Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
If you have $200 million in operating profit (which is suspect), how are you going to increase compensation north of $200 million without creating a loss?
The company needs profits to reinvest in the business and to pay shareholders a return on their investment.
Gret
Much of that operational profit was deployed to pay off greater than 1B in secured BRK debt. I think it's been fairly well established and accepted that Netjets will soon be profitable to the tune of >800 million net. You are intelligent enough to determine the source of capital.
Debt repayments don't flow thru the income statement to compute operating profit. Repayment of debt is a balance sheet entry.
Cash flow comes from many sources such as selling assets, collecting receivables, delaying vendor payments, etc....and operating profit plus depreciation and other non cash charges.
In NetJets case, most of the cash came from selling aircraft that they had to buy back from owners. The debt was incurred to meet the contractual obligations to the owners and when NetJets sold the aircraft, they took the proceeds to repay the debt.
Say what?
Oh, same goes for an owner. No owner is irreplaceable - there will be others.
We are all replaceable -- owners too. However, NJ has had its "sign out" for "hiring" new owners and the line is not very long.
If you're able to get it up to $800 million in operating profit...you deserve whatever you ask for. Just can't see it happening.
Just to set the record straight...paying off debt doesn't mean it came from operating earnings. Selling assets (i.e. aircraft) is the method most companies use when they have to downsize. The debt was created with buying assets...and it is reduced by selling them.
I admit all of my facts are anecdotal, but the reports from all of the various companies as to number of owners, fleet size, etc., seem to support them.
I say "the line is not very long" because while I do not know all cusomters or prosepctive customers, I do not know a single person who has either bought a new share at NJA or migtrated from another major provider to NJA in the past few years. I do perosnally know about 50+ NJA owners/former owners who have either completely exited NJA or substantially reduced their NJA shares and have replaced their NJA flying with another major provider. And most of these changes were service based (not pilots), not all economically motivated.
I am critical of NJA management since they took an organization that was truly the epitome of customer service with unbelievable marketshare and pricing power and destroyed it -- however they still seem to think it is 2007. And the once very cooperative and responsive dialogue with its owners has been eliminated and owners are now treated with contempt and like they are idiots. I think it is helpful for the pilots to know how things really are from the customer side and not just the rosy pictures delivered by management.
Makes sense, but just one problem.... how does selling 12 aircraft last year at deflated used aircraft prices equate to $800 million???
THE STORY SO FAR.....
fischman believes he is worth a raise....
imacdog is angry with fishman for wanting a raise....
THE END
I think "amused" would be a better descriptor for Fisch wanting a more than 100% raise. Not "A" raise, as you stated. "A" raise, as I have stated, is in order for NJA pilots. Seems you guys aren't bright enough to get that raise, if you're so incapable of reading comprehension.![]()
.........but so correct.
Imacdog is correct. Would we want a raise that is too much? If it makrs NJA noncompetitive? His point is spot on.
A majority of them are surprisingly satisfied....which is good on face value,
All owners I know a very satisfied with the pilots. I think many of them will not complain to the pilots about problems and issues the owners are having with operations. My guess is all newcomers to private aviation are ecstatic (as we all once were). However, longer owners of NJ shares see the service as inferior to what it once was. It is all about expectations -- when these are incredibly great and responsive (a 100 on a scale), getting a mere 96 while still great is a step down. The real test of owners' sentiment is where their private aviation dollars are going -- and the "net flow" of these dollars is not into NJ. I have also pointed out before how various departments at NJ can "play" with their numbers to make their department look better and management then uses the same numbers to show how wonderful things are -- but so far from reality.
The old NJ culture was do whatever it takes to get an owner where they expect to be on time or as close to it. That is no longer the culture. I have had quite a number of flights (some in the past year, and this has happened to others I know) where operations decides it is better to give the owner the contractual credit for a late flight (capped at 2 hours in the last few years of contracts -- but it did not used to be capped) than actually bring in a recovery aircraft (which may be larger) or use sell off. While that may save NJ $$, it does not make for happy owners. This is especially true as sales uses the "depth" of the NJ and EJM fleets for recovery purposes as one of the major reasons to use NJ and not a competitor.
I, personally love making people happy and go out of my way to deliver exceptional service. If I am not paid accordingly, I will take my superior set of skills and service elsewhere and I hope you will do the same gret....
Of course you're netjets, however, many of your pilots come from the regionals. There could be hiring announced tomorrow and thousands of qualified regional pilots, many of whom wont be hired by the major airlines or don't desire to work there, would line up to apply. Heck, most would still do so if the pay were 75% of what it currently is.
Unfortunately, management understands this. It's called leverage.
Here's my guess...
Anyone that believes this 10/250 idea is real has been punked!
No one can believe their own press enough to think they "deserve" that much for so little, except maybe Bieber.
Don't mistake your lack of self worth for mine please.
And thank you.
I always figured you had loads of self worth...
Was that a misplaced modifier or a dangling participle? Doc Bayless would be mortified....
I keed, I keed