And End To The Seniority System

L

luvn737s

Guest
Consider the following scenario, which is not that far-fetched:

With the 401-K izing of employee retirement plans there is less incentive to stay with a particular carrier. If consolidation is deemed necessary and the largest impediment is the integration of employees, can the wholesale elimination of the seniority system as we know it be too far off? And could it be spun by the ususal suspects as beneficial to employees?

Initially, mergers will be more like the formation of entirely new carriers built from the infrastructure of existing carriers. Flight crews will be staffed as FO or CA based on qualifications (type ratings). The onus will be on the pilots themselves to acquire the necessary type ratings to qualify for the positions. On a point basis, being a current employee will count for, say 100 points and the type rating for 200 points, recommendatios for 20 points, etc. When a vacancy at "Trans Consolidated" is posted, those qualified inside and outside the airline can apply. This will be sold as portability, where pilots can take their type rating and 401K and move on to greener pastures without having to be married to their carrier as they are today. If Global-Oceanic announces an order for 50 787's, then those who want to apply for positions can go get a 787 type rating and go for it. Airlines with hemmorhaging pilot rosters or who have insufficient applicants will face pressure to improve pay and benefits to compete for workers. Perhaps airlines will provide the training as a profit center.

Pay, schedules and vacations, etc, will have little bias towards seniority. Larger aircraft may pay more, but that will only encourage additional training. In the beginning, pilots who currently hold type-ratings will have the advantage over pilots who don't, but that will be seen as a fair means of transitioning away from the traditional seniority system.

The FAA would encourage such as system where standardization across airlines would help chronic FAA understaffing. It would be sold as a move towards "best practices" where training providers could turn out a pilot capable of starting with any carrier, all they would need is a course in General Systems and learn a few company-specific adminstrative items.

Loyalty has a lousy rate of return in this business, so why not embrace a system that takes that out of the equation?
 
of course if say a company was in the business of providing specific technical personal under contract to companies and was almost the sole provider of those technical experts would not a monopoly on that "talent" exsist and thus be able to command premium prices?


they do exsist today but not to the extent. Imagine instead of pilots running to whatever company is hiring at the time, they were employeed by one company which delivered them to their customers (airlines) similar to mesa providing service to many airlines.

of course this would only work if all qualified pilots were involved. then with 0 or near 0 talent available the customers (airlines) would be forced to deal with the provider and "pay the price"

end the seniority system? interesting, which would mean pay for performance and ratings and experience would it not? would not then "the most qualified" (i will let a320 determine who they are) would drift towards the highest pay?


right now there is quite a bit of "talent" out there, if it were not , i submit in order to attact qualified candidates one incentive that would have to be considered would be raising pay rates or "signing bonuses"

intresting thread...
 
Might as well be a "Pay for training" scheme like Southwest demands. Might as well go to contract/at will pilot force. Seasonal furloughes, etc. Keeping qualified would be a individual responsiblity on their own time and at their own expense . . . renting sim/instructor/examiner time. Seasonal furloughs, etc.

The FAA is argueably incapable of managing the present system, much less something like that. Type ratings don't mean squat. The difference between a standard airline qual and a "type" is a couple of simple manuevers . . . and a type rating without specific aircraft experience doesn't mean squat . . . . except to get an interview with pay-for-training companies like SW.
 
Winglet said:
The FAA is argueably incapable of managing the present system, much less something like that. Type ratings don't mean squat. The difference between a standard airline qual and a "type" is a couple of simple manuevers . . . and a type rating without specific aircraft experience doesn't mean squat . . . . except to get an interview with pay-for-training companies like SW.
[post="265754"][/post]​
It's been proven that neither the airlines nor passengers are concerned with "squat". RJ's haven't been raining from the sky and the airlines operating them prefer their candidates to have minimal experience (Mesa, CoEx, Airlink). There is little stretch from staffing an RJ to staffing an Airbus or equivalent. Airlines will still have the last say on who they hire and what value they put on experience.