Great post, thanks!
Originally Posted by
Humuakalaka
I acknowledge that there are problems with a national seniority list. However, I'm convinced that solutions can be formulated. I see three major problems with a national seniority list. The first is how to devise a system that does not cause companies to have incentive to discriminate against applicants with more longevity than other applicants. If the choice is between a person with 15 years longevity (higher cost) and another person with five years longevity (lower cost), then why would a company hire the guy with 15 years?
Flatten the pay scale.
As I reread this thread I realize that I didn't make my original ideas on this very clear.
A pilot shall be paid a rate proportional to the a/c capacity.
PIC overide is 10 to 25%
First year pay is discounted 10 - 25%
First year as a 121 pilot pay is discounted an additional percentage (10%?)
Longevity is rewarded marginally (.5%-2% a year) (Perhaps only company seniority is rewarded?)
Now the pilot with 10 more years experience is priced competativly with the less experienced pilot.
Originally Posted by
Humuakalaka
Second, companies must be able to maintain discretion in their hiring processes. Corporate culture is an important part of a company's success. A company's desire to preserve it's culture through the hiring process is a legitimate need and should be respected. If the national seniority list penalizes companies for not hiring applicants who do not fit their culture, then it is unfair.
I agree that this is an important right, and a company should have the option to bypass a Member on the list to get a better coperate 'fit'. But there should be some penalty involved. Not so onerous that it impairs a companies' hiring process, but signifigant enought that a company can not simply bypass everyone on the list for economic reasons. Thats why I thought 10% compensation would be appropiate. It makes the cost of hiring off the street equal to hiring the experienced pilot. the company maintains discretion, but gains no economic benefit.
Originally Posted by
Humuakalaka
Finally, a national seniority list must determine a fair and reasonable way to establish which date is used for establishing seniority. Simply using first date of hire at a 121 carrier is not reasonable. That would over-penalize military pilots who spent time serving their nation. Is that fair? It would also over-reward those pilots who latched onto the first 121 carrier they could find. In my opinion, some combination of testing, hours, and service at a major airline or at some level in the military (for example: aircraft commander or flight lead) could be used to establish the seniority date.
Here's where we disagree. A military pilot has no more right to an upwardly adjusted seniority date than a CFI, corperate pilot, or even a ramper. Military pilots are amply rewarded for thier service in training, pay, & retirement. And many would argue they have an unfair advantage getting hired due to the contacts they make in thier careers. In addition they can continue to serve in the Guard or Reserves, thus having an additional layer of "Furlogh Insurance" that civilian pilots do not.
Thanks again for your reasoned and elequent post.