Delta ponders pilot sources (Flightglobal article)

Here's a scenario you might want to think about with a "merit-based" system.

The dispatcher gives you X fuel.

In your experience and interpretation of the weather situation, you want X+Y fuel.

If you land make your destination and didn't need Y, then you wasted company resources despite what your dispatcher thought.

If you end up diverting or holding and land with Y+minimum IFR reserves, you're a hero.

Same decision, same weather, but two entirely different outcomes for judging your decision.
 
Nick said:
That is assuming a lot.

If the whole point of a merit-based system is to only promote someone who the company wants to be in the position, then who is to say the company would not hesitate to demote someone for the opposite reason?
Click to expand...

Who's to say they shouldn't be demoted? Obviously that's a fine line to walk and I'm mostly speaking as the devil's advocate now, but I can imagine points where captains should be put back in the right seat for the more serious issues. Again, it's not fair, but it's not meant to be. It's meant to promote the best possible candidates for the job.

Doug Taylor said:
Here's a scenario you might want to think about with a "merit-based" system.

The dispatcher gives you X fuel.

In your experience and interpretation of the weather situation, you want X+Y fuel.

If you land make your destination and didn't need Y, then you wasted company resources despite what your dispatcher thought.

If you end up diverting or holding and land with Y+minimum IFR reserves, you're a hero.

Same decision, same weather, but two entirely different outcomes for judging your decision.
Click to expand...

Well... I currently work for a company with a merit-based upgrade, and guys tack on "Captain's Fuel" all day long. I know there could be some worst-case scenarios, but I can assure you that it doesn't go down like that (at least here).
 
I've heard of an airline that has a few dispatchers that like to make notes like "Captain requested X amount of fuel at $Y/lbs for a total of $$$$$" when you question the fuel loading.

It just leaves you too wide open to regime changes.
 
Doug Taylor said:
I've heard of an airline that has a few dispatchers that like to make notes like "Captain requested X amount of fuel at $Y/lbs for a total of $$$$$" when you question the fuel loading.

It just leaves you too wide open to regime changes.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's crap and a half.
 
dasleben said:
It's meant to promote the best possible candidates for the job.
Click to expand...

How would you do that with a pilot group that is 3K or 11K. You and Mike keep talking about the "Whole Pilot" and the "Best Pilot" but still will not tell me want makes someone a "Whole Pilot".
 
dasleben said:
Who's to say they shouldn't be demoted? Obviously that's a fine line to walk and I'm mostly speaking as the devil's advocate now, but I can imagine points where captains should be put back in the right seat for the more serious issues. Again, it's not fair, but it's not meant to be. It's meant to promote the best possible candidates for the job.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying they should not be demoted (obviously this would depend on just what happened and how bad it was but that's another discussion).

Just saying that the vacancy theory presented by mshunter is not necessary for seat changes under a merit based system.
 
Gonzo said:
How would you do that with a pilot group that is 3K or 11K. You and Mike keep talking about the "Whole Pilot" and the "Best Pilot" but still will not tell me want makes someone a "Whole Pilot".
Click to expand...

I'm really not sure how to describe it better than I already have. Both of us know that being a good captain is not something you can quantify. You can't say "XXX has 6000 hours, so he'll be a good captain," just like you can't say that flying a tight ILS would make you a good captain. It must be subjective and based on the candidate's overall experience/judgment/talents. This subjective decision would have to be made by multiple people (people higher in the food chain) who can attest to the candidate's ability to be a good captain. As much as it would irk some, it has to be a "I know it when I see it" philosophy for it to work. You guys keep getting on my back about not laying out concrete examples of what makes someone the best possible candidate, but we all know that it's impossible with this sort of system. In order for it to work, it must be a subjective evaluation of the person's strengths and weaknesses (i.e., a "whole person" evaluation).

How would it work with 3000 or 11000 pilots? Certainly a challenge. I already brought up a couple ideas in a previous post. An actual merit-based system for a large company would take more thought and work than a simple message board post could convey, however. I don't have all the answers, but I think something like this could be realistic if properly controlled (i.e., ensuring that there are enough checks and balances to keep personal conflicts from affecting career progression).
 
dasleben said:
In order for it to work, it must be a subjective evaluation of the person's strengths and weaknesses (i.e., a "whole person" evaluation).
Click to expand...

I agree but also think that is a problem. Lets look at where I work: We have about 3,100 and about 1700 Captains.
If there is only 50-60 upgrades how are you going to take the info of 1,700 to fill only 50-60 seats. If you say you will only take evaluations from a select few of the 1700 then you might bypass someone who just hasn't flown with one of the guys you are taking evaluations from.
 
Gonzo said:
I agree but also think that is a problem. Lets look at where I work: We have about 3,100 and about 1700 Captains.
If there is only 50-60 upgrades how are you going to take the info of 1,700 to fill only 50-60 seats. If you say you will only take evaluations from a select few of the 1700 then you might bypass someone who just hasn't flown with one of the guys you are taking evaluations from.
Click to expand...

I would think a "know it when you see it" evaluation system will encounter basic problems when it comes to splitting hairs: "Jim is damn good in the sim, but everyone knows he's a loudmouth jerk. Mike is almost as good in the sim plus he's a really cool guy to fly with for 4 hours. Let's upgrade Mike." Or, "Jim is good but I disapprove of his work history before he got to our airline." It's human nature to want to promote people you like more.
 
FL900 said:
Who said "death to unions"? Not me. I say death to the idea of the federal government being given the power to force everyone in a given profession into a union and a nationwide seniority list. Which amendment was that?
Click to expand...

Ah, so you're personal liberty is at stake well then never mind.

FL900 said:
Maybe I missed something here, but who else besides the government would have the authority to impose the operating condition and approve the list? If I start a new 121 operation and I don't want to participate in this crap, who is going to make me? The only answer I can think of is government.
Click to expand...

Where as others didn't want the government in the middle of this I have no problem. What I proposed had absolute federal implications.

I do agree with Doug-e-fresh that perhaps it would be easier if you would not get upset over make believe situations.
 
dasleben said:
The metrics would have to be subjective for such a system to work. We can all agree that being a good captain is not an objective thing; it's more than passing a checkride, and it's more than supporting your crew. IMO, the decision should reflect that. It rewards the good, and keeps weak pilots out of the left seat.
Click to expand...

In other words, nepotism and cronyism? In most large airlines most line pilots never meet, fly with, or talk to any management pilots simply because there are so many of one and so few of the other.
 
SpiraMirabilis said:
In other words, nepotism and cronyism? In most large airlines most line pilots never meet, fly with, or talk to any management pilots simply because there are so many of one and so few of the other.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure how you're twisting my words into that. I feel I've been more than clear what the system should entail.
 
By the way guys, I've worked for a large airline (3000+ pilots), and realize there would be issues when designing a new system with that number of pilots. This would take work, but would actually reward those who work harder at their jobs. Ask yourself this: Why should your career progression be hindered in order to provide a "fair" shot for someone who only does enough work to barely pass his/her checkrides? Is it fair to you, or fair to them?
 
dasleben said:
By the way guys, I've worked for a large airline (3000+ pilots), and realize there would be issues when designing a new system with that number of pilots. This would take work, but would actually reward those who work harder at their jobs. Ask yourself this: Why should your career progression be hindered in order to provide a "fair" shot for someone who only does enough work to barely pass his/her checkrides? Is it fair to you, or fair to them?
Click to expand...

There's pro's and con's to every system. Unfotunately the definition of hardwork would be easily blurred and the so call favorites would get the upgrades then. THese would be the pilots that push the limits and fly in the gray areas at mgmts request. Those that followed the letter of the law would be labled as problem makers, slackers, etc
 
dasleben said:
By the way guys, I've worked for a large airline (3000+ pilots), and realize there would be issues when designing a new system with that number of pilots. This would take work, but would actually reward those who work harder at their jobs. Ask yourself this: Why should your career progression be hindered in order to provide a "fair" shot for someone who only does enough work to barely pass his/her checkrides? Is it fair to you, or fair to them?
Click to expand...

Maybe I am one of those guys that does barely enough to get by, but I just don't see how someone can work harder then me. I show up to work in uniform and on time, do my job(even add an OT turn sometimes), and go home. When at work I care about safety, my crew, customer service, company money in that order. My guess is 90% of my fellow FOs do the same.
 
dasleben said:
By the way guys, I've worked for a large airline (3000+ pilots), and realize there would be issues when designing a new system with that number of pilots. This would take work, but would actually reward those who work harder at their jobs. Ask yourself this: Why should your career progression be hindered in order to provide a "fair" shot for someone who only does enough work to barely pass his/her checkrides? Is it fair to you, or fair to them?
Click to expand...

I agree with you, but I don't think it's plausible. That being said, I think there should be more opportunities to stand out by collateral duties. There is so much work in this industry that demands line pilot expertise, yet it's usually accomplished by people who rarely get out into the real world. This type of work (procedures, implementing new technology, cost-saving initiatives, etc.) should be posted like open flying: if you have the ability to do it, you get some trips dropped and go at it. There are way too many administrative levels at some operations. A lot of the work could easily be accomplished by a motivated and intelligent line pilot.
 
C150J said:
I agree with you, but I don't think it's plausible. That being said, I think there should be more opportunities to stand out by collateral duties. There is so much work in this industry that demands line pilot expertise, yet it's usually accomplished by people who rarely get out into the real world. This type of work (procedures, implementing new technology, cost-saving initiatives, etc.) should be posted like open flying: if you have the ability to do it, you get some trips dropped and go at it. There are way too many administrative levels at some operations. A lot of the work could easily be accomplished by a motivated and intelligent line pilot.
Click to expand...

Very slippery slope...Mgmt drops a trip for me to do office work? no who is paying for my hotel in base? Lost per diem etc. I would rather fight with mgmt issues than sit in the puzzle palace and shuffle papers. Now what is also to stop the arse kissers from flying 85 hours then doing another 20 in the office? Completely not doable for the family guy and commuter pilot...
 
Bandit_Driver said:
Very slippery slope...Mgmt drops a trip for me to do office work? no who is paying for my hotel in base? Lost per diem etc. I would rather fight with mgmt issues than sit in the puzzle palace and shuffle papers. Now what is also to stop the arse kissers from flying 85 hours then doing another 20 in the office? Completely not doable for the family guy and commuter pilot...
Click to expand...

What about getting the trip dropped with pay and being able to accomplish the work from home? I actually did that at my previous operation as an instructor (before going "fullish" time) and it was quite nice: paid, $250 instructor override, and at home.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top