CastofThousands

[dime line]

Here once again you proved the facts you post are incorrect. More Union jobs were lost than Non Union jobs.

Also, FLOPS laid off 200+ NON UNION pilots

 

[rajflyboy]

Also, FLOPS laid off 200+ NON UNION pilots

I have no clue on Options and how they furloughed.

 

[dime line]

I have no clue on Options and how they furloughed.

I do....

 

[fischman]

B19 = 7777

 

[7777]

B19 = 7777

Ass Hat:

A general term for someone who carries on with such stupidity that they might as well wear their ass as a hat.

I have been in the Army the last 24 years. Sorry to ruin your theory.

Keep walking towards the light fischman, B-19 will get you out.

 

[rajflyboy]

Ass Hat:

A general term for someone who carries on with such stupidity that they might as well wear their ass as a hat.

I have been in the Army the last 24 years. Sorry to ruin your theory.

Keep walking towards the light fischman, B-19 will get you out.

What light is that?

The work 16 hours a day and get paid 45 thousand a year to be the captain of a corporate jet light ??

No thanks. I'd rather be a Walmart Manager.

 

[7777]

7777, the fat lady hasn't sung quite yet, but if history is accurate and repeats itself like I've been saying for years, what you say above is spot on.

I can't wait to see the FLOPS pilots begin the predicted whining about comparing the NJ contract and the FLOPS contract. That will provide great entertainment for years to come. Funny how the non-union fracs just keep chugging along, eh?

Thank you as always for your support.

I agree with bits and pieces from both sides. However, overall I feel your argument was correct. They (FI NetJet posters) were all saying that the mighty NetJets would never fail, yet they have. They would never furlough, yet they have. Their union would protect their employees and yet there are 495 pilots and who knows how many others, on the street. Now another round of furloughs coming next week? That is what I just heard from two furloughed NetJet pilots I met recently. You were absolutely right.

I got a good laugh out of whomever said it would have been different if RTS were still around....really? How? He was fired by WB from his own company!

 

[HiSpeedFlyer]

I agree with bits and pieces from both sides. However, overall I feel your argument was correct. They (FI NetJet posters) were all saying that the mighty NetJets would never fail, yet they have. They would never furlough, yet they have. Their union would protect their employees and yet there are 495 pilots and who knows how many others, on the street. Now another round of furloughs coming next week? That is what I just heard from two furloughed NetJet pilots I met recently. You were absolutely right.

I got a good laugh out of whomever said it would have been different if RTS were still around....really? How? He was fired by WB from his own company!

Yawn, how droll. Should we tell him his Netjet pilot sources are incorrect?
Instead of answering my buddy B on this post, you may want to just tap him on the shoulder when you pass his cubicle. So you guys can get your stories straight.

Hey B, I'm in PIE next week.. wanna do lunch? My treat.

 

[7777]

If my sources are incorrect, well then someone in their company gave them the wrong information. I would believe them (furloughed NetJets pilots) before I would believe anything written on this board.

Also, if there are no more furloughs for NetJets, then I am very happy to read it. That would be GREAT news. Again, I will wait to hear it from a credible source.

You can PM B and let him know.

 

[Jack Campbell]

Be happy, then. For now, the news is good!

 

[FLYLOW22]

I have been in the Army the last 24 years. Sorry to ruin your theory.

Air Force

http://www.cslab.ece.ntua.gr/~jdros/humor/AirForceVsArmy_1.jpg

Army

http://www.cslab.ece.ntua.gr/~jdros/humor/AirForceVsArmy_2.jpg

 

[realityman]

I agree with bits and pieces from both sides. However, overall I feel your argument was correct. They (FI NetJet posters) were all saying that the mighty NetJets would never fail, yet they have. Uh, no we haven't. Last time I checked, we're still here. Still the biggest (by far). On track this year to being quite profitable. Actual growth? Who knows. Had to cut back some, but how many fracs didn't? Just one that I know of. Pretty much union and non-union alike scaled back some. But so far we've all pulled through the worst (so far) of the economy. How is that failure? They would never furlough, yet they have. True, some here have said we would never furlough. But not all of us. I myself have even pointed out that Netjets had furloughed in the past (in its EJA days). Anyway, most folks here (including myself) are not official spokespersons for NJA management. Anyone with half a brain on this website (a rare breed, I know) could tell you that anyone who said we would NEVER furlough was guessing, and being unrealistically optimistic. Their union would protect their employees and yet there are 495 pilots and who knows how many others, on the street. Hate to break it to you, but our union has done a stellar job of protecting our pilot group. No matter what our union does or did, it was ALWAYS up to management to furlough or not. But our union put up one hell of a fight to try and keep pilots on property (not our union's job to look after the non-union employees). While it's incredibly sad that we had 495 furloughed, we have taken no wage cuts, no reduction in benefits, no downgrades in hotels, etc....Grievances are WAY down, as are discipline actions against the pilot group. This is all thanks to our union and their continued enforcement of our contract (a union's primary purpose) and it's ability to effectively look after it's membership (a union's secondary purpose). Now another round of furloughs coming next week? Nope. That is what I just heard from two furloughed NetJet pilots I met recently. They were wrong or misinformed. Not that more furloughs can't or won't happen in the future, but for now, things are stable. You were absolutely right. Nope.

I got a good laugh out of whomever said it would have been different if RTS were still around....really? How? We be out of business right now. Can't argue with that one. He was fired by WB from his own company! Sadly true.

Our union has done, and is doing, exactly what it's supposed to be doing, and doing it very well. If we have enough pilots to crew 500 planes, but only enough business for 400 planes, no union on Earth, no matter how good, can keep the maanagement bean counters from recognizing that a certain percentage of pilots aren't needed and have to go. Not sure how you consider furloughs to be the fault of the union. It was, in fact, MANAGEMENT who overhired, and ultimately had to reduce the workforce because of it. B's tired old blame-placing on our CBA's required staffing levels have NOTHING to do with the fact that the previous management team hired WAY beyond that, creating a very sad situation for those that were let go. Not the union's fault no matter how you spin it.

 

[B19 Flyer]

Our union has done, and is doing, exactly what it's supposed to be doing, and doing it very well. If we have enough pilots to crew 500 planes, but only enough business for 400 planes, no union on Earth, no matter how good, can keep the maanagement bean counters from recognizing that a certain percentage of pilots aren't needed and have to go. Not sure how you consider furloughs to be the fault of the union. It was, in fact, MANAGEMENT who overhired, and ultimately had to reduce the workforce because of it. B's tired old blame-placing on our CBA's required staffing levels have NOTHING to do with the fact that the previous management team hired WAY beyond that, creating a very sad situation for those that were let go. Not the union's fault no matter how you spin it.

Too funny.... the only formula on how many pilots a company hires comes directly from the contract. Nothing more. The "bean counters" are smart enough to only hire the minimum staffing.

There isn't a union in the world that will not protect the top two thirds of the seniority list and cast away the rest.

 

[B19 Flyer]

Here once again you proved the facts you post are incorrect. More Union jobs were lost than Non Union jobs.

You didn't answer the question. I asked how many non-union jobs were cut before any union jobs were touched.

Those people lost their jobs first because of the high cost of the union contract. That's how it always happens.

I didn't ask how many, only the order of which it happened.

 

[rajflyboy]

Our union has done, and is doing, exactly what it's supposed to be doing, and doing it very well. If we have enough pilots to crew 500 planes, but only enough business for 400 planes, no union on Earth, no matter how good, can keep the maanagement bean counters from recognizing that a certain percentage of pilots aren't needed and have to go. Not sure how you consider furloughs to be the fault of the union. It was, in fact, MANAGEMENT who overhired, and ultimately had to reduce the workforce because of it. B's tired old blame-placing on our CBA's required staffing levels have NOTHING to do with the fact that the previous management team hired WAY beyond that, creating a very sad situation for those that were let go. Not the union's fault no matter how you spin it.

most of your statement is correct however you left out the very poor communication part? How did you miss that?