Different Senority Lists Within A Company

[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?