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

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.

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.

A romantic notion for sure, but why does the next FO off the upgrade rank deserve to be penalised for it? The 'applicant' has never actually contributed a thing to the airline before by definition.

Furthermore, how does that FO ever get an upgrade to match the 'commensurate' experience. We all started somewhere remeber.

Yeah, for sure - I was going to add "so far as is possible/vacancies permit" but kept it short.

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

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...

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 ??

That sounds like a comment from a greedy first officer who wants older pilots out of the way so the HE can get that left seat earlier.

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.

Sadly, as has been in evidence for a while now, when the going gets tough pilots will eat their own young.

Nowhere in your schadenfreude satisfaction scenario do you address the effects on pilots at the receiving airline who would end up junior to the "commensurate experience" of the guy coming in above them. I mean you did say "if vacancies permit," but that's a handwave that doesn't explain anything. Permit what?

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'.)

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.

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!

That may have worked in the days of goverment owned airlines an regulation but not anymore.

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.

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!

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.

750 hours a year and no profit not looking too smart now.

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.

Is experience not roughly defined as total hours?
If Pilot A has more hours than Pilot B, he's more experienced, right?

This measure being adjustable for other helpful ratings such as TRI, TRE etc, and to an extent by command hours.

With the argument further up the thread regarding pilots being required to do identical jobs with identical performance in mind, and thus given that there are no variables, surely experience (and therefore seniority) can be mathematically calculated by formula?

Something like (thumbsuck here)

Experience = TT + (PIC/3) + (TRE*1000)

results of formula then defining where in new airline applicant fits in. If it's DEC above existing FO, then FO accepts DEC is more experienced. If it's FO below more experienced FO's, applicant accepts the existing FO's are more experienced.

If applied globally, would be a fair system.

If 900hr, min rest rosters are the only way to make a profit then we might as well all pack up now

AfricanSkies

BS! TT is mostly irrelevant. Flying long haul you do more hours then ever before but stick time? What stick time? Military hours / Cargo mostly fly much less hours but to black hole destinations in the middle of nowhere with non precision approaches to the minima. ILS2ILS 900 hours says nothing. Same as TRI/TRE experience. Anyone can do that at CAE if they want low pay.

Just accept one company uses seniority while the other don’t.

We're talking about airlines here, not military. Ace stick time isn't part of the requirement. Varied long haul time is valuable in gaining situational (geographic, ATC, terrain, alternate etc) awareness. By this stage, we should all be able to do a NPA.

More hours...more experienced..is the general rule

whatever. It will not happen anyway.

1) Not all experience is created equal.

2) Not all experience is relevant to a particular operation.

Beyond about 3000-5000hrs, total experience is pretty irrelevant and the the following question is usually 'doing what?' The correct answer to that lies in the needs of that employer.

What is the big problem with company seniority that the anti camp think needs fixing after all this time?
Is it simply that you are prevented from job hopping, or are you genuinely of the opinion 'I bring more talent than an upgraded FO'? :rolleyes:

Every company seniority system has its differences, but the one thing they typically always have in common is that they give eligible FOs a shot at command before hiring DECs, hence the angle of my question.

Hi Lapon. Agreed about the type of experience. As this discussion concerns airlines, it's airline experience.

Valid points have been raised above. The ability to move airlines and not have to start at the bottom again has several advantages for pilots. Not only changing jobs for reasons such as geographic relocation but for better terms and conditions, which in turn forces the airlines to up their game in that regard.

Having key staff effectively stuck in an airline due to high seniority or simply by the prospect of losing a command if you change jobs is a HR managers dream.

HR also nowadays have more influence on Ops, and have determined that it's cheaper to hire DECs than it is to upgrade FOs.

If seniority was global, and derived from experience, the system would still serve its function, but by enabling free movement it would not hobble those it seeks to serve.

Don't even contemplate going down that path of no seniority list. I spent 5 years with a reasonably large airline (100+ aircraft) without a seniority list and you have never experienced the unsightly in-fighting and backstabbing trying to get a promotion ahead of others. So much was put on who you knew, your friendship/relationship with them and how deep you were prepared to stab the knife into your possible rivals back.

As mentioned it is a zero sum game. An advantage for one pilot is at the disadvantage of the next.

Seniority is a pilot initiative not an HR one.
If HR had thier way it would be yes men that get ahead, and the crusaders that have often fought for improvements to your conditions and causes would wither on the vine.

[QUOTE] HR also nowadays have more influence on Ops, and have determined that it's cheaper to hire DECs than it is to upgrade FOs [QUOTE]

Exaclty why seniority serves to protect those FOs that we once were ourselves.

the majority of airlines nowadays do not have seniority systems in place. So job hopping / moving for better T&C’s is already possible. So by your reasoning those airlines should have better t&c’s then the seniority based ones...

S.G., do you think it is the seniority / unions laying the foundations for high wages?

The companies that have strong unions generally have seniority systems and better T&C’s.

Neatly avoided.

Right now, where are the 'high wages'?

Depends on your definition of 'high wages', I prefer the term 'better T&Cs'. Of course there is always going to be an exception to the rule lying somewhere but in my part of the world it holds true.

Several post here argue the rules used in a current seniority based airline and apply those same rules to a non seniority based airline.

You can't, you have to use real world jobs that have established systems without seniority.

Pick any job that has a designated senior person in a dual or more role job. I guess an easy example would be a surgeon.

Surgeons would move around freely yet it doesn't mean junior surgeons never become senior does it? They through experience become senior. Saying an FO would never become a captain is simply not true because of so called leap frogging.

Abandon rank, we aren't in the military, simply be named or designated senior pilot and pilot, it puts an end to chasing command. Perhaps a course or some means would be used to show the surgeon or pilot has reached a level to lead the operation or perhaps the offer is given to be acting senior pilot several times. The more experience you have the more times you will be designated senior pilot.

The new surgeon/pilot to the hospital/company probably has a bedding in period before being set free too, perhaps they must fly to certain destinations prior to being approved to be designated senior pilot etc

The rest of the world functions perfectly well without seniority it's just a different system with different rules and we would need different rules and systems. Pay being an obvious one but again look to the current world systems for solutions.

20+ years - seniority based airline but I'm still with Ernest K. Gann when it comes to seniority.

But how many specialised jobs types are there in the world where hundreds if not thousands of people are employed by one of a small number of companies doing a nearly indential job?

I would speculate there are more transport category jet pilots than orthopedic surgeons for example.
There are more probably more accountants than pilots, but there are equally more accountancy firms than airlines.
If there was a transparent way to job hop then sure, but as non-seniorty appointments (TREs etc) prove, its wishful thinking that it will be entirely merit based.

The problem is that command is where the money is, and I for one have no interest in taking additional responsibility for the operation if there is no additional compensation... and I doubt the airlines will put everyone through a command course to merely designate day by day who is senior pilot / pilot.

I dont doubt airlines would continue to operate perfectly fine without seniority, but what a pain in the a#$% it would be as a pilot trying to navigate your way to career-life balance as the invisible goal posts change (speaking from a non seniority experience).

Again. I really don’t see the purpose of the discussion. There are hundreds of companies that do not have a seniority system. You can apply there if you don’t fancy seniority.

besides that I think it is extremely selfish to, now that you experience a crisis, think you could jump the que whereas there are plenty of guys / girls (myself included) who have been made redundant before and accepted to start at the bottom again. We have a few Thomas Cook guys who just did that...

You are completely correct in that there are plenty of non seniority companies for the anti camp to work in.

I suspect the seniority based ones are typically the more desirable too for reasons unique to each individual.

As SG says, it's rather selfish to suggest another system is flawed because you cannot join it without penatly, regardless of your reasons for wanting to do so.