No more Brasilias at SkyWest...

OK, lets look at this another way. Lets say Debbie, an accountant, has been working for me 20 years. She is adequate and does her job well. I hired Lauren 4 years ago, and Lauren is outstanding. The customers love her, and she is one of the best accountants that I have ever seen. Debbie rarely makes mistakes, but if she does, Lauren catches them every time. I need two accountants, but I want to make one the "senior accountant". If I promote Debbie over Lauren, I would be doing a disservice to Lauren. What motivation does she have to do such a good job? If she considers herself to be just another cog in the machine, there is none. I have no reason to fire Debbie, but Lauren is just much better.

I have seen many businesses that run based on the seniority system. I have never seen one work. Can you give me an example of a successful major corporation that uses this? I am not talking about a $1 million dollar company. I wouldn't get out of bed to go and run one of those. I mean $1billion +.

I can give you hundreds of examples of them failing.
 
Last edited:
The problem is that you consider it acceptable to keep Debbie around for 20 years when she clearly is nothing more than "adequate." Probably because you know that you can get away with only paying Debbie 70% of what you'd pay a truly good employee. As I said, bad management. Debbie should have been counseled a long time ago to improve her performance, and if she failed to do so, she should have been shown the door to make room for someone who is more than "adequate." Successful companies don't settle for adequacy.
 
Sure they do. All companies do. Find someone that will work well in that job, and put them in it. Let them do the job. There are very few people that truly excel at any one thing. It would be a waste to have two of them, not to mention fiscally irresponsible, if I did not need two of them. In a perfect world where all things are equal, sure. But this world isn't like that.

OK, curious. If you really believed this, your turnover rate would have to be several hundred percent. You are saying that every time that I find an employee that is better than the ones that have been there longer, you fire everyone that has been there longer rather than promote the best person directly? That really is what you are saying.

In your model, if my airline hires a new FO that is the best pilot that anyone has ever seen - the illegitimate child of Chuck Yager, Jimmy Dolittle, and Noel Wien combined - then they should fire every other pilot my airline has? If the new guy is better than everyone else, then it must be everyone else's fault. "All of the old pilots should have been counseled a long time ago to improve ther performance, and if they failed to do so, they should have been shown the door to make room for someone who is more than "adequate."
 
crfguy51 said:
Okay, this is a cool website. Yada, yada..... but it's threads like this (and a few of the posters contained within) that make me want to toss my computing device out the window and never come back.

That is all. Good day.
Click to expand...

Meh, discussions are fun. We can't all sit around agreeing all the time. Only talking to people who agree with you is bad for your personal growth. Sharing of ideas is important.
 
Boyington said:
Sure they do. All companies do. Find someone that will work well in that job, and put them in it. Let them do the job. There are very few people that truly excel at any one thing. It would be a waste to have two of them, not to mention fiscally irresponsible, if I did not need two of them. In a perfect world where all things are equal, sure. But this world isn't like that.
Click to expand...

You keep changing your terms to suit your argument. Suddenly someone who was merely "adequate" now "works well." If she "works well" as a junior accountant, then she'll "work well" as a senior accountant. Your refusal to provide her with that opportunity after she's worked for you the longest just because someone else kissed your ass more is the reason that so many companies are stuck in mediocrity. The employee who was in line for that promotion and pay raise was passed over in favor of a junior employee who was skilled in the art of kissing the boss's ass, so the employee who was a good employee is now pissed off and her performance degrades. Companies that focus on treating employees well and giving them opportunities for advancement excel. Companies that stick to old ideas of employee relations stagnate.

OK, curious. If you really believed this, your turnover rate would have to be several hundred percent.
Click to expand...

Negative. If you're hiring employees that aren't capable of advancing, then you are the failure because you didn't select good employees. This is an employer's market. I have people with marketable graduate degrees applying for entry-level positions because the job market still hasn't rebounded. In this market, if you can't find solid employees that are capable of advancing when their number comes up, then you are the problem.

In your model, if my airline hires a new FO that is the best pilot that anyone has ever seen - the illegitimate child of Chuck Yager, Jimmy Dolittle, and Noel Wien combined - then they should fire every other pilot my airline has? If the new guy is better than everyone else, then it must be everyone else's fault. "All of the old pilots should have been counseled a long time ago to improve ther performance, and if they failed to do so, they should have been shown the door to make room for someone who is more than "adequate."
Click to expand...

Please explain to me how to accurately quantify the "best pilot that anyone has ever seen." Pilots are interchangeable. They either meet the acceptable standard or they don't work for the airline. What you're essentially advocating is knowingly keeping copilots at the airline who you wouldn't trust to give the opportunity to upgrade to the left seat. Is that a safe operation? Is that a smart business decision? Of course not. But you advocate for it.
 
PhilosopherPilot said:
Meh, discussions are fun. We can't all sit around agreeing all the time. Only talking to people who agree with you is bad for your personal growth. Sharing of ideas is important.
Click to expand...

I would like to know how you shared the substance behind your ideas here? All I saw was a middle school personal attack of 'oooohhhh guess what I heard.'
 
GypsyPilot said:
I'm certainly not setting foot into the rotating reserve argument...

But one thing I would like is for new hires or just pilots new on equipment to have their first month or two off IOE to be lineholders. The benefits being that you immediately get a lot of experience while everything you just learned is still fresh. The reason I say this is that when I was new at SkyWest (and on the Brasilia), I was on reserve for the first couple of months and hardly flew. I barely made the OE requirement, and even had to call crew support as I was worried I'd dequal. When I was called for a flight, I had to study flows just to make sure I remembered what to do! But once I was a lineholder, I was really able to nail a lot of stuff down quickly with the consistent flying.

I remember hearing that Southwest does this with new hires, but have never verified it... Anybody know if this is true? @ZapBrannigan
Click to expand...

At my place if you haven't met the OE requirement and are on reserve you get assigned open time first. Works well to meet that requirement, keeps the person new to the aircraft proficient, and it protects the senior line holders.
 
Seggy said:
At my place if you haven't met the OE requirement and are on reserve you get assigned open time first. Works well to meet that requirement, keeps the person new to the aircraft proficient, and it protects the senior line holders.
Click to expand...

We did something similar back in the days when we were hiring, before the evil Tex-ass overlords came along. If you were projected to have less than 90 hours by the end of your third month, you got priority assignment of open time to make sure you got the time within the 120 days.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
The problem is that you consider it acceptable to keep Debbie around for 20 years when she clearly is nothing more than "adequate." Probably because you know that you can get away with only paying Debbie 70% of what you'd pay a truly good employee. As I said, bad management. Debbie should have been counseled a long time ago to improve her performance, and if she failed to do so, she should have been shown the door to make room for someone who is more than "adequate." Successful companies don't settle for adequacy.
Click to expand...

Its not that hard to understand what he is saying, unless you see everything is seen in black and white. Some workers are good, some are better, some are best. Not everyone gets a trophy. Some workers have a higher ceiling than others, and/or are better suited for leadership positions compared to their peers. If you could score them they may be a 10/10, compared to their peers of 8/10 that are more tenured. Experience is a factor in deciding promotions and advancement, but its not the ONLY factor. Case in point, our president was chosen by the people having the least experience in the modern era entering the WH. Not getting into a political debate, just pointing out that the working world very rarely runs purely of seniority.

Now an NFL sports analogy: a team has 2 running backs on the team and they are both very productive and good players. The pro-bowl uber gifted running back has fewer years in the NFL, should he be the starter or backup? Any coach that would select the later wouldn't likely win as many games, or be coach very long.
 
cactusjuba said:
Now an NFL sports analogy: a team has 2 running backs on the team and they are both very productive and good players. The pro-bowl uber gifted running back has fewer years in the NFL, should he be the starter or backup? Any coach that would select the later wouldn't likely win as many games, or be coach very long.
Click to expand...

Sports don't compare to other fields. In sports, there are easily quantifiable metrics for making such determinations. That is almost never the case in other professions. Instead, "merit" becomes "who kisses the boss's ass the most," or "who has the biggest tits," or "who does the boss just get along with better." There are exceptions. Salesmen can be very easily quantified, for example. I would have no problem handing out better territory or bigger bonuses to the salesman who pulls in the most in sales, because that's a very easy thing to quantify fairly. But when it comes to most fields, it doesn't work. It just results in favoritism rearing its ugly head, or worse, racism, sexism, ageism, etc.
 
Everything is quantifiable, if you care to take the time and look.

Who does the most work in a given time? Who's work is better? Who never makes a mistake? Who works better with their coworkers? Who goes the extra mile and does more than the minimum required work? Who learns an additional job? Who goes out of their way to help a new employee that may be having a difficult time? Who sees a problem and fixes it without being directed? Who has the ability to do more than the work that they are currently assigned? Who answered their phone at 8pm when there is an emergency at work? Who is willing to stay late when they have to? Who showers every day before work and wears clean clothes? Who abides by all of the office policies?

Who will do best in the job? That is all that matters. Basing promotions on longevity is just as unfair as agism, nepotism, etc...
 
Virtually all of what you list isn't quantifiable. In fact, I'd say that you don't understand the meaning of the word based on your list. Your criteria are almost all subjective, making them impossible to quantify. I can't generate a statistic for "who's [sic] work is better." That's a subjective criteria.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top