ATP impact

[Art VanDelay]

Yes, but IMO it doesn't relate well at all to flying much bigger planes cross country at night through crappy weather.



Huh. Kind of sounds like teachers. Those that I know, up until recently at least, were given a specified amount based on their experience when they started at a particular job. They get nominal raises as they stick around (basically cost-of-living increase plus a small longevity bonus), and they can move farther up the pay scale via further education.

I think there could be a system based on three things similar to this that would work OK:

1) Experience (say, each 1000 hours would be one rung on the pay scale).
2) Longevity (basically like today's seniority)
3) Merit score - See below.



There are ways to do this that don't take a whole lot of management personnel. Once you come up with a merit system, decide what it should be based on and how factors should be weighted, it can all be done by a computer. I'm sure you could dump the data from sim sessions and come up with a skill score, for example. Nearly anything you want to do can be automated, even the more subjective pieces. For example you could develop internal web apps to allow for pilots to review each other after a trip. All of that can be combined with seniority and longevity automatically, with payroll and bidding priority adjusted accordingly.

Sounds nice on the surface but it would be enormously injurious to overall safety.

Think for a moment about what matters to airline management - do you think it might be showing a profit ? Do you think that it might be the bottom line ? Would you as management award merit to the pilot that saved the most fuel on a particular route ? Would you award merit to a pilot that landed in poor weather while other pilots went to alternates thus saving the company thousands ? Would you award merit to a pilot that chose to use an airplane that many other pilots felt needed maintenance ? And the examples go on and on and on.

Professional Pilots are VERY type A personalities. If they see the only way to advance is to land with the least amount of fuel onboard guess what slowly becomes the norm and guess what happens to safety ?

Unfortunately in the airline industry the quickest way to show a profit is to whittle away at expensive items - like reserve fuel, ready spare aircraft, pilot training, sufficient reserve pilots etc, etc, etc.

 

[jonnyjetprop]

I had 1800TT and 200 multi just to get a job flying single engine, FAR 135 cargo.

The purpose of the ATP was to set a legal standard for the minimum experience to enter a FAR 121 cockpit. It wasn't to improve pilot pay. Maybe it will result in that, but it's not the reason for the law.

In my opinion, the cockpit of a regional is a terrible classroom. The original idea was that you were supposed to be fully qualified to operate the aircraft in normal, abnormal and emergency situations before sitting in the right seat. The FO check ride was the same as the captain check ride. What happened, in the name of airline economics, was to slowly change the FO position to a trainee position. The captain became an instructor of sorts. I flew when the very first, Flight Safety guys came out. It was shocking that my airline would put people like these in the cockpit. I still think that I should have had a single pilot type rating, because sometimes my FO was more in the way than a help.

The reason why a regional cockpit is a bad classroom is because of the automation and the whole premiss that you're trying to comfortably fly paying passengers at the same time. How can you develop stick and rudder skills flying a plane on autopilot? This is where all those hours spent flying around in a 152 come into play. While I'd hope that not every hour logged from 250 to 1500 is spent instructing, even this time helps. When you were learning to fly, your instructor allowed you to get into situations where you might have found it difficult to get out of. You can't do this when you're flying the line. So instead, your experience is half watching the captain fly and half spent being mentored by the captain.

The last thing that the rule does is to slow down the process of going from initial training to the cockpit. This is bad for the student/future pilot and it's bad for the regional airline. The pause is great from a gaining experience standpoint. Under the old system, you could go from zero to the RJ cockpit in less than one year. This means you might have not seen a winter. It takes time to develop the craft. I think you need to see multiple seasons, including flying in a couple of winters. I think your first ILS to minimums shouldn't be with 50 people sitting in the back.

The people who don't think experience count are those who don't have it, those who have to pay for it and those who have a financial interest in the outcome.

 

[jonnyjetprop]

Ameriflight is still around and hiring right now.

Flight schools are closing left and right, and there's no more bank checks to fly around either.

 

[jonnyjetprop]

All is not happy with the AB Initio programs either. Spend some time looking at PPrune.

I agree, the issues is not hours, it's attitude and training. Airline pilots should go through a 250hr AB Initio program working a 2 pilot cockpit from day one and work their way as teams through PP, IR, & CP level stuff, then put on the line with a senior captain for a year or so, then backing up a junior captain for a year or so, then ATP to become a junior captain with a senior FO then senior captain with junior FO.

 

[jonnyjetprop]

If only airline management got paid based on merit

It was kind of funny watching the guys who flew my last airline into the toilet explain to the bankruptcy judge why they deserved a bonus.

 

[KSCessnaDriver]

Ameriflight is still around and hiring right now.

Just because they are still around, doesn't mean they move bank checks.

 

[Everskyward]

Just because they are still around, doesn't mean they move bank checks.

I don't think the issue was what they were moving. It was the ability to get these kinds of jobs.

 

[KSCessnaDriver]

I don't think the issue was what they were moving. It was the ability to get these kinds of jobs.

Still have to have 1200 hours to get on there, as PIC. There are a handful of SIC jobs at AMF, but they pay so poorly, you'd be better off CFI'ing to get to 1200 hours. And in most cases, the people who want to go the 121 route anyway, probably are eligible for the 1000 hour exemption to the ATP rule

 

[jonnyjetprop]

Correct, but the job is still there. If anything, it's better. You don't have to fly a Lance for 6 months (BUR base) or 6 weeks (OAK base). Direct into the PA-31 or BE99.

Just because they are still around, doesn't mean they move bank checks.

 

[Henning]

I had 1800TT and 200 multi just to get a job flying single engine, FAR 135 cargo.

The purpose of the ATP was to set a legal standard for the minimum experience to enter a FAR 121 cockpit. It wasn't to improve pilot pay. Maybe it will result in that, but it's not the reason for the law.

In my opinion, the cockpit of a regional is a terrible classroom. The original idea was that you were supposed to be fully qualified to operate the aircraft in normal, abnormal and emergency situations before sitting in the right seat. The FO check ride was the same as the captain check ride. What happened, in the name of airline economics, was to slowly change the FO position to a trainee position. The captain became an instructor of sorts. I flew when the very first, Flight Safety guys came out. It was shocking that my airline would put people like these in the cockpit. I still think that I should have had a single pilot type rating, because sometimes my FO was more in the way than a help.

The reason why a regional cockpit is a bad classroom is because of the automation and the whole premiss that you're trying to comfortably fly paying passengers at the same time. How can you develop stick and rudder skills flying a plane on autopilot? This is where all those hours spent flying around in a 152 come into play. While I'd hope that not every hour logged from 250 to 1500 is spent instructing, even this time helps. When you were learning to fly, your instructor allowed you to get into situations where you might have found it difficult to get out of. You can't do this when you're flying the line. So instead, your experience is half watching the captain fly and half spent being mentored by the captain.

The last thing that the rule does is to slow down the process of going from initial training to the cockpit. This is bad for the student/future pilot and it's bad for the regional airline. The pause is great from a gaining experience standpoint. Under the old system, you could go from zero to the RJ cockpit in less than one year. This means you might have not seen a winter. It takes time to develop the craft. I think you need to see multiple seasons, including flying in a couple of winters. I think your first ILS to minimums shouldn't be with 50 people sitting in the back.

The people who don't think experience count are those who don't have it, those who have to pay for it and those who have a financial interest in the outcome.

My one and only airline gig was in a BAe 3100, no automation there, and the flight director was a nusiance. You learned to hand fly in all weather.

 

[Henning]

I had 1800TT and 200 multi just to get a job flying single engine, FAR 135 cargo.

The purpose of the ATP was to set a legal standard for the minimum experience to enter a FAR 121 cockpit. It wasn't to improve pilot pay. Maybe it will result in that, but it's not the reason for the law.

In my opinion, the cockpit of a regional is a terrible classroom. The original idea was that you were supposed to be fully qualified to operate the aircraft in normal, abnormal and emergency situations before sitting in the right seat. The FO check ride was the same as the captain check ride. What happened, in the name of airline economics, was to slowly change the FO position to a trainee position. The captain became an instructor of sorts. I flew when the very first, Flight Safety guys came out. It was shocking that my airline would put people like these in the cockpit. I still think that I should have had a single pilot type rating, because sometimes my FO was more in the way than a help.

The reason why a regional cockpit is a bad classroom is because of the automation and the whole premiss that you're trying to comfortably fly paying passengers at the same time. How can you develop stick and rudder skills flying a plane on autopilot? This is where all those hours spent flying around in a 152 come into play. While I'd hope that not every hour logged from 250 to 1500 is spent instructing, even this time helps. When you were learning to fly, your instructor allowed you to get into situations where you might have found it difficult to get out of. You can't do this when you're flying the line. So instead, your experience is half watching the captain fly and half spent being mentored by the captain.

The last thing that the rule does is to slow down the process of going from initial training to the cockpit. This is bad for the student/future pilot and it's bad for the regional airline. The pause is great from a gaining experience standpoint. Under the old system, you could go from zero to the RJ cockpit in less than one year. This means you might have not seen a winter. It takes time to develop the craft. I think you need to see multiple seasons, including flying in a couple of winters. I think your first ILS to minimums shouldn't be with 50 people sitting in the back.

The people who don't think experience count are those who don't have it, those who have to pay for it and those who have a financial interest in the outcome.

My one and only airline gig was in a BAe 3100, no automation there, and the flight director was a nusiance. You learned to hand fly in all weather.

However I disagree that a modern cockpit is a poor teaching environment since systems management and understanding is very important.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Sounds nice on the surface but it would be enormously injurious to overall safety.

Think for a moment about what matters to airline management - do you think it might be showing a profit ? Do you think that it might be the bottom line ? Would you as management award merit to the pilot that saved the most fuel on a particular route ? Would you award merit to a pilot that landed in poor weather while other pilots went to alternates thus saving the company thousands ? Would you award merit to a pilot that chose to use an airplane that many other pilots felt needed maintenance ? And the examples go on and on and on.

I wasn't including any of those in the "merit" portion.

Pilot unions do, and would still, serve an important role in safety and would have to be part of the process of determining what can go into the merit formula. In fact, the FAA might have an interest in it in the name of safety as well.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Personally, I don't think your system would necessarily be better, just different and more complex.

The "better" comes from allowing pilots the freedom to move between airlines without losing everything. Within a single airline, it'd also potentially allow for someone who performs significantly better to get into a new aircraft/seat earlier than someone who performs poorly but has been around longer.

Also, I don't know where you are going with the 30% "experience" score. What does that mean?

How many thousands of flight hours the pilot has. This is the part that's portable between airlines.

And I still think small differences in sim performance don't mean anything. Sure you could give someone negative points if they bust a checkride but I don't see how small differences are significant.

Small differences wouldn't be significant. I'm talking about the difference between someone who is consistently significantly within the standards with only a few deviations near the edges vs. someone who's consistently barely within standards... Or as you pointed out, not within standards and having a bust.

It also wouldn't have to be entirely based on the sim, and the non-skill portion (10% in my example) wouldn't have to be solely other pilot evaluations. There could be bonuses for all kinds of other things. Like I said, I'm not presenting this as a fully baked solution, just an idea for where things could go that would allow for a pilot career to be more stable and desirable.

 

[ClimbnSink]

If the seniority system wasn't such a good deal for the airline it would have disappeared. Pilots clinging to it are suckers.

 

[Everskyward]

The "better" comes from allowing pilots the freedom to move between airlines without losing everything. Within a single airline, it'd also potentially allow for someone who performs significantly better to get into a new aircraft/seat earlier than someone who performs poorly but has been around longer.

Then you're not only talking about scoring people in a different way, but making it universal between airlines which is a whole different story. I know it is the tendency these days for people to want to reduce everything to a number. Just because you can come up with a number doesn't mean it is relevant.

How many thousands of flight hours the pilot has. This is the part that's portable between airlines.

This is a good example of numbers being irrelevant. I can see that you might find a some difference between someone who has 1,000 hours and 5,000 hours but not necessarily between someone who has 11,000 hours and 15,000 hours. Once you get past a certain amount I don't think total hours mean much at all. More relevant would be time in type, but the significance of that goes away after a certain number of hours too.

Small differences wouldn't be significant. I'm talking about the difference between someone who is consistently significantly within the standards with only a few deviations near the edges vs. someone who's consistently barely within standards... Or as you pointed out, not within standards and having a bust.

I still think you are trying to measure things which are not only insignificant but are variable day to day for each pilot, especially if you are trying to judge something like hand-flying skill. The sim has close to but not quite the same feel as an airplane. The visuals are OK but nothing like looking outside. Again, just because you are measuring something doesn't mean that you are measuring something important. Also, if you are scoring pilots and sim sessions for multiple airlines, who's to say that the sim profile someone gets is easier or harder than someone else's sim profile.

 

[KSCessnaDriver]

Correct, but the job is still there. If anything, it's better. You don't have to fly a Lance for 6 months (BUR base) or 6 weeks (OAK base). Direct into the PA-31 or BE99.

More guys going to the 99 these days, from what I've seen.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Then you're not only talking about scoring people in a different way, but making it universal between airlines which is a whole different story. I know it is the tendency these days for people to want to reduce everything to a number. Just because you can come up with a number doesn't mean it is relevant.

It does NOT need to be universal between airlines. Again, this is only an example. Each airline could weight things differently. I doubt that an airline that puts seniority anywhere but the top weight would ever be able to adopt the system in the first place, but each airline could come up with the system that suits them. The more weight they give to experience (the "thousands of hours"), the more experienced pilots they'll be able to hire from other airlines. The other components could be wildly different between airlines, as they would likely be weighted low enough that their main purpose would be ranking pilots with the same levels of longevity and experience.

This is a good example of numbers being irrelevant. I can see that you might find a some difference between someone who has 1,000 hours and 5,000 hours but not necessarily between someone who has 11,000 hours and 15,000 hours. Once you get past a certain amount I don't think total hours mean much at all. More relevant would be time in type, but the significance of that goes away after a certain number of hours too.

I agree that 11,000 hours vs. 12,000 hours doesn't mean much - But neither does being #1100 or #1110 at an airline with 12,000 pilots. It's simply an easy way to quantify experience for pilots and allow them to switch airlines without starting over from the beginning.

 

[Everskyward]

It does NOT need to be universal between airlines. Again, this is only an example. Each airline could weight things differently. I doubt that an airline that puts seniority anywhere but the top weight would ever be able to adopt the system in the first place, but each airline could come up with the system that suits them. The more weight they give to experience (the "thousands of hours"), the more experienced pilots they'll be able to hire from other airlines. The other components could be wildly different between airlines, as they would likely be weighted low enough that their main purpose would be ranking pilots with the same levels of longevity and experience.

The thing is, airlines could do that now if they were not bound by contract. There is not some sort of universal Part 121 reg which covers this. A startup could hire however they want. There are also examples of airlines hiring "street captains". Of course that also causes unrest in the ranks. I think the system is the way it is because, in general, both sides prefer it to something else.

 

[jonnyjetprop]

Here's the problem with the merit system. It goes against safety. Pilots are human. Humans will climb, scratch, punch and all sorts of things to get noticed and prove they are better than the next guy. I've seen pilots do all sorts of stupid things to make a couple of extra bucks. Do you really want your pilot to be cutting corners so that he can improve his score?

The problem is that the best airline pilot is the one that's middle of the road. We are the personification of interchangeable gun parts. If there's a difference, something isn't right. Every pilot should be flying the exact same way. If you look at FOQA data, it should all be the same. Put ten pilots in the sim, they should all fly the same or at least within very reasonable tolerances. The very hiring processes are to find guys who fit within a very narrow range to fit in.

There are things that could be done to "help" those displaced. You could have a very narrow pay range. Basically paying everyone pretty close to the same pay with only minor differences. The unions tend not to like it.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

The thing is, airlines could do that now if they were not bound by contract. There is not some sort of universal Part 121 reg which covers this. A startup could hire however they want. There are also examples of airlines hiring "street captains". Of course that also causes unrest in the ranks. I think the system is the way it is because, in general, both sides prefer it to something else.

I know... But I think part of that was the complexity of coming up with something that would work better, especially without the level of technology that we have today. Maybe it's because I work with tech and numbers every day, but I think this system could be put together for a reasonable cost, work well, and be workable for both sides.

Sooner or later, the airlines are going to either have to start paying more, or make the job more attractive. This would help with the latter. I think that once one company adopted it, the rest would do so pretty quickly as well.

 

[ClimbnSink]

I know... But I think part of that was the complexity of coming up with something that would work better, especially without the level of technology that we have today. Maybe it's because I work with tech and numbers every day, but I think this system could be put together for a reasonable cost, work well, and be workable for both sides.

Sooner or later, the airlines are going to either have to start paying more, or make the job more attractive. This would help with the latter. I think that once one company adopted it, the rest would do so pretty quickly as well.

If one company adopted it they would be flooded with resumes from the bottom half of all the other companies seniority list. That no airline has bothered suggests there are plenty of pilots and the system works better for the airline then having employees that could switch airlines and be compensated at the same level. No self respecting in demand employee would put up with non transferable seniority numbers.

 

[hindsight2020]

If one company adopted it they would be flooded with resumes from the bottom half of all the other companies seniority list. That no airline has bothered suggests there are plenty of pilots and the system works better for the airline then having employees that could switch airlines and be compensated at the same level. No self respecting in demand employee would put up with non transferable seniority numbers.

Actually, as has been highlighted before, non-transferable seniority numbers could be viewed as being done in order to save pilots from themselves. If you attempted to compensate by job performance metrics, pilots would undercut safety to get the highest dollar (min fuel arrivals, scud running, messing with tracking and billing equipment, et al). Type A personalities run amok.

The reality is that in a labor environment where the occupation demands that pilots be carbon copies of each other, you effectively give up your fundamental ability to distinguish yourself from your co-worker in the quest to gain monetary raises. The job you perform still has monetary value, but it becomes impractical to distinguish yourself from another.

I do agree though, the lack of lateral job portability is perhaps the second greatest factor I place on the cons column when comparing airline pilot jobs with pedestrian jobs. Propensity for decade-long furloughs is of course #1 on that list. If the job didn't furlough so frequently, I'd probably wouldn't mind the lack of income portability so much.

I also distinguish that job from the regionals, which I do not consider a bona fide job at the FO level. They're underpaid apprenticeships (that shouldn't be, mind you).

 

[flyingcheesehead]

If one company adopted it they would be flooded with resumes from the bottom half of all the other companies seniority list.

No, quite the opposite - Right now, those at the bottom of the seniority list can already switch jobs without much of a penalty, so if their company totally sucks, it's not a big drop for them to switch to another airline. It's the experienced senior pilots who have everything to lose by transferring. If there was suddenly an airline where they wouldn't lose everything, that airline would be flooded with resumés from lots of very experienced pilots.

No self respecting in demand employee would put up with non transferable seniority numbers.

So you're saying pilots are not self-respecting or in demand? Because they all put up with non-transferable seniority right now!

 

[ClimbnSink]

So you're saying pilots are not self-respecting or in demand? Because they all put up with non-transferable seniority right now!

Yuppers

 

[Larry in TN]

There would certainly be difficulties, but I think it would be possible to come up with a system that would work MUCH better than today's all-seniority system.

Work better for whom?

Nobody (in the industry) wants to abandon the seniority system. Not the pilots. Not management. In fact, look at non-union US airlines--the biggest are Skywest and (until about a month ago) JetBlue. Both used seniority system even though management could have adopted any system it liked.

Pilots don't want to abandon seniority because we know that it protects us from management. With seniority, they can't use job advancement, pay, or schedules to pressure us. We know that if we say no to an airplane, weather, fuel load, disruptive passenger, etc. that it will not affect our career progression. We know that other pilots won't advance ahead of us by flying broken airplanes, in marginal weather, pushing duty limits, or taking inappropriate risks to complete the schedule.

Management doesn't want to abandon seniority because, to them, we are identical interchangeable parts that they want to manage with as little effort and cost as possible. They want no part in attempting to competitively rate us nor dealing with the inevitable protests of those rating decisions. They like the current system where they publish schedules for flights, vacation, and training and we sort out which peg fills which hole with almost no effort on their part. They like the current system where one manager can oversee hundreds of subordinates without even being able to recognize most of them if they pass in the hallway.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Work better for whom?

Everyone.

Nobody (in the industry) wants to abandon the seniority system. Not the pilots. Not management. In fact, look at non-union US airlines--the biggest are Skywest and (until about a month ago) JetBlue. Both used seniority system even though management could have adopted any system it liked.

"Why do we do it this way?"
"Well, it's always been done that way."

Pilots don't want to abandon seniority because we know that it protects us from management. With seniority, they can't use job advancement, pay, or schedules to pressure us. We know that if we say no to an airplane, weather, fuel load, disruptive passenger, etc. that it will not affect our career progression. We know that other pilots won't advance ahead of us by flying broken airplanes, in marginal weather, pushing duty limits, or taking inappropriate risks to complete the schedule.

The system I'm proposing would not change any of that. It WOULD allow you to switch to another airline without starting over at rock bottom. Thus, it is better for the pilots, and it's better for the airlines in that it makes the job more attractive to future pilots.

Management doesn't want to abandon seniority because, to them, we are identical interchangeable parts that they want to manage with as little effort and cost as possible. They want no part in attempting to competitively rate us nor dealing with the inevitable protests of those rating decisions. They like the current system where they publish schedules for flights, vacation, and training and we sort out which peg fills which hole with almost no effort on their part. They like the current system where one manager can oversee hundreds of subordinates without even being able to recognize most of them if they pass in the hallway.

Likewise, this system would allow things like scheduling to work exactly as they do now, simply based on a different ranking. In fact, I have not anywhere mentioned a single thing that would require management to be any more involved than they are now.

 

[Henning]

I also distinguish that job from the regionals, which I do not consider a bona fide job at the FO level. They're underpaid apprenticeships (that shouldn't be, mind you).

I think an FO position at a regional should be just that, an apprenticeship that they should be able to start with 250hrs and a CPL earned in a structured environment designed to take them into an entry level airline position.

Why should they not be underpaid? Most everybody feels they are underpaid. The worker at McDonalds has a greater opportunity to kill masses of people through job performance failure.

Considering there is a line of people willing to pay for the job of airline pilot at $18k a year to start; in our lazzaise faire form of capitalism, that says the job is not underpaid and can be brought even further down along with quality of life sacrifices for company convenience. You can't have both low price and quality, and we value money more than anything, so we get what we deserve.

 

[Larry in TN]

Thus, it is better for the pilots, and it's better for the airlines in that it makes the job more attractive to future pilots.

Us professional pilots do not think it would be better for us. We have enough experience in the profession to understand how management would use this new power against us.

We understand the limitations of the current system very well because we live with them everyday. We also understand that, even with its flaws, it is the best system so far devised--and a lot of us have been thinking about this for many decades.

 

[PPC1052]

Work better for whom?

Nobody (in the industry) wants to abandon the seniority system. Not the pilots. Not management. In fact, look at non-union US airlines--the biggest are Skywest and (until about a month ago) JetBlue. Both used seniority system even though management could have adopted any system it liked.

Pilots don't want to abandon seniority because we know that it protects us from management. With seniority, they can't use job advancement, pay, or schedules to pressure us. We know that if we say no to an airplane, weather, fuel load, disruptive passenger, etc. that it will not affect our career progression. We know that other pilots won't advance ahead of us by flying broken airplanes, in marginal weather, pushing duty limits, or taking inappropriate risks to complete the schedule.

Management doesn't want to abandon seniority because, to them, we are identical interchangeable parts that they want to manage with as little effort and cost as possible. They want no part in attempting to competitively rate us nor dealing with the inevitable protests of those rating decisions. They like the current system where they publish schedules for flights, vacation, and training and we sort out which peg fills which hole with almost no effort on their part. They like the current system where one manager can oversee hundreds of subordinates without even being able to recognize most of them if they pass in the hallway.

I have no personal knowledge, but this theory observation strikes me as spot-on. Is there any way that a system that allows for lateral transfers could exist that protects the interests of both sides?

 

[Alexb2000]

I have no personal knowledge, but this theory strikes me as spot-on. Is there any way that a system that allows for lateral transfers could exist that protects the interests of both sides?

IMO the concern isn't one pilot changing airlines. It's an old airline going out of business (as they often trend to do) and suddenly a huge group of senior pilots show up at your airline pushing you back to Jr. FO working every Christmas.

 

[ClimbnSink]

IMO the concern isn't one pilot changing airlines. It's an old airline going out of business (as they often trend to do) and suddenly a huge group of senior pilots show up at your airline pushing you back to Jr. FO working every Christmas.

So because it is a volatile industry pilots put everything on one bet. and we let these people fly planes?

 

[dmspilot]

It's an old airline going out of business (as they often trend to do) and suddenly a huge group of senior pilots show up at your airline pushing you back to Jr. FO working every Christmas.

How would that happen unless the new airline didn't need the pilots, in which case why would they hire them?

 

[Alexb2000]

How would that happen unless the new airline didn't need the pilots, in which case why would they hire them?

Lateral transfer means you keep your seniority, otherwise starting over is like it is today. Keeping your seniority means when you take your spot on the list at your new airline everyone below you gets pushed down perhaps out of a captains slot. Look at the effects of these mergers.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Us professional pilots do not think it would be better for us. We have enough experience in the profession to understand how management would use this new power against us.

What new power? There is NO component of this that is entered by management. None. The computer will spit out a number, and that number can be used everywhere that the seniority number currently is.

We understand the limitations of the current system very well because we live with them everyday. We also understand that, even with its flaws, it is the best system so far devised--and a lot of us have been thinking about this for many decades.

That is meaningless when it comes to coming up with a better system. Sooner or later, there will be a better system that comes along, and by then you'll have been thinking about it for even more decades. That doesn't mean that seniority will be any better then.

 

[dmspilot]

Lateral transfer means you keep your seniority, otherwise starting over is like it is today. Keeping your seniority means when you take your spot on the list at your new airline everyone below you gets pushed down perhaps out of a captains slot. Look at the effects of these mergers.

You didn't say merger in your example, you just said an airline closed and a different airline hired the unemployed pilots. The problem you cited is always a problem in mergers regardless of whether seniority is used or not.

 

[Larry in TN]

Is there any way that a system that allows for lateral transfers could exist that protects the interests of both sides?

None that we've found yet. If we had, we would be pushing hard (through our unions) to get it.

Not too sure about the "both sides" part. Management doesn't want new-hires going anywhere but the bottom of the list at the lowest pay rate.

What new power? There is NO component of this that is entered by management. None. The computer will spit out a number, and that number can be used everywhere that the seniority number currently is.

The computer can't spit out a number unless someone first enters the data.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

The computer can't spit out a number unless someone first enters the data.

Well, someone is already entering your hire date, so that's even true of seniority.

But in reality, there wouldn't be any more manual entry by management under my proposed system than there already is:

1) Your hire date is already in the computer. Years of service is easily calculated from there. Boom, #1 done.

2) Your hours already have to go in the computer for payroll. Flight experience is easily calculated from there. The only difference would be that someone would need to enter that number for new hires that are coming from a different airline. Boom, #2 done.

3) Whatever the skill system is, would simply be programmed with the weights and look directly at data output from the sims, with the option of having the sim instructor give a bonus. No management input whatsoever.

4) Web interface for all employees to use to evaluate each other. That goes into the meat grinder with no intervention from management, and is automatically normalized to the reviewer's biases. No management input whatsoever.

Really, to me the "merit" and "cross-evaluation" portions aren't as important as just getting a start at job portability for pilots. What about 60% years of service and 40% experience? That way, someone who has 25,000 hours and is suddenly out of a job thanks to a bankrupt airline or needs to change jobs for whatever reason would be slotted about at the same level as someone with 10 years of service and 10,000 hours.

 

[PPC1052]

Well, someone is already entering your hire date, so that's even true of seniority.

But in reality, there wouldn't be any more manual entry by management under my proposed system than there already is:

1) Your hire date is already in the computer. Years of service is easily calculated from there. Boom, #1 done.

2) Your hours already have to go in the computer for payroll. Flight experience is easily calculated from there. The only difference would be that someone would need to enter that number for new hires that are coming from a different airline. Boom, #2 done.

3) Whatever the skill system is, would simply be programmed with the weights and look directly at data output from the sims, with the option of having the sim instructor give a bonus. No management input whatsoever.

4) Web interface for all employees to use to evaluate each other. That goes into the meat grinder with no intervention from management, and is automatically normalized to the reviewer's biases. No management input whatsoever.

Really, to me the "merit" and "cross-evaluation" portions aren't as important as just getting a start at job portability for pilots. What about 60% years of service and 40% experience? That way, someone who has 25,000 hours and is suddenly out of a job thanks to a bankrupt airline or needs to change jobs for whatever reason would be slotted about at the same level as someone with 10 years of service and 10,000 hours.

A system where I can mostly anonymously rate down my competitors so less people are likely to get the bonuses and routes I want? Sweet. Sign me up!

Me filling out evaluations: Why do all these co-pilots suck? Zero, zero, zero, zero, one, zero. Wait, that prior one was supposed to be a zero.

Me reading my evaluations: Zero, zero, zero, zero, zero. Who are all these ass holes blackballing me!?!?

 

[flyingcheesehead]

A system where I can mostly anonymously rate down my competitors so less people are likely to get the bonuses and routes I want? Sweet. Sign me up!

Me filling out evaluations: Why do all these co-pilots suck? Zero, zero, zero, zero, one, zero. Wait, that prior one was supposed to be a zero.

Me reading my evaluations: Zero, zero, zero, zero, zero. Who are all these ass holes blackballing me!?!?

If you read back to where I posted more details about that part, you'd understand that anyone who gives 0's to everyone (or 10's to everyone for that matter) would not be counted at all. It's not hard at all to normalize these things.

 

[PPC1052]

If you read back to where I posted more details about that part, you'd understand that anyone who gives 0's to everyone (or 10's to everyone for that matter) would not be counted at all. It's not hard at all to normalize these things.

I know. I am only amusing myself. But if everyone feels the same way, I suppose you could have a race to the bottom.