Then dude I feel sorry that you didn't have the stones to stand up and say that you would not support your CC's decision. How is it going to look upon you when that dude gets a class A and all you can say is "I told you so" rather than do the right thing and take that one step higher. I'm sure that you know what an IG is, right?

My vision of "Utopia" is not what you think. I have seen exactly what you are talking about, but I STILL argue that a merrit based system serves us all in making a system that is more "fair."

The human condition and our predisposition to make the people we like happy is what clouds our decisions, some times. Maybe I just don't care about kissing butt so that I can make people happy that are, in the end, going to make stupid decisions.

As for keeping to myself...nah!

I'll explain "fair". In the civilian world anyway. I'm going to be a little flippant, but there is a lot of truth in what I'm saying. "Fair" is who has the better lawyer. The seniority system takes the attorney out of the equation. The military does not have to worry about that.... you cannot sue your chain of command for judgment calls ....

But you can sure sue your civilian bosses for real or PERCEIVED "injustices". Imagine trying to decide who is "more qualified" for a move to Captain -- when you have openings for 40 captains positions right now, but a qualified pool of 1430 guys right now. The seniority system lets all qualified guys bid for the 40 slots. They go to training. They still have to pass. The seniority system does not allow for unqualified or guys not meeting the standard set by the FAA and company to fly in the seat --- they still have to pass the tests. However, lets say that management has total authority to "pick" the 40 guys from the pool of 1430..... I guarantee you there will be real or "perceived" unfairness and someone will get an attorney and sue for the injustice. If they win it will cost the company $$$$. The seniority system has eliminated that.

That was the biggest disappointment in the original Washington Post article. The cost over the years TO the AIRLINE COMPANIES from lawsuits for favoritism, discrimination, injustice etc. was not COVERED by the reporter. This cost and the suits have been eliminated by the seniority system that all parties AGREED TO!!!!!!! Is it perfect--- NO!!!! But nobody has come up with a better system that is favorable to all parties. Remember, lawsuits can KILL a corporation or company---

The seniority system is the most "fair" system we have. It is totally objective, taking out all biases and perceptions.

"Merit" is based on the ability to complete the training objectives and then on how you are seen as a "candidate" for upgrade. I make no assumptions that it is perfect, only that the stagnation in the "Line Pool" gets to deep for how I see the system could work.

Known or not, that is not the question. Your "writeups" from your CA would serve as a voice towards your abilities and merits. I agree that 7000+ pilots is to many to rack and stack, but you have to fly with someone, don't ya?

- I know that I can't solve the money problem. Here in the military you get paid the same (based on rank and time in grade) no matter what seat/position you fill. This process would obviously be made to fit the unions/airlines and their budget.

- That is cool. If you don't want to be a CA and do your entire stint as a FO that is cool with me. That doesn't effect the merit system. The airlines allow that, whereas the military does not. I actually like this way better, but if that was the case in the military we would have very few people wanting to fly in the left. There is no incentive ($$$) in it for us.

-You don't send your writeups to AMC or ACC for review when your upgrade is coming due, your training office takes care of that. Your upgrade is handled by the SQ not HQ. You could easily handle it by domicile. Have a Training Office that reviews these writeups and then forward it to the head office.

-The system is not perfect, because of the need for people to try and make everyone happy. The challenge is to be as unbiased as you can! No one will be perfect at this, but if people are forced to compete then you have incentive to be even better than the next guy.

Can you sue because you "think" you deserve more money? No. Why is that? Because you signed a contract. So can you sue the company because you think that you should be higher on the senority list? Write it into the contract that you can't sue over training decisions.

-I don't argue this at all.

Merit is not perfect and it does rely upon humans to make decisions. Now I could just say that all your scores from your rides get input into a giant computer at company HQ and it spits out your projected upgrade time, but that would be contested as being just as unfair as allowing a human handle your upgrade.

I make no presumptions that my theory is perfect, but neither is the senority system. The key is to have good people make good decisions. Like I have said many times in this thread, I don't know how to solve the money issuse, I'm not that smart.

I am greatful for eveyone's opinion, I really am. In the end if you make each system black and white, you have a better product with the merit based system, and that is just MY HUMBLE OPINION.

The debate rages on.....

"Objective" as defined by the Webster Dictionary:

3 a: expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations

Someone had to say that "Senority" was okay, and yes people agreed on that. But who is to say that you couldn't agree upon a new system?

The prejucdice in the senority system is that you are agreeing that people will only be ready to upgrade when their number is up. So with the 65 rule coming out the upgrade time has extended for almost everyone, and thus this agreed upon system was set back 5 years. Did everyone agree on that?

Senority is not objective, it is subjective because you are being bound to a system that has the prejudice of time built into it. It is biased to time because people agreed to that bias.

And fair is just your opinion (and many others opinion as well, I get it).

Not saying that I'm right, just saying that your wrong....just kidding!

I disagree with your argument about the seniority system not being "objective". It is objective. There is no subjectivity or wiggle room in it. It's based on hard, fast numbers---a date of hire. And it meets the definition of objective that you cite from Webster's.

Who's to say we can't agree on a new system? I'm with you there. We need to improve on the current system. But, in reality, there are probably a majority of pilots that are in favor of the current seniority system---and it's also an emotional issue as well---so it would be hard to change. There are a few proposals by people throughout these threads that would probably be better; but implementing them would require change --- and change does not come with a lot of trust. With all the turmoil in this industry; people like "knowns"... and with all it's warts, the current seniority system is pretty concrete and a "known".

Did everyone agree to the current seniority system applying to age 65? Absolutely not--count me as one of them. In fact, it was probably NOT a majority--but the "rank and file" couldn't get enough support to do anything about it.

Agree with you on the fairness debate though. I did have the word "fair" in quotes---and the thrust of my post was that the system was "fair" enough across the board to reduce lawsuits based on perceived or real biases--thus saving the companies $$$. Wasn't arguing that the current system was the most "fair' to each individual. I understand that when you are junior it sure as hell ain't fair to you.

MalteseX -

Good stuff. I like hearing the differnent opinions. Being at one end of the spectrum makes it difficult, sometimes, to fully appreciate how it might be if the military just decided to up and change our system.

I hope to, oneday, be able to lend my input to making the system better.

I keep seeing you argue that "you're not ready to upgrade until you're number comes up", but, unfortunately, that is not the reality in the civilian world. Yes, there are a small number of airlines (the regionals) where this is the case, however, the vast majority of pilots at the major have already served time as PIC. The issue with upgrading isn't finding 40 qualified people; the issue is that you have 4000 qualified people and only 40 slots to fill. And what happens when you have 3000 of those 4000 pilots that ARE qualified and ready to upgrade? How do you decide which of those 3000 go first? What if 500 of those pilots have PERFECT scores on all of their "performance evaluations"? What if one check airman grades harshly due to a single missed callout or slightly non-standard callout ("taxi check complete" as opposed to "taxi checklist complete"), as opposed to the more lax check airmen who simply grade on safety?

The problem is that there's no way you can have flown with all of those 4000 people, so how can you form an opinion, subjective or objective, of their flying "skills"?

What exact skills you would track? So ATC says "maintain .8 or greater for spacing" so you come in 1000lbs over your planned fuel burn, that just cost you a year in upgrade. You dealt with a disorderly, disturbed passenger (aren't most of them that way?) and they ended up writing a biased letter to the company about you; that just cost you a year in upgrade. You hit a bird on final and got so much blood on the windshield you couldn't see the runway, executed a missed into clouds, which promptly washed all the blood off, and your CP doesn't believe you hit a bird, but that you were just unstabilized; that just cost you yet ANOTHER year in upgrade. You were busy talking on your cell phone and accidentally bumped into the CP, he/she takes it personally even though you just didn't see them; costs you a year on upgrade. A single guy without a family has time to suck up to the CP on his/her day off while you have a family that you spend your time off with; jeez, yet ANOTHER year in upgrade. Or how bout you fly with an 18 year old 300 hour wonder who gets annoyed that you told them that some of their technique was wrong, they complained to the CP that you were domineering and rude, therefore delaying your transition to a larger A/C for a year? Can you see why this system simply does not work? And that doesn't even scratch the surface of human emotion, bias, and perspective.

One pilot's prudent MX/WX delay is another pilot's deliberate slowdown of operations.

And I still haven't heard a response from anybody touting a "skill" based system on what airlines would do if they found out that one of the "lower skilled" pilots was PIC of a jet that had an incident. Can't you see the news story? No court in the US would uphold a decision that "they're all equally qualified in the eyes of the FAA, but not in the eyes of the company, therefore, the company is not liable for putting what it itself admits is a lesser skilled pilot".

Lastly, you talk of not being able to sue for not being allowed to upgrade because of the judgement of your superiors because it would be as simple as being in the contract that you can't sue? Sorry, you can put it in the contract and even sign it, but anti discriminatory laws in the US (and most of the civilized world) would throw that part of the contract out with ease. Can you imagine the lawsuit when a lesbian, Mexican, female pilot with a slight speech impediment didn't get upgraded at a company that had mostly white, heterosexual, male pilots? What if she truly WASN'T ready under the merit/subjective based system? Now, it's easy: she didn't have the seniority number, and she didn't meet the standards in her checkride. With that system, it would be impossible.

Plus, it's not as if there aren't skill and personality benchmarks outlined in the FAA testing standards.


Sorry, your assertion that the current seniority system is imperfect is correct, however, your proposal of a merit/subjective personal upgrade is naive at best, and ludicrous at worst (no offense!). What needs to happen is to modify the current system into a system that doesn't just protect you within the company, but also helps protect you within the industry. Will it be easy? No. Can it be as straight forward as a national seniority list? No. But it will certainly take seniority within the industry/union into account, and at least help protect wages and benefits, even if it can't help you keep your senior Captain's position (while bumping other people down). Plus, it will help stabilize the industry in terms of disparity of wages between the different carriers (whose unions participate).

The real issue and why we have a seniority based upgrade system is safety. There is enormous pressure to get flights out and moving on time from all sides of a airline operation. The most important role of a Captain is as Delta tells their new Captains "Making the tough Call". That means shutting down the flight when safety is not what it should be. Without a seniortiy system pilots who make those kind of calls when needed would quickly find themselves back as First Officers while pilots who would fly aircraft not in the proper condition for that flight or into conditions not right for that flight would be upgraded. The seniority system gives you the ability to say no and never have to worry about how it might effect your career. Its the key issue to a safe operation.

Not to disagree with you, but IMHO having a strong union behind you is more important.

Quoted for truth.

Read any book about the early airline business and you will find that this was the case. "Fate is the Hunter" would be a good place to start.