Half right, half not so much. How did seniority play a role in BHM? By all accounts, both would have passed any kind of merit-based selection process. BHM was the manifestation of a greater underlying problem (or actually a culmination of issues), including fatigue and lack of any concrete guidance on pilot monitoring (industry-wide).

The problem is, the standards do exist, but they are not applied equally across the industry. If a simple standard existed and was enforced, the seniority system would be fine. Your number comes up, you get a shot at upgrade. Pass the "weeding out" process and you're a Captain. Fail, and you go back to the right seat and the next guy on the list gets a shot. The key is that it needs to be objective and universally standard.

What won't ever work in our industry (based on the nature of the work) is a pure merit-based system -- too many ways to manipulate it or show bias. Anyone that has ever worked somewhere like that can probably relate stories about pilot-pushing, taking aircraft that might-should not have flown, etc.

What the industry needs is some kind of balance, like exists in other parts of the world. But, like everything else in the industry, it probably won't happen. It would involve management being willing to part with some gold (additional screening/training will cost money) and unions accepting that they can't (and perhaps shouldn't) protect everyone. Seniority should be what gets you your shot, but performance should be what keeps you in that seat. But what do I know...