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...

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.

Date Of Hire AND Birthday, with oldest on top.

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.

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....!!!

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. ;)

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.

Aluminium Shuffler, I couldn't agree with you more!

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.

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.

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.

That brings back unhappy memories for this writer - albeit it over 25 years ago now. . On being invited back to re-join my old airline after two years in the wilderness of driving taxis, the then chief pilot made it clear there was no way he was going to have Centaurus back to the flock. My invitation to come back was from someone higher up the food chain - bless his cotton socks.

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:eek:

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

Trossie . . .
 

But that is, in fact, SENIORITY...! If I'm hired before you, I come before YOU in everything: Equipment bid, base bid, lines of flying bid, vacation bid . . . .

So Trossie, are you telling us that when you're a senior captain, you wouldn't mind to give up your X-mas vacation so that a junior captain can be home for X-mas? ...and as a senior captain, having bid daytime Honolulu trips, you wouldn't mind working the midnight Mexico City trips so that a junior captain may have those easy daytime Honolulu runs? :ooh:

GlueBall, you clearly didn't read my post properly. Try reading it again carefully next time. I can understand you being so bitter about snatching that Christmas leave from the juniors as you probably had years of purgatory not getting that Christmas leave when you were a junior. What a horrible way to make Christmas leave (or any other leave) decisions. There are much fairer ways that ensure that people can work their way through their careers without building up the levels of bitterness that lead to the "tyranny of the seniors". A captain's a captain's captain. What's this 'junior' and 'senior' nonsense. If the nice work and the not-so-nice work was shared out equally then everyone gets through all of their career without building up this resentment that leads to these antiquated medieval 'pecking order' ladders that are known as 'seniority lists'.

It is good to hear Count von Altibar's comment that seniority lists are on their way out. About time!

If anyone thinks getting rid of seniority is going to help the employment terms of the junior guys you are sadly mistaken. If there is no seniority list then the company can recruit direct entry Captains and they will do the job for less than the current ones. Someone, somewhere will do your job for a lot less so be careful what you wish for.

Why do you think the Low Cost operators don't want seniority lists. They want a malleable workforce that they can "reward" with a command. I'm sorry if the junior guys don't get their bids, xmas off etc but we all did it and aviation was a better place to work then.

Oh and another thing, in my company if you don't make the grade you will NOT be promoted. It really is that simple and the TRE may be your best mate on a night stop but they do not, in my view, compromise in this area.

Seniority to bid for domicile is not unique to aviation. Here in Australia, a new teacher working for a government education system is likely to get posted to some little hick town initially and only work back to a more desirable metropolitan post after serving time in the bush. Ditto for cops, air traffic controllers, nurses, priests etc.

The old bid system for flying patterns and leave was a bit unfair, because as has been mentioned, some guys might have to wait many years to get the decent trips or Xmas leave. It is preferable to share that equally i.e. if you get Xmas this year you go to the bottom of the waiting list next year and work back up until it's your turn again etc.

As for equipment assignments - why shouldn't the longest serving (and hence well-known and probably more likely to stay) pilots get first crack at the bigger or newer gear? If I had been with an airline for 10 years, always performed well, done a good job etc., and a new wonderjet was introduced I would be mightily disgruntled if it was fully-crewed by DECs or two year tyros. Airline managements need to balance the financial disadvantages of seniority against the benefits of lower crew turnover.

And for those who argue seniority stifles mobility, with sufficient experience under your belt there are always opportunities elsewhere to start again without losing captain rank. Just not in your home-town with your legacy carrier. If you missed out there or chose a different path when you could have had a job there, you can't expect to swan in now at the top of the tree. If being at home is now your priority, accept that you WILL start at the bottom again.

Bingo there it is!

And not once in that post does the word pay $$$ come up it's all about being a bloody captain who gives a !!!! why the hell should a guy/girl with experience to do the job ACCEPT that they have to move to the bottom and take a pay cut, who cares if you have DECs or DEF/Os.

I can't believe you're advocating that a decision someone may have made 20+yrs ago is final and if they want a change of lifestyle or a pay rise that they would be swanning in. You act like crew in Australia wouldn't want the opportunity to try overseas after 20yrs in aust?

Not everyone wants what you want, you really want that shiny jet after 10yrs the company will love you how about a pay cut with that? "Yes please" :ugh:

Without seniority those who want pay can chase it where ever they want.

Without seniority those who want shiny jets can chase it where ever they want.

Without seniority those who want lifestyle can chase it where ever they want.

Without seniority you can chase any of the above where ever they want and whenever they want that's what mobility is all about and is how the rest of the world operates.

Clearly correct. To maintain seniority is foolish and works for no one in the end. Creates handcuffs for everyone, management, airlines and of course pilots. It is an ancient backward system ditched by almost every other industry.

A lot of people have taken jobs with poor terms and in less than ideal locations because they were the only jobs available. Those advocating seniority lists tend to be those who fortune has heavily favoured with their CV crossing the right desk at the right time - getting the plum jobs has much more to do with chance and contacts than ability and character. So, should those who have put up with awful jobs be further punished by being frozen out unless they start from scratch again just because they didn't happen to complete their training when a legacy carrier was recruiting?

Odd how those advocating the seniority lists accuse others of selfishness; seniority allows a precious few to cherry pick type, base, routes, leave and the best pay at the expense of their colleagues in the same airline and to freeze others' careers in inferior jobs. That's hardly a generous spirit is it? A little hypocritical to accuse others of selfishness, no?

Seniority has many problems, but the one thing it does offer is transparency and unlike a meritocracy, which is highly subjective, not always transparent or open for all to see and normally means being graded against a set of criteria designed by someone who may have a different outlook to those being graded.

Neither is perfect.

Al Shuffler

Perhaps my post seemed a bit too harsh and in all fairness your post was a reasonable one. I'm a mild mannered chap really. :O

I agree with South Coast ie seniority is not perfect but it is transparent. Fairness, I would argue, is in the eye of the beholder!

For example: imagine a FO who has just got the minimum hours for a command in his non seniority company. He/she has got good grades since joining the company direct from training. All of the TREs have flown with said individual and the Fleet office pencil them in for a command course.

Then a rival company, flying the same type, go bust flooding the market with type rated pilots. The company, to save money, decide it will be cheaper to employ one of the experienced Captains leaving our FO to wonder "if only we had a seniority list!".

The reason this argument keeps going around is that there will always be winners and losers. For me the big pro with seniority is at least you know where you stand. Not perfect I will grant you but at least you can make some, hopefully, intelligent career choices. However, there is still a large element of luck. I started 2001 at the top of one list, with a command on the horizon, changed jobs and was on the redundancy list at the end of the year. It was a gamble but I still think I made the right choice.

MEMO
FROM: CEO, PINEAPPLE AIRLINES
TO: HR MANAGER, CHIEF PILOT
SUBJECT: FREEDOM OF PILOT MOVEMENT

BACKGROUND:

Seniority for pilots has been declared illegal, unconstitutional and an impediment to free and unregulated movement of labour between countries or companies. Pilots are not to be singled out as a privileged group to be protected by seniority.

INSTRUCTIONS:

1. Advertise internationally and on pilot recruitment websites, offering positions on our new fleet of Wunderbus aircraft to pilots of any nationality, holding any ICAO licence.
2. Invite applicants to tender salary bids - accept those with the lowest.
3. Remove all references to seniority from existing pilot contracts or agreements. As the rank of Captain implies a more senior status to that of First Officer, delete these terms. Replace all with the common term 'Driver-Airframe'.
4. All insignia defining seniority, hence rank - such as gold braid - is to be removed from uniforms. Replace existing pilot uniforms with flouro yellow overalls as issued to forklift drivers. Thus saving tailoring costs, enhancing safety while retaining visibility (which we understand pilots desire).
5. In future, the polite address for 'Captain' will be 'Comrade' - as it will be for former First Officers and all other staff.
5. Because we expect the Jurassic fleet to be scrapped within the next two years - to be replaced by Wunderbusses - advise all Jurassic Drivers-Airframe that their positions will become redundant.
6. Jurassic Drivers-Airframe may self-fund Wunderbus type ratings and re-apply for positions on that fleet, subject to their salary tenders matching or undercutting those tendered by the more recently hired Wunderbus Drivers-Airframe.
7. However, as their base assignments will have been filled by the new recruits, in the interests of freedom of movement, former Jurassic pilots can bid for any out-station within the company network where there is a vacancy. As there is no seniority, outstation appointments will be at sole direction of management.
8. Should there be no outstation vacancies, former Jurassic pilots will be made redundant.


CONCLUSION:

If there are no vacancies, having been freed of the 'handcuffs' of seniority, at least former pilots can go with our blessing to any new job that may be available in a competing company. That company may well be in China, India or Africa, but they, their wives and children will find this a positively enriching experience. They also should take heart from the thought that if they acquire experience on the Next Generation Spaceliner and we re-equip, they will be most welcome to return and replace the Wunderbus crews as that type becomes obsolete. We see this as a win win situation.

Seniority is a lifesaver, if you have it.Seniority that is!

Scenario 1- expanding airline, buggins turn + minimum competency requirements give you a quick command. Lots of recruitment boots you up the list quickly, more underneath=more protection from........

Scenario 2- contracting airline. Now come the redundancies, demotions, re-basings etc. How to choose? well LIFO is cold and fair, add to it the required 'extra factors' to make it legal (eg. if you have a disciplinary on your record you lose 18 month seniority) and it is, above all else, transparent.

Its not a perfect system (neither is democracy) and it does protect the very few incompetent pilots (shouldn't it be the training dept. dealing with these?) in any organisation, but the meritocracy whilst attractive to the young and ambitious, will turn and bite them big time when they are less young and redundancy time beckons.(and God forbid, in the bad books of management) Its only a matter of time before one of the major LoCo's fail.

I have seen a 'job at risk' letter in my post in the past and I can tell you I have never been more glad to be in a seniority based airline. Even though I was in the bottom 30 of the list. This comes down to self preservation not selfishness. If, as is happening at a UK airline at this time, you have the 'base is closed, you're all sacked' scenario, it doesn't matter how hot a pilot you are, you're still unemployed.

Beware of what you wish for, as you may be granted it.

I'm amazed nobody has mentioned that LIFO (in the UK and Europe by who we are now ruled) is widely considered amongst the legal fraternity to be highly suspect in terms of its legality because of the age regs. The argument goes that if you are last in you will on average be younger and hence getting rid of those last in is age discrimination. The same applies if you have more female pilots employed relatively recently, only now it is sex discrimination. The same goes for allocating places on a seniority list by date of birth when pilots join on the same day - this definitely would be direct age discrimination in the UK and some airlines have moved to "names out of a hat" as a result, as even hours/experience can also be considered to be indirect age discrimination.

For this reason many UK airlines are attempting to pre-empt a legal challenge by agreeing redundancy matrices that are based on more than just date of joining. They variously include disciplinary "points", training qualifications, etc. They have yet to be tested in court in an airline context but Rolls Royce vs Unite was the catalyst for these changes.

"They variously include disciplinary "points", training qualifications,"

Points, either plus or minus are very subjective and I'd be surprised if it stood the test of the courts, training qualifications usually puts a person into management and therefore on a different list to the line pilots. Whether the courts like it or not LIFO is the only fair way to go.

This is the trouble. Merit systems, especially for redundancies, are subject to management perceptions of employees, which can be inaccurate, never mind subject to wilful cronyism and nepotism - I saw so many FOs in one loco company working days off doing admin tasks to curry favour promotion that it made my stomach turn. I completely accept those points from the upholders of seniority.

However, since the worst case of redundancies was brought up, and how LILO would be fairest, let me counter it by asking how it's fairer that a senior Captain with an old and healthy final salary pension and kids who have long since flown the nest and a large house with no mortgage is more deserving than a younger one with a crap modern pension, hefty mortgage and a young family depending on him/her?

Seniority is fundamentally wrong. It is institutionalised corruption and bullying. Merit based systems are theoretically fairer, but the real problem is getting them to be objective and not subjective. As raised by others, TREs can be highly subjective on LPCs and line checks, and managers even more so in their reports and files. This leaves the most professional of pilots, who do the right things for the right reasons contrary to the company's wishes, very exposed to abuse. So, the question becomes "how do we create an assessment system which is high in integrity?"

Parabellum, in case you hadn't noticed, the Courts and the precedents they set (usually in Europe these days) interpret and in effect mould the laws all companies must abide by. Redundancy matrices examined by UK ETs regularly scrutinise and approve points awarded for various criteria, some of which may well be potentially subjective, but a range of different criteria is thought to protect against any such subjectivity.

Pure seniority would be likely to be deemed illegal in the UK according to leading Counsel. This is because it is indirect age discrimination - the more time you have been in the company, the older you are likely to be, on average. LIFO basically discriminates against younger pilots.

What makes airlines so special that that they feel they need a system different from every other company in the UK is the question the judge would be asking.

Tricky one ... !

"LIFO basically discriminates against younger pilots."

I think you would be hard pressed to find any system that is not, in some way, discriminatory.


For a meritocracy system to work that enables pilots to move from one company to another without loss etc. it would need the agreement of all pilots world wide, good luck in getting that!http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/sr...lies/smile.gif

It is coming. The lawyers have seen to that.

Don't think so. At least not in the rest of Europe. Seniority is quite often by law the replacement for age in the determination process for promotions. And even age in itself is not always discriminatory but required by law as one of several points.

For example, if a company has to fire workers over here they have to do a selection whom to let go based on seniority, age, number persons that are living off that income and any handicap of the employee. How those four points are weighed is a thing that has to be negotiated between working council and company, but all have to be taken into account. Age doesn't always have to be a positive thing either, as those old enough to be close to retirement age can be let go first. Quite interesting too, as only workers that can do each others job without any additional training can be considered in one list there needs to be a separate list for captains and first officers. Getting that upgrade is not always the best thing in terms of job security.

Even for vacation days it is legal that older employees (above an age of 55) do get more days vacation per year as they do need longer recovery periods.

Thanx for the help..but....
 

Hi

It is interesting to see that we don't want to include a specific air carrier to this thread?
Are we concerned about retaliation?
I am asking if all can provide more details...
I am trying to make real changes..

Generalized opinions aren't helping...

It would be most helpful if an Air Carriers Seniority structure was spelled out in more detail, so I can start the ball rolling on making (at least) one carrier more accountable to the Pilot group..

Cfh, my post #12 was an actual system in an actual airline. That airline no longer exists, though not due to the seniority system!
My post #31 offers a hypothetical but probable alternative if you don't press your case.
If you go to www.afap.org.au it will lead you to various pilot awards made under Australian legislation. Just how applicable any of this would be in Canadian law, dunno, but it might be useful background.
I wish you luck in your endeavours. Nil bastado carborundum.