WAFP -

"Fourth. To address the Pilot vs Officer debate, I don't agree that your flying career should be based on your ability to whip out a PowerPoint slide show better than any other officer. Flying upgrades should be based soley on that, FLYING! I have seen many a great pilot get hosed because they didn't do a great office job, and seen too many schmucks get upgraded because they kissed the right butt. That is a flaw in the military system."

Well that first sentence kind of makes my point then. We're not talking about your FLYING career, we're talking about your MILITARY career.

Unless the USAF or the FRED community is different from a lot of the military, you're going to spend quite a few years in a staff job whipping out numerous PowerPoint presentations. So if you want that good fitrep - your graphs had better be complete with multiple colors and various fonts!

Agree wholly that FLYING upgrades should be based on FLYING (section lead, division lead, NVG(I), LATT(I), SFTI, ACTI, etc....), but then we aren't talking about promotion then are we? And since the military is an up or out system - if you don't promote (which has to do with your total job - not just flying) then you will need to leave. I know LOTS of excellent pilots who didn't make rank too.

It has been a good thread.

USMCFLYR

Hey, that's what we're here for!?... ;)

Beauty of the Reserves/ANG
 

I have been a AF Reserve pilot for 16 years and never been REQUIRED to do office work or kiss much butt to get upgraded/promoted. I think the purist appreciates the opportunity. After all, isn't/wasn't the MISSION to "Fly, Fight, and Win." Now I have to get mothers (TACC) permission for what used to be Aircraft Commanders decision making. I was complaining to a TACC controller and he said the young pilots call to "ask permission to fart."

Reason #14,339 why I want out of AD:cool:

It used to be. Now it's 40-some words that dillute the intent to the point it sounds like "To kill them with boredom by powerpoint. And if not, it's OK as long as I climb the food chain BTZ." Maybe someday someone will change it back and make it clear.

Dude, I don't know what USAF you are in, but in the C-130 world, we don't have your version of utopia. When I was a sq chief pilot, trying to make those "right" decisions you said were made on who upgraded, I was routinely overridden by my commander and DO so that their little buddies or butt boy kiss a$$ favorite son types could move up and "check the right sqaure." You know the response I got when I explained in 56 different ways person x was not ready for acft cc school:"I don't want to hurt his career, or he needs this for XX job."

So buddy, do all us other mil guys a favor and speak only for your little corner of the world, as I do only for my corner of the herk word.

USMCFLYR - there you go again with common sense, it has no place in the military, where a LTC with 2000 hours and no flying skill commands a group of passed over 5000 hour majors.

Look at the bright side.

The 2000 Hr Lt Col and 5000 Hr Majors get to work for the 1500 Hr Below the Zone "Golden boy" O-6 Wing Commander who has spent half of his career at the 5-sided wind tunnel making the General's coffee and the other half at school in residence.

That's true leadership!

WAFP

While I like your "merit based upgrades" idea in theory, it just wouldn't work in the airlines. Here's a couple reasons why:

- Unlike in my military squadron, no airline management types even know my name. There are 7000+ pilots at my company (soon to be a lot more assuming the merger goes through). In a military squadron, your reputation is made or broken to people you know...they work with you every day and repeatedly. Dudes who actually KNOW you make the upgrade (or not) decision. In a mil squadron, if you're a clown, everyone knows it. If you're a hero, everyone knows it. In this industry, unless you screw up huge, relatively few people even know who you are, let alone what your act is. There's not much opportunity to prove you are a hero as a first officer to standout against everyone else competitively. Let's face it, this job is not crazy tough. It's not like we're going into combat or anything. I takeoff, fly part of the departure on the flight director, then turn the auto pilot on, then click it off in time to land. If I'm not flying the leg, I flip gear, run checklists, and try not to make radio calls on 121.5. Hard to prove how exceptionally great I am doing that and to stand out, but on the contrary it's easy to show I'm a clown if I screw up all the time. Point is...difficult to prove "merit" to earn a merit based upgrade. Most dudes are not screwups...how do you fairly rack and stack those dudes? If, based on your example, there was a gradesheet or critique or something of the sort filled out on each first officer after each flight, realistically you'd find that they would all be very strong after a while and impossible to stratify dudes off of. Now you're back to the same problem you had before...how do you fairly rack and stack dudes for upgrade who are all similarly qualified on paper? It's not quite the same as comparing a few dudes in a squadron who everyone knows and everyone flies with all the time.

- Unlike the military where dudes usually go off to AETC or school or desk job throughout a 20 year career (so for arguments sake let's call it 14 years in a major weapons system in a career, while having to start over in the upgrade flow each time you return), in the airlines dudes do nothing but fly for potentially a 30+ year career. No starting over from the bottom as a wingman or co-pilot after a white jet tour or school/staff because you never leave the cockpit! These other jobs that mil dudes return from give you a constant feed of co-pilots beyond just lieutenants out of UPT. THAT is what balances your letter of Xs and enables relatively young dudes to upgrade to AC. Caveman math would tell you that about half the dudes in the airlines need to be right seaters. Dudes can be (and are) ready for the captain upgrade well before they get there. They have plenty of experience. But you are either a captain or first officer, you are not both. We can't upgrade everyone to captain after a couple years, even if they are "ready." We'd have no one left to fly the right seat. And no, we can't afford to upgrade dudes to captain but then have them fly the right seat part of the time to make up that difference. It costs too much and we can't make any money as it is. This is a business, after all.

- In the airlines, it is either about $ or quality of life. Lots of dudes don't bid to captain, even if they could, so they can be more senior therefore and bid better schedules as a first officer. This is their choice. On the contrary, some dudes bid to captain as early as they can, and therefore make more money, but they return to the bottom of the seniority totem pole in their respective aircraft/base/seat and accept the less-than-ideal schedules that may bring. By your merit based theory, what happens to dudes who turn down the upgrade when offered? There are far more dudes "qualified" and "ready" to be captain in the airlines than there are left seats, and many of those dudes intentionally choose not to upgrade when able for a variety of reasons.

-Think of it this way: what if all heavy co-pilots in the AF throughout all the airframes were lumped in to one big pot for upgrade competition, then you had to send in all their gradesheets and some dude at HQ AMC who didn't know any of them personally decided who made the cut? That would suck, wouldn't it? That's pretty much what you are proposing for the airlines.

-I do miss the challenge and competition of merit based upgrades. I think the competition gives dudes incentive to perform better, but it just wouldn't work on the large scale operation that airlines are. It would add way more politics and company bullsh-t into the mix than anyone could stand. Unlike the military, "shut up an color" or "service before self" or "needs of the AF" won't fly around here. Then everyone would be bitter and sue because they thought they deserved to upgrade but got passed over. Unlike the military, captain PAYS MUCH, MUCH MORE, so an upgrade means a lot more to dude's lives than just the seat you fly in and the X on your letter of Xs.

-Truth is, pretty much everyone that upgrades to captain at major airlines is highly qualified and beyond ready. I'm sure there are plenty of stories out there of no talent a$$ clowns/total idiots/*********s that are captains in the airlines (so you can spare the rebuttal stories fellas), but you know as well as I do that there are plenty of the same that upgrade in the military, merit based upgrade or not.

Having just made the leap, it's a different world out here.

Tbone F15 You said it wonderfully! I worked for a non-sked that used "merit based upgrade" and it was just an ass kissing contest. Eventually the management there instituted a seniority list because even they could see the system was innappropriate to an air carrier situation. And don't anybody try to blame it on a union, that place stayed non-union another ten years after that.

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! :D

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.:D

The debate rages on.....:cool:

"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!:D

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.

:D

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.

To quote both of you, I have the same ability in the military. If I make a call for safety then that is it. No amount of pressure from anyone can force me into an unsafe decision. If you believe that the only way to ensure that is to have a senority based system then that is sad.

Every pilot out there, private all the way through ATP, from military to corporate, has a duty and obligation to be safe. If you feel that you can only do that because you have a "senority" based system, then you need to find your convictions.

If someone tries to pin me to the wall because I didn't move the mission according to their plans, then I have the Inspector General that I can go to and lodge a formal complaint. I am protected when I call "safety."

Senority does nothing to make people safe. People make people safe. That is why we have the upgrade process, whichever way you slice it. Without that base of knowledge and experience, then you would have people making decisions that they may not be ready to make. To rationalize your argument, you are saying that airline pilots are safer than military pilots because of the system that regulates their upgrades?

I am a safe pilot because the people that have tought and instructed me and the people that I have learned lessons from took the time to instill in me the desire to be safe and make good decisions. People did that, not a system.

Please understand me when I say that the senority system is flawed, and so is the merit system. Neither is perfect. The reason why they are not perfect is because they rely on inperfect people to make them work.

If you are happy with the system, then great, but if you're unhappy then you should seek change. Just my humble opinion.

I look forward to your posting on this subject after a year or two on the line...I think you'll be a changed man.

Two points:

First, A seniority based system does not rely on "flawed" individuals to make my career progression happen. It's DOH and my ability to pass the process - period.

Second, Most of us seem happy to be part of this "civilian" system. How and what are you basing your opinion on this system?? You are on the outside looking in, right? So until you have walked a mile in my shoes....

And before you ask... 10 years flying fighters in the Navy, 1 year at a commuter, 2 years at a PAX and 10 years at FedEx...So yes, I have seen both systems and each works for its respective enviroment...

That is not what I said at all. What I said was that before the seniority-based system guys would get fired or demoted for not taking an aircraft when someone else would.

This was a "merit-based" system - the problem was who determined "merit". If it's the bean-counters wanting to push the most amount of metal for the lowest cost, the guy who hangs it out there by taking the aircraft in bad WX or with known MX problems is the "best" pilot. A guy who cancels because of safety concerns is a "bad" pilot.

See the difference?

Just because I haven't been on both sides of the coin, doesn't mean that I have to walk in your shoes to make a decision on what I believe is better.

My point is this; why make someone wait to upgrade when they are ready to do so?

Since the airlines are all about the $$, why would you want to wait to make more (if that is what you want to do) if you could do it in a lesser amount of time?

Senority works because you have accepted it. When enough people decide that they don't accept it anymore, it will change. Not saying that it will happen, but that is how it will happen.

I am on the outside looking in. I may change my mind when in your shoes many years down the road, but now, I just happen to have different views.

Okay everyone, here it is. 99.99% of the people who have posted on this thread think I am smoking crack.

I am not here to change the world, just offer up an opinion. I wish I could persuade everyone to think my way, but if that were the case then I'd be a rich man.

If you are happy with the senority system, raise your hand....22..456....1,233.......871,901....okay, that is a lot of people!

I don't think I have it in me to continue this. Why? Because the people that have responded seem happy. As a good friend of mine has said "The World is headed to Hell and a Hand basket on a rocketship!" I don't want to cause discontent or unhappiness.

I will agree to disagree. Cool? I DO hope to be in your shoes some day. I also love the military.

Thanks to all you airline guys for being "unnoticed" and having to wait your turn. It will be your turn someday. I wish everyone nothing but success.

Thanks again to everyone for sharing their opinions. Next time you see a C-5 or hear a "Reach" callsign, that could be me.

I wish everyone clear skies and safe flying!:D

Dude (WAFP),
I too am military. 19 years now between active and reserve. There is a huge hole in your thesis here. In every squadron in the military, you upgrade based on time, experience, and readiness (in theory). There is zero limt on the ratio of Aircraft Commanders(Captains) to Copilots(First Officers). A Squadron can have all AC's if it wants/can. Not so in the airlines! Ain't gonna happen. Forgive me if this has been stated before as I am a month behind on this thread. In the military, an AC is dual qual'd in both seats. In the reserves/guard, often a crew will have 2 if not 3 AC's on an augmented crew. The military,while more merit based than the seniority system, it is not nearly as much so as you make it out. This coming from an AC/IP/EP in 2 different MWS's. Airlines will not make guys Captains just because they are ready! It is based on need. A cost issue! You don't want a merit system! It would be hard to judge/enact. How do you grade the ILS?
I have never been a Captain at an airline. Been at 3 now, but yet I understand the system. I have always felt a vital part of the crew and unafraid to give my input. My job is to keep the Captain out of trouble! I learn from them and perhaps they at times learn from me. I will give my inputs asked for or not-- he/she will decide. This is just like the military. And in the military, sometimes both are qualified in command but one is designated to make the decisions!

Regards,
ConnerP out