New bidding percentages
11-02-2006, 06:29 PM
#31
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: MD-11 Capt
Posts: 210
Originally Posted by Jetjok
What happens now is (some) junior guys become PIC, while (some of) the more senior guys, with the greater experience levels, remain as F/O's and S/O's. That's really not that healthy for the Company.
Jetjok,
Based on your quote, it's not healthy for the company to have over age 60 S/Os riding around in the back seat. I agree, I think you all should retire.
11-02-2006, 09:18 PM
#32
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2006
Posts: 675
Originally Posted by TonyC
That expression was used when I was hired, and I believe it is still used. I didn't interpret it the same way you have. I did not infer an obligation to upgrade as quickly as possible.
What I inferred was the quality and experience level of those who are hired. All are experienced, mature, and capable of serving as Captains. We're not here to teach guys how to become a Captain, they should already possess those qualities and skills before they get hired.
That said, the vast majority began their FedEx careers as a plumber on the slave ship.
If you equate seniority with the Company as "experience level" you might have something there. Closer inspection reveals that to not always be the case. We don't all come to FedEx with the same skills and experiences. My experience included flying a crew airplane and crossing oceans on a monthly basis. Another guy might have flown a single-seat airplane and never crossed the pond. Which of us would feel more comfortable taking an MD-11 across the Atlantic? If I feel comfortable upgrading sooner, and he prefers to hang out in the right seat for a while, I don't think that's "unhealthy" for anybody.
Now, don't misconstrue my example. That doesn't make me better, or him worse. We're just different, with different backgrounds and different perspectives. We're all Captain material, but we're not all alike.
At the risk of belaboring the point, a seniority number does not equate to experience level. An up-or-out system that you advocate would institutionalize the "Peter principle," where everyone will rise to the level of their own incompetence. An individual who does an outstanding job as a 727 First Officer might be compelled to try a glass jet, and eventually to command a crew. He might not be comfortable with either, or with being junior in those seats. Forcing him to do what he doesn't like, and what he's not as good at, is not healthy. Why not let him stay in the right seat of the Boeing and be a valuable asset to the younger Captains who fly with him?
I see the current system as a win-win. The other guy gets to hang out in a seat and enjoy seniority and lifestyle. I get to upgrade sooner. We both get what we want, we're both happy and proficient.
As for the guys that aren't proficient ... sure, there is a tiny minority of guys that are doing themselves a disservice by remaining in aviation. I don't think "Up or out" is the way to weed them out. Maybe we should take a closer look at how we do check rides.
.
What I inferred was the quality and experience level of those who are hired. All are experienced, mature, and capable of serving as Captains. We're not here to teach guys how to become a Captain, they should already possess those qualities and skills before they get hired.
That said, the vast majority began their FedEx careers as a plumber on the slave ship.
If you equate seniority with the Company as "experience level" you might have something there. Closer inspection reveals that to not always be the case. We don't all come to FedEx with the same skills and experiences. My experience included flying a crew airplane and crossing oceans on a monthly basis. Another guy might have flown a single-seat airplane and never crossed the pond. Which of us would feel more comfortable taking an MD-11 across the Atlantic? If I feel comfortable upgrading sooner, and he prefers to hang out in the right seat for a while, I don't think that's "unhealthy" for anybody.
Now, don't misconstrue my example. That doesn't make me better, or him worse. We're just different, with different backgrounds and different perspectives. We're all Captain material, but we're not all alike.
At the risk of belaboring the point, a seniority number does not equate to experience level. An up-or-out system that you advocate would institutionalize the "Peter principle," where everyone will rise to the level of their own incompetence. An individual who does an outstanding job as a 727 First Officer might be compelled to try a glass jet, and eventually to command a crew. He might not be comfortable with either, or with being junior in those seats. Forcing him to do what he doesn't like, and what he's not as good at, is not healthy. Why not let him stay in the right seat of the Boeing and be a valuable asset to the younger Captains who fly with him?
I see the current system as a win-win. The other guy gets to hang out in a seat and enjoy seniority and lifestyle. I get to upgrade sooner. We both get what we want, we're both happy and proficient.
As for the guys that aren't proficient ... sure, there is a tiny minority of guys that are doing themselves a disservice by remaining in aviation. I don't think "Up or out" is the way to weed them out. Maybe we should take a closer look at how we do check rides.
.
11-03-2006, 12:06 AM
#33
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2006
Position: MD11 F/O
Posts: 653
Nice compassion.
Originally Posted by Jetjok
SC-7 - For those who couldn't hack the program, well, there's always real estate.
Last edited by MD11HOG; 11-03-2006 at 12:12 AM.
11-03-2006, 07:07 PM
#35
Line Holder
Joined APC: Sep 2005
Posts: 92
Originally Posted by KnightFlyer
We got the new mini-snack out of ATL last night. Pretty good, lots of goodies.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
