's never 'your slot' for a command, it is 'your slot' to be looked at for suitability, so if you view it that way then you are deluding yourself and probably demonstrating a lack of command suitability! If you keep getting crap results in the sim and your slot is approaching then you are again deluding yourself and will not get past the selection stage. If you think that all you need to do is just wait for the command to turn up then you are again wrong and are obviously unsuitable! I don't see the argument I am afraid. I don't know of any seniority based airline who say "just wait for your number to come up and you will have a command".

They can, they can go to an airline without seniority and take their chances. If they don't like the system then they shouldn't accept the job offer. It's not rocket science!

Your example is truly hypothetical and I think you will find there are many, many pilots in seniority based airlines who meet the criteria you describe, so it is not an issue. However, many talented individuals go into management roles where they are purely selected on suitability, not seniority. I was interviewed for my current employer 5 years ago by an F/O, who was a Base Pilot Manager. He did 14 years as an F/O due to seniority, but became a captain whilst studying for his Masters' Degree in Air Transport Management (think) and became Chief Pilot about a year later, then Head of Training before moving on to a certain big Orange carrier.............

No system is perfect, but I haven't heard any alternatives on here that sound better and protect 'the majority' of pilots within an airline.

PP

I have worked for two outfts that had meritocracy systems for command promotions. The concept sold to me at the initial interview was that it was the best way to ensure the most suitable candidate was in charge of the jet.

After seeing numerous chaps, with only 6 months out of the services, get to the left hand seat in a large aircraft (despite no real airways, IFR, commercial etc experience) and watching them make a hash up of it, l decided to look the word up in the dictionary.

It said meritocratic = chief pilots ex squadron buddies.

Both these companies also failed. Stick clear of them if at all possible!

Pilot Pete, I used to work for the same outfit as you and I had to sit patiently waiting for the command board to meet. I fulfilled all the requirements but one month someone was away, next month they discussed changing the upgrade process, the following month we where short of trainers... in the mean time direct entry captains poured into the left seat on the basis of a 30 minute sim ride. The months passed and suddenly retirement age was put up to 65, a couple of 767 where sold, whoops I missed the boat. Command was suddenly many years away. I have to say it was a very special interpretation on seniority that just did not work for me.

Calypso
I take it from your post that your present employer does not use a seniority list.. If that's the case, is it better and is it as straight forward now to get leave/gdos/trips as it was in your last company? and can you genuinely know when you 'll get your command (in relation to your colleagues) ?

I do agree that the recruitment of direct entry captains undermines the whole system as far as promotions are concerned and should have been avoided at all cost..

In my present company I sleep home every night so I don't bid for trips, I did get all the holiday I bid for (25 days in the summer, Xmas off and Easter off) but that might have been either luck or the fact that the average age is lower here. There are lots of people that don't have kids so don't bid for the school holidays. The command upgrade is quite a convoluted process but is supported by strong growth. There are are plenty of slots and as a result most people get to have a go sooner rather than later. The system is not fully transparent but any irregularities only make a difference of months rather than many years as before.

Not on the 737. If you had bid for it when the opportunity arose then you would have been looked at before anyone less senior/ direct entry. Many didn't due to lifestyle choices (not wanting to lose their 767 longhaul) and that was their choice. You can't have it both ways......the company needed 737 captains and not enough guys were bidding internally, hence they took some direct entry, then the union bleated (and rightly so) and those who had been passed over previously were given another shot. I admit that everything wasn't as clear and above board as perhaps we would have all liked it to be, but the commands had been there for some time..........Plus of course, businesses change. You can't complain about the retirement age going up ot aircraft being sold, that's just tough titty! Just like when a couple of aircraft join a fleet and a few commands come up; it's just right place, right time stuff. I am always of the opinion that if there is an opportunity available then you need to SERIOUSLY consider it there and then as it may all change tomorrow.....................

Smacks of 'I'm alright jack' from where I am sitting. What happens when the growth stops? Then you have a system which becomes less fair and others will be coming up with the same arguments as you have just put about your previous employer.:rolleyes:

But airlines aren't going to leave aircraft on the ground because not enough applicants want to fill the left seats on a 'less desirable' type, as happened at my (and Calypso's previous) employer.

You need to be fair in any judgement like this. The company has a business to run and pilot's need to accept this in such situations. Seniority is usually fought for by unions to benefit the greater good of all members. It is not perfect and there will be anomalies along the way, usually the union will only fight a case if it benefits the general membership, like it or not. They have to have a mandate from the members, as without they are toothless.

PP

You are not quite correct in this case PP. While it is true that many people did not apply for their 737 upgrade it is fact that there where quite a few upgradable FO's (from someone on the command selection board, not me) that had bid for a 737 command while DEC's where joining the company. I know this very much first hand beleive me. The company line was that we where short of trainers, etc and Balpa's line was? What if some other bods further down the list have to wait five, six , seven years more for their command for the sake of a few DEC?

Despite the tone of this post I bear no grudges. I enjoyed my time there and have no regrets. The only reason I am contributing is to put a little perspective and to show that seniority systems are also manipulated and people are disadvantaged.


Smacks of 'I'm alright jack' from where I am sitting.

Funny you should said that. It is exactly what I thought about Balpa's stance regarding DEC back then.