FamilyGuy said:
Wow...people have been here three whole months and they contributed....What the hell....give them $100,000 as well. Who cares if the company can afford it
steel said:
Now, where did you get the $100,000 figure? I won't negotiate with you on this board, as we have very capable personnel doing that for us. However, I will state we would never ask for $100,000 for a three month employee. Good spin though.
What's this? A pilot who's not familiar with sarcasm?
A little hint for you...if you hold your cursor over the smilie for 2 seconds it will even tell you it is sarcasm.....
I just took your argument to its logical conclusion...you want to argue that there are 3 month employee's that contribute...so if that's the sole criteria why not pay them $100k as well? After all, we dont care if the company can afford it - we'll just charge the owners more!

(hint - this is more sarcasm)
steel said:
Next, as you would have known had you been here more than two years, we were indeed aware of what the pay was when we came here. We were also aware of what we were promised by RTS himself prior to you coming to this once great company. Ask around, do some research, and please get facts before trying to explain your very weak, union busting spun argument.
Ahh...the infamous RTS speech....so what figure did RTS promise you? (exact number please)
What figure did your union build it up to over the last 4 years?
It seems to me that you're the victim of inflated expectations.
I've watched people pump up the expected payday for the last 4 years on this board....to the point that any reasonable offer by the company is quickly scoffed at because it suffers in comparison to that 100% increase you've convinced yourselves that you deserve.
steel said:
Next, relevance should equal contributions expected. Example, pay should be commensurate with responsibility (read safety, customer service, fixing owner service's lies). This is where the management 101 books would help you. I seem to remember you barraging someone else on this board about missing class.
I'm glad you brought this up steel. If you had been paying attention you would realize that I addressed this topic just 3 short days ago in this post:
FamilyGuy said:
The overall point is that LIFE IS NOT FAIR. If we are going to pay all jobs according to levels of responsibility then in my opinion, none of us would make more money than teachers, police officers, and fire fighters. No athlete or CEO would make more money than the President of the United States. Our military would make more money than it does. The list is very long.......
Now...seeing as how our pilots average pay exceeds teachers, police officers, and firefighters, I'm sure you will be willing to live up to your own words and donate all of your excess salary to charity.....right?
Oh, and by the way, it also means you wont need that REASONABLE raise the company offered you....right?
steel said:
Next, your economic storm (your words) only decreased our increasing capture rate of the market share. I have a clue that you are trying to spin this into pro company stance. I will not put words in your mouth; however, I will state we have been hiring nonstop right through the “economic downturn”. We have also been taking delivery of new airplanes nonstop right through this "economic downturn". The only economic storm I see is manmade by the great NetJets' management team. Tell me again how hiring union busting firms to fight off the inevitable makes sense?
Thank you for proving my point. Go back and read my post again if you have to in order to comprehend it.
The gist is that NetJets provided you and many other pilots a safe haven from the worst economic storm in aviation history. And how do you want to repay that safe haven? By attempting ECONOMIC BLACKMAIL on the company that sheltered you.
steel said:
Lastly, assuming things never gets anyone anywhere. Facts will however, help to see right through your spin about sell offs. I just wrote sell-offs, and you try and spin it to selling off trips due to DNIFs (duties not including flight). I was writing about the financial genius who sold off the core fleet. We oversold our capacity overnight. This is just one of the “foolish financial decisions” I have seen in my short tenure here (read my short tenure is much longer than Family Guy’s).
You're right....FACTS WILL HELP EVERYONE SEE THROUGH YOUR SPIN....
You want to claim that the increased sell-offs are due to the sold off core, yet the FACTS do not back you up.
Take a look at a day last week - we have 325 revenue flights for NJA, and 359 NJA aircraft, but we sell off 40 flights....hmmm...I wonder why?
Its definitely not due to overwhelming demand....but I think increased DNIF and mx write-ups played a role....
Now that we've dispensed with your attempts to sidetrack the conversation.... lets get back to the topic at hand.
I noticed you side-stepped the heart of my question in the original post, namely -
- What makes a 3 year employee think they are owed anything?
- Where does this sense of entitlement come from? They didnt build this company. They weren't here for the last contract. They weren't even here when it became amendable.
- Why should a 40+ year old company mortgage its future and cave into the demands of a bunch of 3 year employees that are just looking for a quick payday before they jump ship and try to bankrupt another company?