NetJets Unrest Puts Warren Buffett in a Rare Pinch

[Pervis]

You're never needed until you're needed.
Like you, I don't get the temp ACP thing
Does your CBA not mention that you must be realaistically scheduled to arrive home on last day? It can certainly be cheaper to pay the aftermidnight then ferry you home a few hours....but that wouldn't honor the CBA.
Wasteful spending? It's the cost of doing business. If there's an open tail that you can get to, 98/100 times you'll go to it...day 1, or day 6. Crew at the hotel with a tail in mx is of zero use to covering trips when there are other uncrewed tails. Plain and simple.

The CBA does not require extremes to get us home or we would not have after midnight language. The intent of the CBA is to give scheduling incentive to see that we get home through common sense scheduling, not avoid after midnighs at all costs. Multiple legs into known weather followed by a couple legs on an airline simply indicates poor staffing and planning.

A airline to cover a jet on day six for one hour, after the flight home is already booked for a ten hour turn after arrival is not utilization. It fills the square. Bottom line is we are way short staffed.

I am very familiar with the nature of on demand service. The waste today is no better than during the boom of the last decade. In fact it is worse in many aspects. Yet every effort to avoid paying the crews is made when the plan falls apart.

 

[fischman]

You're never needed until you're needed.

Like you, I don't get the temp ACP thing

Does your CBA not mention that you must be realaistically scheduled to arrive home on last day? It can certainly be cheaper to pay the aftermidnight then ferry you home a few hours....but that wouldn't honor the CBA.

Wasteful spending? It's the cost of doing business. If there's an open tail that you can get to, 98/100 times you'll go to it...day 1, or day 6. Crew at the hotel with a tail in mx is of zero use to covering trips when there are other uncrewed tails. Plain and simple.

The CBA does not state that. It only says that if we aren't returned home by midnight, there is a monetary penalty for the company.

In many cases, it is way cheaper for the company to pay the after midnight than the cost they spend to get us home. The only logic for 3 ferry legs to get a crewmember home is that the idea of paying us an after midnight is so nauseating that they would rather drop $10,000 than give us an extra $2000.

Besides, they need to have a reason to cry poor when we demand $250,000 a year (which they can easily afford).

 

[Hawkered]

If I was in charge, it would have been done a long time ago. I'd have exercised the three year extension option and started work on a new agreement during that three year period.

Have you guys ever given any thought to challenging the basic premise that all air carrier operations have to be covered under the RLA? The original intent of the RLA was to prevent strikes in essential transportation industries like railroads or airlines, but I think everyone would be hard pressed to argue that NetJets is essential to public transportation in the US.

Whether we are covered under the RLA or the rules of Marcus of Queensbury, it doesn't matter; you just need to sit down and get it done before the place disintegrates!

 

[FamilyGuy]

Whether we are covered under the RLA or the rules of Marcus of Queensbury, it doesn't matter; you just need to sit down and get it done before the place disintegrates!

I wish I could, but I'm not involved in the negotiations.

I do agree with your sentiment though. If they don't get it resolved quickly I fear there will be irreparable damage to the company and brand.

 

[realityman]

Something needs to be made very clear at this point.

It is NOT the union holding up negotiations and dragging this thing out.

I don't care if you're pro-union, anti-union, somewhere in between or just don't care. There is no denying who is behind the fact that this isn't getting done.

For starters, the union has repeatedly requested, and made clear, that we are ready to negotiate more than just the one week every month the company has decided is appropriate. Heck, we're prepared to be at the table every single day of every month if the company wanted to move this along. There is NOTHING stopping us from expediting the process EXCEPT an intransigent management team who, in spite of the fact that they keep putting out communications on how it's the union dragging things out, refuses to meet with us more than one week a month. And please don't tell me it's because they are negotiating with four different groups simultaneously. That's a pretty lame excuse. This is a multi-billion dollar company, and they can only find a total of five people to do negotiations? Ah, riiiiiiiiiiighht.

Second, in order for this to get done, the involved parties have to actually be willing to negotiate. The company, up to this point, has shown a stunning stubbornness to actually making any real negotiating progress. Negotiations occur when both parties throw out offers on a section, then adjust those offers as negotiations go on until an agreeable point is reached. For example, when it comes to wages the company might say, "We want you to take a 5% pay cut.". The union may counter with, "Actually we were thinking about a 100% raise.". Then the back and forth begins and maybe we end up with a 50% raise and two less days worked every month, or a 90% raise with more days worked. (Please don't get hung up on the numbers. They do not reflect what may actually be presented or what I would accept. This is for example purposes only)

But what's actually happening is something like this:

Company: We want you to take a 5% pay cut.

Union: No. But we'll take a 100% pay raise.

Company: No way. It has to be a 5% pay cut.

Union: No, but here's a counter offer of 95% pay raise and an hour less of required duty every day.

Company: No. Here's our counteroffer- 5% pay cut.

Union: No, but how about an 85% pay raise and one less day worked every month.

Company: No. Our counter offer is a 5% pay cut.

Do you see why this isn't getting done? One of the parties involved (I'll let you guess which one) isn't really negotiating. It really doesn't matter whether you think the union and/or company's demands are unreasonable. The fact is, one of the parties involved simply will not move off its unreasonable demands to actually reach a middle ground.

So when anyone here says, "They just need to get this done" perhaps a note or two sent to management expresing that sentiment may be time better spent. I know some of you hate our picketing, WSJ ads, social media blitz, and all our other initiatives including operating to the letter of the law. But guess what? All of that is designed to put pressure on the company to move these negotiations along. Again, I know many of you hate this stuff, but if you have any better ideas on how to get the company to "move it along" I'm sure everyone, including our union, would love to hear about it. We only have so many avenues open to us (legally) to try to incentivize the company to get er done. Whether they work or not may be debatable, but at least we're trying. What have you seen the company do to move things along?

 

[Diesel]

Excellent post.

Something else to think about. The company could have probably gotten a contract with basically status quo and concessions with JM. It would have been a win for the company and a loss for us.

Except they were too greedy. They didn't just want status quo they wanted concessions. They wanted big concessions and the pilot group had enough and called for JM's head. If the company had been smart they would have wrapped it up with medicore JM at the controls and got this done.

Yet they only wanted concessions. Greed got the best of them. Now they have a pissed off pilot group and a very aggressive eboard. Oops.

 

[FamilyGuy]

Something needs to be made very clear at this point.

It is NOT the union holding up negotiations and dragging this thing out.

I don't care if you're pro-union, anti-union, somewhere in between or just don't care. There is no denying who is behind the fact that this isn't getting done.

For starters, the union has repeatedly requested, and made clear, that we are ready to negotiate more than just the one week every month the company has decided is appropriate. Heck, we're prepared to be at the table every single day of every month if the company wanted to move this along. There is NOTHING stopping us from expediting the process EXCEPT an intransigent management team who, in spite of the fact that they keep putting out communications on how it's the union dragging things out, refuses to meet with us more than one week a month. And please don't tell me it's because they are negotiating with four different groups simultaneously. That's a pretty lame excuse. This is a multi-billion dollar company, and they can only find a total of five people to do negotiations? Ah, riiiiiiiiiiighht.

Second, in order for this to get done, the involved parties have to actually be willing to negotiate. The company, up to this point, has shown a stunning stubbornness to actually making any real negotiating progress. Negotiations occur when both parties throw out offers on a section, then adjust those offers as negotiations go on until an agreeable point is reached. For example, when it comes to wages the company might say, "We want you to take a 5% pay cut.". The union may counter with, "Actually we were thinking about a 100% raise.". Then the back and forth begins and maybe we end up with a 50% raise and two less days worked every month, or a 90% raise with more days worked. (Please don't get hung up on the numbers. They do not reflect what may actually be presented or what I would accept. This is for example purposes only)

But what's actually happening is something like this:

Company: We want you to take a 5% pay cut.

Union: No. But we'll take a 100% pay raise.

Company: No way. It has to be a 5% pay cut.

Union: No, but here's a counter offer of 95% pay raise and an hour less of required duty every day.

Company: No. Here's our counteroffer- 5% pay cut.

Union: No, but how about an 85% pay raise and one less day worked every month.

Company: No. Our counter offer is a 5% pay cut.

Do you see why this isn't getting done? One of the parties involved (I'll let you guess which one) isn't really negotiating. It really doesn't matter whether you think the union and/or company's demands are unreasonable. The fact is, one of the parties involved simply will not move off its unreasonable demands to actually reach a middle ground.

So when anyone here says, "They just need to get this done" perhaps a note or two sent to management expresing that sentiment may be time better spent. I know some of you hate our picketing, WSJ ads, social media blitz, and all our other initiatives including operating to the letter of the law. But guess what? All of that is designed to put pressure on the company to move these negotiations along. Again, I know many of you hate this stuff, but if you have any better ideas on how to get the company to "move it along" I'm sure everyone, including our union, would love to hear about it. We only have so many avenues open to us (legally) to try to incentivize the company to get er done. Whether they work or not may be debatable, but at least we're trying. What have you seen the company do to move things along?

I think everyone knows it is the company dragging things out. That's what they want. They know the RLA makes it almost impossible to have an impasse declared and the union to be released to self help.

They frankly are planning on wearing everyone down and getting what they want either due to fatigue or (as in the case of the dispatchers) enough attrition leads to people giving up on the union.

The company is using the RLA structure and rules against you. That's why I asked the question earlier about challenging the basic premise that all air carrier operations are governed under the RLA. That's an archaic interpretation and a prime example of where the law has not kept up with industry and innovation. I don't think anyone could show that NetJets is essential to the US Public Transportation system. There are many other alternatives out there for people to use. So why is it governed under laws that basically make it impossible to strike?

The only thing that will force the company to move faster is if they think a strike is imminent. If you can't get to that point under the RLA, then change the game and get yourselves reclassified to the NLRA. Yes, it may be a long shot, but at this point, I think you need to find ways to break the impasse. Otherwise you should settle in for a long protracted fight. Dispatch has been in negotiations for how long now? 5 years?

 

[Diesel]

I think everyone knows it is the company dragging things out. That's what they want. They know the RLA makes it almost impossible to have an impasse declared and the union to be released to self help.

They frankly are planning on wearing everyone down and getting what they want either due to fatigue or (as in the case of the dispatchers) enough attrition leads to people giving up on the union.

The company is using the RLA structure and rules against you. That's why I asked the question earlier about challenging the basic premise that all air carrier operations are governed under the RLA. That's an archaic interpretation and a prime example of where the law has not kept up with industry and innovation. I don't think anyone could show that NetJets is essential to the US Public Transportation system. There are many other alternatives out there for people to use. So why is it governed under laws that basically make it impossible to strike?

The only thing that will force the company to move faster is if they think a strike is imminent. If you can't get to that point under the RLA, then change the game and get yourselves reclassified to the NLRA. Yes, it may be a long shot, but at this point, I think you need to find ways to break the impasse. Otherwise you should settle in for a long protracted fight. Dispatch has been in negotiations for how long now? 5 years?

The company isn't scared when guys like G4Dude say they will cross a strike if they feel the deal is good enough for them. It doesn't matter what the union says. The company knows this and is preying on it.

With this information the company knows all they need is 50% plus 1.

The only good thing that counteracts weak dicks like G4Dude is that there is a large segment of guys that will be retiring soon and they aren't going without a fight. They are disgusted with what is going on and aren't putting up with any BS the company is pulling.

 

[Hawkered]

With a pilot leaving every other day and a bunch on medical leave, they better start worrying about who will be left here to run the place!

 

[FamilyGuy]

The company isn't scared when guys like G4Dude say they will cross a strike if they feel the deal is good enough for them. It doesn't matter what the union says. The company knows this and is preying on it.

With this information the company knows all they need is 50% plus 1.

The only good thing that counteracts weak dicks like G4Dude is that there is a large segment of guys that will be retiring soon and they aren't going without a fight. They are disgusted with what is going on and aren't putting up with any BS the company is pulling.

G4Dude and others who have reservations about the current negotiating tactics are not the core problem. If you can't even get through the RLA negotiation/mediation process and be allowed to strike, then their concerns are irrelevant.

I'd also recommend building bridges and educating team members who are not 100% behind the unions position. Pulling out 19th century tactics like calling people scabs and threatening their future is even more archaic than the RLA rules. These tactics are divisive and undermine your position. They may have worked at the turn of the century, but they have lost their effectiveness over time.

You live in the information age. Update your tactics and educate people. Either you have a compelling message or you do not. If you can't educate them on the need for solidarity in this fight then you need to change your message. This is communication 101 - know your audience and modulate your message until you find something that resonates with them.

 

[Diesel]

G4Dude and others who have reservations about the current negotiating tactics are not the core problem. If you can't even get through the RLA negotiation/mediation process and be allowed to strike, then their concerns are irrelevant.

I'd also recommend building bridges and educating team members who are not 100% behind the unions position. Pulling out 19th century tactics like calling people scabs and threatening their future is even more archaic than the RLA rules. These tactics are divisive and undermine your position. They may have worked at the turn of the century, but they have lost their effectiveness over time.

You live in the information age. Update your tactics and educate people. Either you have a compelling message or you do not. If you can't educate them on the need for solidarity in this fight then you need to change your message. This is communication 101 - know your audience and modulate your message until you find something that resonates with them.

Sorry i started a reply then got wrapped up in something else.

People like G4Dude do hurt our cause because like you said we live in an information age. The company (yourself) is monitoring messsageboards like these and our own union board to find out where our weaknesses are. They are looking for 50 +1.

They have started that by using our own (at one time union brothers) to camp out at our major hubs and spread the word of god. Feel the pulse. See what the pilots are thinking and hit the talking points.

We are in the information age. The company is using everything they can to combat it both legal and illegal.

 

[T-1GUY]

Know thy enemy...

 

[FamilyGuy]

Sorry i started a reply then got wrapped up in something else.

People like G4Dude do hurt our cause because like you said we live in an information age. The company (yourself) is monitoring messsageboards like these and our own union board to find out where our weaknesses are. They are looking for 50 +1.

They have started that by using our own (at one time union brothers) to camp out at our major hubs and spread the word of god. Feel the pulse. See what the pilots are thinking and hit the talking points.

We are in the information age. The company is using everything they can to combat it both legal and illegal.

So? That's been the game for years. The company will always look for 50+1. That's what negotiations are all about.

Both sides are competing to win hearts and minds. My point is that in today's day and age, you are better off using logic and reasoning rather than coercion to accomplish your goal. You complain about the company's heavy-handed tactics in taking hostages, yet you want to do the same thing and use coercion to influence the behavior of your own union members?

I argued against the unions tactics in 2004-2005 as I thought they went overboard and unfairly smeared RTS. This time around you guys should have it easy...you couldn't wish for a better scenario for the union:

1. You have a management team that has a long and well documented history of degrading the brand, abusing employees, destroying key vendor relationships, and alienating owners.

2. You have a CEO who fell into the job, has no passion for aviation, has little to no social skills, almost zero business acumen, zero charisma and vision, and resorts to heavy handed threats as his first course of action.

3. The economy is recovering, the industry has consolidated leaving just two national fractional operations, and the company has reported excellent profits as a result.

4. The company passed on an option to extend the current CBA for three years, and chose to demand concessions from the employees while they are earning record profits.

5. The company has demonstrated repeatedly that they don't want to bargain in good faith - the dispatchers plight should be good fodder for discussion here.

6. The company has been caught spying on the internal union message boards and trying to incite members to illegal actions.

What more could you ask for? This is set up so well for the union to exploit in the negotiations. You cant get a better scenario for your side. If you can't use this to win the hearts and minds of your own members then you need new leaders. Or at least a new campaign strategist.

 

[Diesel]

So? That's been the game for years. The company will always look for 50+1. That's what negotiations are all about.

Both sides are competing to win hearts and minds. My point is that in today's day and age, you are better off using logic and reasoning rather than coercion to accomplish your goal. You complain about the company's heavy-handed tactics in taking hostages, yet you want to do the same thing and use coercion to influence the behavior of your own union members?

I argued against the unions tactics in 2004-2005 as I thought they went overboard and unfairly smeared RTS. This time around you guys should have it easy...you couldn't wish for a better scenario for the union:

1. You have a management team that has a long and well documented history of degrading the brand, abusing employees, destroying key vendor relationships, and alienating owners.

2. You have a CEO who fell into the job, has no passion for aviation, has little to no social skills, almost zero business acumen, zero charisma and vision, and resorts to heavy handed threats as his first course of action.

3. The economy is recovering, the industry has consolidated leaving just two national fractional operations, and the company has reported excellent profits as a result.

4. The company passed on an option to extend the current CBA for three years, and chose to demand concessions from the employees while they are earning record profits.

5. The company has demonstrated repeatedly that they don't want to bargain in good faith - the dispatchers plight should be good fodder for discussion here.

6. The company has been caught spying on the internal union message boards and trying to incite members to illegal actions.

What more could you ask for? This is set up so well for the union to exploit in the negotiations. You cant get a better scenario for your side. If you can't use this to win the hearts and minds of your own members then you need new leaders. Or at least a new campaign strategist.

You forgot 7. The company has not only been caught but have tried to squash the lawsuit by saying it's just Buisness.

The union isn't about taking hostages of its own. But there are rules laid out in this game. The most basic one is don't cross a picket line.

If someone doesn't understand that most basic tenant than there is a lot more to work on.

 

[FamilyGuy]

You forgot 7. The company has not only been caught but have tried to squash the lawsuit by saying it's just Buisness.

The union isn't about taking hostages of its own. But there are rules laid out in this game. The most basic one is don't cross a picket line.

If someone doesn't understand that most basic tenant than there is a lot more to work on.

I get it. Unions need solidarity to win. I just don't agree with coercion and arm twisting to get it. Just a philosophical difference for me.

I still contend that you have the perfect situation for the union in this negotiation. It can't get any better for you. The only thing that would make your case stronger is if Jordan comes out and openly declares that he's the anti-Christ.

Do you need coercion to win what should be a slam dunk for the union? You should be focusing on building consensus, not threatening people, which just drives people away.

If you guys can't win in this situation then you have much larger problems to deal with.