10/250

[t-bone]

First off, more power to you if you can get the raises/improvements you are seeking.

My question is this: what will a pay scale based on 10/250 cost compared to your current pay scale? There's is a lot of talk about NJ's profits and that they can easily afford this, but what are the actual #s? Also, have any plans been released about how these new aircraft on order will be distributed between US/Europe/China operations?

Good luck guys!

 

[jtf]

The company has posted profits over 200 million for the last three years. The company has paid off over 1 billion in debt over the same time. They pay Berkshire a fee of 30 or 40 million per year just to guarantee debt- that doesn't include any interest paid that also goes straight back to Berkshire. The company pays full price at Flight Safety- another Berkshire company. The company has made most of the profits over the last three years on operations and some on selling away old airplanes,. The company is always selling away old airplanes so that will continue to bring in money since we replace old airplanes with new ones. That is where the money will really roll in. They have to get rid of old ones and replace them with new airplanes. That is a massive stream of money that will come in even without any growth. The money is there, we as pilots just need to make them share it at a much higher point. All of this information about the money coming in has been supplied by the company at one time or another over the last couple of years. It is all in either the Berkshire financial statements, company distributed emails, or it was told to us by senior management in company recurrent. I can understand the furloughed pilots not knowing the info from company emails and management meetings, but those still on property have had access to this info whether they got it in class themselves or on the union message board. The company has just done a very good job of glossing it over and in other instances just plain lying to us to try to influence negotiations. I fully believe they can easily pay up huge and I intend to make them.

 

[brokeflyer]

NetJets had earnings of $227 million in 2011 and were "unchanged" in 2012. This is per the Berkshire filings and the 2012 comment is in reference to FlightSafety and NetJets combined so we don't know if one was up or down.

The question remains is how can people continue to say that the company can increase compensation expense by over $260 million and the company will still "make hundreds of millions in profit"? Netjets has never made $260 million in profits...

The math simply doesn't work..

once they stop wasting it on stupid decisions, the money will be there. But after all they're management, they cant help being stupid.

 

[NetjetsFalcon]

If its 10/250 you guys will vote NO unless we senior pilots get 20/500 right?

Somebody thought that far ahead, I assume....

 

[jonjuan]

If its 10/250 you guys will vote NO unless we senior pilots get 20/500 right?

Somebody thought that far ahead, I assume....

Nope-it peaks at 10/250. 15 is 150 and 20 is 100. That, they might consider.

 

[BentOver]

If its 10/250 you guys will vote NO unless we senior pilots get 20/500 right?

Somebody thought that far ahead, I assume....

That right there is a problem I see...

The most junior Captains on a Encore/Phenom doing the 7/7 getting $250K... What will that require the 20 year guys doing 18 day on the Falcon require? Just off the top of my head it's gotta be closer to $300K??

No way the company just hands that over without significant concessions in the rest of the contract.. Which according to some here ain't gonna happen... So that pretty much leaves a really lengthy negotiation, medation, cooling off etc etc etc....

No body has answered what they think they could give up to get $250K+... And people are out of touch if they think the answer is nothing... It's just how it is in contract negotiations..

I'm all for max pay, but I don't see a majority of comfortable NJA pilots burning the house down at this point. It isn't 2005...

 

[gunfyter]

NetJets had earnings of $227 million in 2011 and were "unchanged" in 2012. This is per the Berkshire filings and the 2012 comment is in reference to FlightSafety and NetJets combined so we don't know if one was up or down.

The question remains is how can people continue to say that the company can increase compensation expense by over $260 million and the company will still "make hundreds of millions in profit"? Netjets has never made $260 million in profits...

The math simply doesn't work..

Haven't you read Frederic Bastiat or Henry Hazlitt?

That is what is seen; you need to look at what is not seen

Between a good and a bad economist this constitutes the whole difference—the one takes account of the visible effect; the other takes account both of the effects which are seen and also of those which it is necessary to foresee. Now this difference is enormous, for it almost always happens that when the immediate consequence is favorable, the ultimate consequences are fatal, and the converse. Hence it follows that the bad economist pursues a small present good, which will be followed by a great evil to come, while the true economist pursues a great good to come, at the risk of a small present evil.

That Which Is Seen, and That Which Is Not Seen

Remember ... passage of the 2005 CBA (that the company couldn't afford) resulted in record profit on the heels of losses!

The 2005 CBA was simply a more productive CBA for the company than the 1998... So will be the next CBA ... you have to look for that which is not seen.

 

[jonjuan]

Haven't you read Frederic Bastiat or Henry Hazlitt?

That is what is seen; you need to look at what is not seen



Remember ... passage of the 2005 CBA (that the company couldn't afford) resulted in record profit on the heels of losses!

The 2005 CBA was simply a more productive CBA for the company than the 1998... So will be the next CBA ... you have to look for that which is not seen.

Go back to the economy and Wall Street and overall consumer sentiment in 2005. It was party time all over again. Look at what's happening in the US and world right now. Good luck, but you're in new territory. Warren knows this.

 

[gunfyter]

Go back to the economy and Wall Street and overall consumer sentiment in 2005. It was party time all over again. Look at what's happening in the US and world right now. Good luck, but you're in new territory. Warren knows this.

I am just messing with Gret ...

 

[CA1900]

It isn't 2005...

No, it's not. $250,000 is about $208,000 in 2005 currency.Inflation is a bitch, which is all the more reason we need large gains to make any meaningful improvement to our wages.

 

[imacdog]

What about yearly COLAs in the next contract?

 

[BentOver]

No, it's not. $250,000 is about $208,000 in 2005 currency.Inflation is a bitch, which is all the more reason we need large gains to make any meaningful improvement to our wages.

You as we'll as I know that in 2005 the pay was considerably lower making it easier to walk if need be......today I would guess that far fewer Captains will be of the same mindset as back then...

I agree that large pay raises are in order, just afraid that far more Captains are "comfortable" enough not to want to take a fight all the way this time around? How many will settle for $200K because it still is a $40-50K increase... And what a lot are afraid of is how much of the rest of the CBA will be modified to get anywhere close to $250K?

 

[gutshotdraw]

What about yearly COLAs in the next contract?

No matter WHAT the new pay scale is, COLA is an ABSOLUTE MUST as far as I'm concerned.

No COLA=Automatic NO vote.

 

[jtf]

COLA has to be in it and it should be there until a new contract is signed, in which case it must be there also. However, I don't believe we will get the current 3.5% longevity raises and COLA year over year. None of the airlines get that big a longevity boost on top of the COLA and I just don't see yearly raises being that high. We need to get the pay scales quite a bit higher at the average years of service for the group and then adjust the new scales from there. In my preference, the PIC scales would all end at year 14 and the SIC scales would end at year 10, but then they would blend into the PIC scales at the year that the pay is one step higher. After year 14 as a PIC, you are then on COLA raises just like all the major airlines do. This way brings a bigger bump for the masses and a smaller one for the senior pilots, but it should still be a huge boost for them and it would include COLA which they don't have already.

 

[jonjuan]

COLA has to be in it and it should be there until a new contract is signed, in which case it must be there also. However, I don't believe we will get the current 3.5% longevity raises and COLA year over year. None of the airlines get that big a longevity boost on top of the COLA and I just don't see yearly raises being that high. We need to get the pay scales quite a bit higher at the average years of service for the group and then adjust the new scales from there. In my preference, the PIC scales would all end at year 14 and the SIC scales would end at year 10, but then they would blend into the PIC scales at the year that the pay is one step higher. After year 14 as a PIC, you are then on COLA raises just like all the major airlines do. This way brings a bigger bump for the masses and a smaller one for the senior pilots, but it should still be a huge boost for them and it would include COLA which they don't have already.

I don't think airlines get cola raises after top longevity.

 

[gutshotdraw]

After 15 pages worth of responses, I've reached a few conclusions on this concept.

http://t.nbcnews.com/travel/just-doesnt-fly-some-airline-pilots-barely-make-living-wage-8C11022539

I direct your attention to the major airline pay chart about two-thirds into the article. It would seem that the highest-paid 10 year PIC at a major is around $215,000 and the average $165,000.

To me, that seems to indicate that Option A of my original post is the more likely outcome.

Although I think we all agree that fractional flying is a unique part of the industry, major airline pay seems to be the benchmark everybody points to. If so, I think we have to acknowledge that $250,000 BASE pay at year 10 is a TAD unrealistic.

I think somewhere in the $180,000 range for a 10 year, 7-7 PIC is a good target provided there is a SUBSTANTIAL increase in 401K contributions, hopefully approaching the $51,000 annual limit. Direct 401K contributions are a FAR cheaper way for the company to increase total compensation because it doesn't incur the employer's burden of additional taxes.

COLA increases for the out years after the longevity scale reaches the cap (say 15 years) would also HAVE to be part of the proposal for me to even consider settling for the lower base pay number.

By all means, I think 10/250 is a catchy phrase and a good place for the negotiating committee to start but the Tooth Fairy in Omaha just ISN'T going to leave that kind of coin under our pillow no matter how much "leverage" we create.

Shields are up. Bring on the photon torpedoes.

 

[fischman]

After 15 pages worth of responses, I've reached a few conclusions on this concept.

http://t.nbcnews.com/travel/just-doesnt-fly-some-airline-pilots-barely-make-living-wage-8C11022539

I direct your attention to the major airline pay chart about two-thirds into the article. It would seem that the highest-paid 10 year PIC at a major is around $215,000 and the average $165,000.

To me, that seems to indicate that Option A of my original post is the more likely outcome.

Although I think we all agree that fractional flying is a unique part of the industry, major airline pay seems to be the benchmark everybody points to. If so, I think we have to acknowledge that $250,000 BASE pay at year 10 is a TAD unrealistic.

I think somewhere in the $180,000 range for a 10 year, 7-7 PIC is a good target provided there is a SUBSTANTIAL increase in 401K contributions, hopefully approaching the $51,000 annual limit. Direct 401K contributions are a FAR cheaper way for the company to increase total compensation because it doesn't incur the employer's burden of additional taxes.

COLA increases for the out years after the longevity scale reaches the cap (say 15 years) would also HAVE to be part of the proposal for me to even consider settling for the lower base pay number.

By all means, I think 10/250 is a catchy phrase and a good place for the negotiating committee to start but the Tooth Fairy in Omaha just ISN'T going to leave that kind of coin under our pillow no matter how much "leverage" we create.

Shields are up. Bring on the photon torpedoes.

Conceding already? The negotiations haven't even started yet! THIS is the thought process which WILL cause us to fail.

Disappointing...

 

[imacdog]

Fisch, the rational amongst us haven't taken you seriously in some time. Maybe it's time for you to let the grown ups talk now.

 

[fischman]

Fisch, the rational amongst us haven't taken you seriously in some time. Maybe it's time for you to let the grown ups talk now.

By insinuating I am a child, you are by definition name calling.

Name calling is the last resort of a weak mind.

When one uses name calling, he has no more valid arguments left.

Logic is awesome.

In short, you lose.

 

[gutshotdraw]

Conceding already? The negotiations haven't even started yet! THIS is the thought process which WILL cause us to fail.

Disappointing...

Realism is not a concession.

MC's numbers would seem to confirm my point of view. I question the wisdom of defining victory as 10/250. To me, 10/180, max 401K, and COLA would hardly be a failure.


And yes, the photon torpedo reference was for you amigo...

Thanks for only setting the phaser on "stun."