Different Senority Lists Within A Company

[flyf15]

So, I'm having a thought here... I know it probably won't go over well, but hear me out.

A big problem that everyone recognizes with being an airline pilot is the inability to move to equal positions at other carriers... you're usually "stuck" where you are if you want to maintain your current pay and QOL.

What about the idea of seperating pilots... by fleet and seat... into different senority lists/employee groups. You want to change? You have to interview just like anyone else for the position. Yeah, it'd suck for pilots trying to move within a company, but it could be a good thing overall.

You work your way up as an FO till you meet the requirements that qualify you to interview to be a captain. You then interview and become a captain. But, you also probably meet the requirements to be a captain at other airlines... and can interview there too. In this new position, your senority starts to build relative to your senority within the captain group... just like it would normally. Maybe make an incentive of keeping your original senority date if you stay within the same company or something like that. Then from there you can interview to be a widebody captain, and so on. Or move to another carrier, and so on. Say you're a captain and want to move somewhere else but can't pass a captain interview? You can always interview to be an FO and become one of those... just as you would under our current system.

Oh well, let me know what you think... don't rip me a new one too badly.

 

[handlesaregay]

Didn't they already have this idea once? What you're talking about is a single pilot seniority list and I think the idea has been kicked around before. But you could never get everyone on board with such a scheme without an act of congress. Might make a good thesis for somebody though.

 

[flyf15]

Nah, not a single senority list industry wide. I'm talking about multiple senority lists within each company. Each time you want to move to another list (such as to go to captain, or to a larger/higher paying type), you have to interview for the seat... interviews for all lists being open to all those who meet the requirements, both current employees and off the street pilots.

 

[handlesaregay]

I reread your post, so you're saying if a Captain wants to jump ship to go to an airline with a better QOL does that means the FO's at that airline who want to upgrade have to leave to go to a crappy airline just so they can upgrade? Doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

 

[flyf15]

Well, when an FO is ready to upgrade... instead of just upgrading like we do now, he has to interview for the captain slot just like anyone would. But, he can interview at other carriers where he also meets the requirements to interview, not just his own. Feasbily, going from FO at one airline to captain at another.

Just like now, more appealing companies (higher pay, better QOL, etc) would have stricter hiring requirements and more difficult interviews. You wouldn't neccessarily be able to interview anywhere for a captain slot just because you qualify to be a captain at your airline.

 

[A Squared]

I reread your post, so you're saying if a Captain wants to jump ship to go to an airline with a better QOL does that means the FO's at that airline who want to upgrade have to leave to go to a crappy airline just so they can upgrade? Doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

Uhhhhhh, why doesn't it make sense to you? That's the way pretty much the rest of the working world operates. Positions are filled by choosing from candidates from within and outside the company. It is only in parts of aviation and a very few other places that advanced positions are filled exclusively from the ranks of employees. In most places of work, employees don't have the expectation that they will advance to higher ppositions, merely because they have been there for a certain amoount of time. Nor do they hold the expectation that more qualified persons from outside the company will not be considered for those advanced positions. It seems to work for pretty much the rest of the working world.

 

[handlesaregay]

Uhhhhhh, why doesn't it make sense to you? That's the way pretty much the rest of the working world operates. Positions are filled by choosing from candidates from within and outside the company. It is only in parts of aviation and a very few other places that advanced positions are filled exclusively from the ranks of employees. In most places of work, employees don't have the expectation that they will advance to higher ppositions, merely because they have been there for a certain amoount of time. Nor do they hold the expectation that more qualified persons from outside the company will not be considered for those advanced positions. It seems to work for pretty much the rest of the working world.

That's a very nice trick trying to put me on the defensive, but if you're advocating a change you need to explain why your way is better besides "that's how the rest of the world works." I don't think I need to defend the status quo until someone actually makes a compelling argument as to how this would be better than the current system.

 

[A Squared]

That's a very nice trick trying to put me on the defensive, but if you're advocating a change you need to explain why your way is better besides "that's how the rest of the world works." I don't think I need to defend the status quo until someone actually makes a compelling argument as to how this would be better than the current system.

Hey, you're the one who has asserted that "it doesn't make sense" I don't think it's unreasonable to ask you to support why you think it "doesn't make sense" What you have done is stated an opinion, and now you are objecting to being asked to support that opinion. Notice that except for my last sentence, there is no opinion, just statement of easily observed fact. In most other employment arenas, advancement is not a given based on how long you've drawn a paycheck, and in most fields, there is no guarentee that a higher position will not be filled by a more quyalified person from outside the company. Those are just facts, easily observed by anyone who has been employed outside of aviation.


So, once again, you haven't answered the question; why doesn't it "make sense" ?

 

[handlesaregay]

Hey, you're the one who has asserted that "it doesn't make sense" I don't think it's unreasonable to ask you to support why you think it "doesn't make sense" What you have done is stated an opinion, and now you are objecting to being asked to support that opinion. Notice that except for my last sentence, there is no opinion, just statement of easily observed fact. In most other employment arenas, advancement is not a given based on how long you've drawn a paycheck, and in most fields, there is no guarentee that a higher position will not be filled by a more quyalified person from outside the company. Those are just facts, easily observed by anyone who has been employed outside of aviation.


So, once again, you haven't answered the question; why doesn't it "make sense" ?

You're attacking my statement while not making any real argument to the contrary. I said it didn't make sense to me because he never really explained why it was better than the current system. Notice I didn't say there was anything wrong with most "other employment arenas" doing it that way, but if he says he wants to have sex with a sheep and I reply that it doesn't make sense to me and then you chime in with "they do it all the time in other parts of the world" and demand that I justify my position that's not adding anything to the discussion. I'm simply asking for an explanation as to why this system would be better than the status quo.

 

[ackattacker]

At first blush it makes sense... but there is one major problem with such a system.

Management cannot and must not be trusted to arbitrarily determine who is most qualified for the captain position. In "most other industries" the measurement of performance is quite reasonably set by management (productivity, sales, etc). In aviation the primary focus must remain on safety... which is unfortunately often at odds with productivity. If the company simply promoted who they wished and hired who they wished into captain positions, they would fill those slots with yes-men, company men, people who never broke airplanes at outstations, people who never went missed...

In such an environment where you feel your upgrade is dependent upon performance, even otherwise safe pilots would certainly feel the pressure to hide their mistakes, bend the rules for the company, etc.

You can say that you will set the upgrade qualifications by some quantifiable measure of competency (simulator performance etc.) but it is far too easy for the training/checking department to be "influenced" by management in this regard, if they feel that they could hold some "squeeky wheel" in the FO position and promote captains with get-there-itis.

Talk to some people who work for Cathay Pacific about this....

 

[A Squared]

I'm simply asking for an explanation as to why this system would be better than the status quo.

Here's what *is* the status quo: For the most part, in the airline industry if you have been with a company for any significant period of time, there is a *huge* financial penalty tied to leaving your current employer, unless of course you are fortunate enough to get hired at a company where the starting pay is similar to the pay rate you left, but that is uncommon. So, if your employer is treating you like $hit, you have a tough choice: Suck it up and be treated like $hit, or leave and take a really big hit in the pocketbook. Now, this concept is not lost on the employer. They *know* that pilots are reluctant to leave because they would start over at maybe 1/3 of what they are making now. That knowledge gives them a tremendous amount of power over the pilots. Not so in most other fields. Let's say you're an engineer with your PE certificate and XX years of experience in say structural design. Now, if you don't like what your company is doing to you, you can leave for a similar position. If you play your cards right, you can leave for a position that pays better. You sure as hell do not start over as a entry level CAD operator at your next company if you have been the engineer responsible for putting your stamp and signature on the final design of highway bridges for 10 years at your previous job.


Now the folks who support the seniority system all have bought into the same myth. The myth is that flying is some how very different that other jobs, that we need the seniority system because flying is not like any other job. You can see a classic example of all the reasons in ackattacler's post. Now, his post has legitimate concerns. Certainly. Nothing to argue there. The myth is that other fields don't have these same exact same factors. Bull$hit. Ther is nothing special about flying airplanes in this regards. All other industries and field have the same factors.

You think a Doctor at a cost conscious HMO isn't pressured by his management to cut down the number of lab tests he orders on a patient, against his professional judgment? You think that the Doctor who does cut his labwork to the bare minimum might be looked on as more of a company man? You think that the bridge engineer doesn't get pressure from above to accept a questionable finite element analysis of the strength of a new type of attachment bracket, rather then to do more expensive actual laboratory strength testing? You think that a nurse in a hospital doesn't face the same sort of personality conflicts with supervisors? That a supervisor might give her (or him) a bad review, merely because that supervisor doesn't like the nurse? You think that the evaluation isn't based on some pretty subjective, hard to quantify factors, things that are certainly hard to disprove? You think that nursing supervisors never lie about subordinates they don't like in order to sabotage thier careers? You think that plumbers and electricians don't occasionally encounter pressure to cut corners, to ignore some of the code requirements, when it's expensive to comply and an inspector isn't likely to catch it?

Let's say that the previously mentioned Nurse has a problem with her supervisor, the nurse is a good nurse with years of experience in neonatal intensive care. For some reason, the supervisor has it in for her, makes her life hell, for purely personal reasons. That nurse can apply to work at the hospital across town, or in the next city. And she's going to be assigned to the Neonatal Intensive care unit, at a salary commensurate to her training, skills and experience. She's not going to start out folding bedsheets (or whatever it is that new nurses with no experience do) Contrast that with a long time captain, experienced, skilled and wise, who finds himself the subject of a personality conflict with the chief pilot, though no fault of his own. He either puts up with the $hit from the chief pilot, or he leaves and starts out at the bottom rung elsewhere, making a small fraction of what he was making before.

Sure, we can all read ackattacker's post and nod our heads sagely, like he's said something really meaningful, but anyone who thinks those things are somehow unique to aviation is just hopelessly ignorant. These things are universal to every field of employment, since the first caveman paid another caveman three polished stones to dig a fire pit for him. All other fields and industries have the same or very similar problems, and many involve human life and public safety, yet most are able to navigate those hazards without relying on the crutch of a seniority system. The idea that these are somehow unique to aviation is at the same time naive and arrogant.

There are only three groups who are benefited by a seniority system:

1) The company. The fact that there is a strong financial disadvantage to "voting with your feet" gives airline management the upper hand in employer-employee relations.

2) Unions. Because the seniority system gives management the upper hand, the unions become more attractive to pilots who have to deal with a management at a company who has the upper hand because the pilots can’t "vote with their feet". So the makes unions necessary where they would otherwise be necessary.

3) Pilots with poor skills or a lack of experience. If you know your skills or experience won’t allow you to be competitive for advancement, the seniority system will benefit you.


People who are do not benefit from the seniority system:

Pilots who have average skills and average experience (whatever average means for your corner of aviation) If your qualifications are average, on the average, your advancement will be average in a competitive system. So seniority doesn’t enhance your advancement, but it certainly does weaken your position in employer-employee relations by removing the option to "vote with your feet" (or at least make that option unattractive)

People who are impaired by the seniority system:

Pilots of above average skills or experience. In a competitive environment those pilots will advance above others, in a seniority system, they are held back.

So, which group do you think you fall into?

 

[Draginass]

Not even worth an academic discussion because it ain't gonna happen.

Whose to say who's skills are better than someone elses? Who's the arbitror?

 

[A Squared]

Whose to say who's skills are better than someone elses? Who's the arbitror?

You think that the rest of the employees in world aren't judged on various criteria, many of which are quite subjective? Who is to say a nurse's skills are better or worse than another's? Why is it that so many pilots seem to think that aviation is some special unique career field that is like no other? Is it because most pilots have little or no experience outside aviation?

Lets say that you're chief pilot and check airman over 20 flight crews, just for example. If you don't know who the marginal f/os are and which ones are good sticks, if you don't know which ones are probelm children are and which know thier stuff, do thier jobs, and are an asset to the crew instead of a liability, you have no business being in a management position.

 

[ackattacker]

There are many avenues of aviation where you can command a high starting salary based upon your qualifications. Many foreign airlines will hire contract pilots at high base salaries based upon time in type and instructor/check airman qualifications. Corporate works on a similar system. And some regionals do hire directly into the left seat.

I agree with you that the airline senioriy system is broken, and works primarily to the benefit of the company. But that is really another issue. I do think the answer lies with either one seniority list, or perhaps a higher level of professional qualification above the ATP (i.e. a B777 Captain must have an "Advanced ATP" and 8,000 hours).

But it IS different when you are talking about holding back a line pilot within the company who meets the basic qualifications and can pass the training. For one thing, it is a lawyers worst nightmare, on so many levels. I'll get back to that.

Frankly, aviation does not work that differently from many of the professions you mentioned... nursing, civil engineering etc. In those professions a person has to meet a certain demonstrated level of competency to advance to the next level. Nurses are not certified based upon how well their supervisor likes them. Engineers don't get their P.E. licenses based upon their company's recommendation. They get those qualifications by years of service and passing standardized tests. Just like in aviation. And nurses and engineers with equivalant professional qualifications generally command equivalent salaries within a company, with some adjustment for level of experience. Just like in aviation. They may get a bonus for working extra hard, but that's about it. Hospitals don't go around adjusting people's pay based upon how many patients they can see in an hour or some such nonsense. They can fire you, but other than that the only real discretion they have is during hiring. To do otherwise opens them up to the same kind of liability I am going to talk about.

Now, if you do a really good job you might get promoted into a supervisory position. And if you have experience as a supervisor or manager then of course you will command a hire level of pay... as a manager. Aviation is no different. But a manager is not a line pilot.

Also, if you think you're really a hot-******************** engineer or whatever you are always free to go "freelance" and command whatever price you'd like. Again, in aviation nothings stopping you. Go hang up a sign.

But within a company it is different. As soon as you start assigning some sort of internal "performance rating" to pilots, nurses, engineers, plumbers, etc. it opens up a can of worms. These are industries where the work either meets standards or does not. Period. You don't let personal feelings into it. As soon as you give someone a low performance rating they sue you for unfair labor practice of some sort (discrimination, etc). Then if you get through that imagine what happens when an accident occurs and one of the pilots didn't have a high "performance rating". Or if the doctor cuts off the wrong leg and he had a low "doctor rating". The patient would sue the hospital and claim that the hospital gave them their worst doctor. And they'd be able to back it up!

In aviation, just like MANY other safety oriented industries, you simply meet the standards or you don't. Pure and simple. It is not subjective.

In theory you could have FO's who are unable to pass a captain upgrade, and then hire street captains. But company's generally don't want that. Again, it opens them up to liability when they have an accident and the FO flunked the upgrade test several times.

What you CAN do is set certain hard qualifications for upgrade (so many hours, so many years). Many companies already do this. That's why you have Colgan hiring street captains...

 

[ackattacker]

Lets say that you're chief pilot and check airman over 20 flight crews, just for example. If you don't know who the marginal f/os are and which ones are good sticks, if you don't know which ones are probelm children are and which know thier stuff, do thier jobs, and are an asset to the crew instead of a liability, you have no business being in a management position.

You may have those feelings about who is an asset and who is a problem. But as a manager you would be a fool to show any favoritism based upon those feelings, unless you enjoy litigation. If someone is really a problem then you document it with hard facts and let them go. Otherwise, they are all equals.

 

[A Squared]

Well, all I can say is that you have a hoplessly flawed view of how compensation works in the world outside of aviation. I can tell you for a fact that there is no "standard engineering pay scale" and that at many firms performance *IS* rewarded on an individual basis with advancement, salary increases and the like. And yes your performance *is* evaluated (not just passs/fail) and that evaluation is tied to your compensation. You can be assured that at most firms an engineer who is bright capable and motivated will pass by a marginal engineer of of the same level of education and certification. Firms do evaluate and reward performance. The idea that somone could sucessfully sue because they are paid less than somone else with the same certificate is patently absurd. I spent about a decade in the engineering field before I started flying airplanes for a living. Your remarks about how things work only serve to underscore how grossly ignorant you are on the subject.

Doctors also negotiate compensation on an individual basis. To suggest otherwise is silly.

 

[ackattacker]

Sorry for the continued posting, but rereading what I wrote I realized I had drifted off topic. Allow me to clarify. I do agree with what A Squared wrote.

I *agree* that we should have the ability to take our professional experience and qualifications elsewhere and command similar salaries, provided there are openings. I do think this is important, especially in today's airline industry.

I *disagree* that we should have to interview for the command upgrade at our own carriers. In my mind you already interviewed for that job when you first got hired. End of story. If you are still working there it means you are still hired for the job.

The only time an outside pilot should be able to come in at the Captain position is when there are no suitably qualified internal FO's to upgrade. And by "qualified" I mean hard, quantitative numbers, not "performance reviews" or similar.

How to implement this is the problem...

 

[ackattacker]

Well, all I can say is that you have a hoplessly flawed view of how compensation works in the world outside of aviation. I can tell you for a fact that there is no "standard engineering pay scale" and that at many firms performance *IS* rewarded on an individual basis with advancement, salary increases and the like. And yes your performance *is* evaluated (not just passs/fail) and that evaluation is tied to your compensation. You can be assured that at most firms an engineer who is bright capable and motivated will pass by a marginal engineer of of the same level of education and certification. Firms do evaluate and reward performance. The idea that somone could sucessfully sue because they are paid less than somone else with the same certificate is patently absurd. I spent about a decade in the engineering field before I started flying airplanes for a living. Your remarks about how things work only serve to underscore how grossly ignorant you are on the subject.

Doctors also negotiate compensation on an individual basis. To suggest otherwise is silly.

We posted at the same time.

I also worked for a time in engineering. I thought this was a civil discussion, not a pissing match. My mistake. I keep forgetting this is FlightInfo... must be my "gross ignorance".

Where I worked salary was of course individually negotiated. Based upon qualifications, and performance. Office politics certainly played a role. The amount of "negotiation" that went on increased dramatically at the higher (more managerial) levels and dropped to essentially nothing at the lower (more technician) levels. I'd imagine it's much the same in health care. At the lower levels (nurse, technician, draftsman) a company absolutely opens themselves up for litigation if they offer different salaries to different equally qualified individuals doing the same job. The upper level people (in theory) justified their salary by how much money they could make for the company (through better managment, more grant proposals, cost cutting, whatever). These things are more nebulous and hence harder to litigate. Also upper level folks tend to never do exactly the same job as someone else. They are hired and promoted based upon their *unique* qualifications.

One of my best friends is a Doctor at a major research hospital. Certainly his salary is negotiated, based upon his performance... in bringing in money! If they keep statistics on his "safety" I guarantee they keep a tight lid on it!

Where do you think pilots lie on the scale? Technician? or Manager? Do you do the same job as the guy next to you or can you justify a higher salary since you make the company more money? Or because you have better CRM? Or because you make smoother landings?

How do you measure pilot performance? How many time did you crash? On time performance? What?

Simply put... you are qualified to do the job or you are not! You set the bar and either pass it or don't!

 

[A Squared]

I also worked for a time in engineering. I thought this was a civil discussion, not a pissing match. My mistake. I keep forgetting this is FlightInfo... must be my "gross ignorance".

I apologize for the tone. One of the things that quickly raises my ire is people just making up "facts" about a subject they clearly know nothing about. Now that I know that you (apparently) have some insight, rather than being irritated, I'm just confused, confused as to why you would post something so inaccurate initially.

Look, I don't know what sort of organizations your experience was with. I agree that in governmental agencies often the scale is very rigid with little room for acknowledging excellence. That is not necessarily true outside of the government. Even at the technician level. Say a firm has a CAD department with 5 operators One operator will take a set of redlined plans and have all the revisions whipped out in an afternoon, notice an error that escaped the reviewing engineer, bring it to his attention, make that revision and be looking for something else to start on in the half hour before quitting time. Another operator, may take a day and a half to complete the same task, always be taking coffee breaks a little longer and more frequently than allowed, 10 minutes late back from lunch, etc.

Now, even if the second employee isn't quite bad enough to fire, not only is he less productive but he consumes extra effort from management, the frequent chats with the CAD supervisor, reminding him how long breaks are supposed to be, checking to see that he's actually working and not downloading funny videos from You-tube. Time that the supervisor doesn't have to spend on the first employee, because he knows that guy is going to be where he's supposed to be, doing what he's supposed to be doing. Like I said, I don't know where your experience has been, but at the firms I've worked for, there wouldn't have been any hesitation to give larger annual raises to the first guy that the second guy, even to the point of paying the first guy more despite the second guy having been there longer. Lawsuit, sure, anyone can sue anyone for anything. In my experience, most firms do not sit around worrying about a lawsuit resulting form rewarding a superior employee, at any level.


An example of how a pilot can affect the bottom line of a company: A number of years ago, a captain with whom I was flying, refused a large awkward piece of freight at an outstation, for no other reason that it would have taken more time to lead it. No safety or regulatory issues. He didn't want to make the effort. OK, this was something that the shipper was *very* anxious to have moved, and our agent had assured the shipper it would go out that day (there was no reason it shouldn't have) So now the shipper is unhappy, so he's less likely to ship something again on our airline, and more likely to tell his associates about the poor service, which doesn't enhance hte company's reputation. The agent is pissed off, because he looks bad, and oh yeah, he is also the agent for a competing Cargo airline, so when customers walk through his door he can direct their business to the other airline, because he's unhappy. And he *is* unhappy. Now all of this is very difficult to quantify, but if you don't think actions like this have a direct effect on the company's revenues, you have another think coming. Compare that to another captain who takes his obligation to the company's profitability seriously (within the bounds of safety and legality) one who looks at operations and make suggestions on how certain things could be accomplished more smoothly, makes sure the customers are served, makes sure that differences are settled smoothly, (instead of creating those differences).

Now this has nothing to do with safety, legality, or how tight either guy flies an ILS. It has to do with whether the employee behaves with a regard to the company's interests, or is actively hostile to those interests. It doesn't matter where you are or what you do for a living. You have employees who lean into the harness and pull their weight plus a little more, and you have employees who drag their heels and hold the whole wagon back.

Why shouldn't you reward the first kind above the second kind?