The military is a totally different animal. Doesn't matter whether you're sitting right or left seat there, you get the same pay. In addition, your military performance evaluations are based largely upon your relationship with the front office and prior reputation. I'm not complaining, I did very well with that system when I was in. Like I told a newbie at my squadron, it's not enough to do a good job, you have to make people want you to succeed. If you can't be quiet, don't be new.

Problem is that in the civilian world, you would be much less likely to "rock the boat" at any level if you thought that it would delay your upgrade, or cost you dearly in going back to sitting first officer. So far, my civilian career has been far less political in nature, and I like it that way. Like the author of this ridiculous article points out, in his idealized system, one of the deciding factors would be "demonstrations of commitment to the company." That means vastly different things in terms of operating a for profit business vs. a government entity.

I used to think some of the same things when I was in, but you really don't have a clear picture of civilian operations until you've been out for a while. In reality, the same system exists in the military. You have to serve your time to be in the window for promotion, plain and simple. The same system exists at the airlines, and no matter how much someone on the outside looking in would like to bypass the time to upgrade, it's there for a reason.