FlexJet Flies out of the red.

[ksu_aviator]

whats driving the profits are the pilots that work for such low wages and the under the tyrants of the leadership. Plus they think the koolaid is great.

its unfortunate but true.

Why in the hell is there a pissing match between Flex and NJ pilots? Seroiusly? Who gives a rat's a$$ about any of this? Flex is flex. NJ is NJ. Flex is not a bad job, in fact you'd be hard pressed to find a regional airline or charter job that pays as well with as much time off or a major with the job security of Flex. The same holds true for NJ. NJ has better pay, slightly better work rules and good bennies, but that doen't make their pilots any better or any happier.

The point is if you work at NJ and like your job and another guy works at Flex and likes his job, don't bitch about how bad the other guy has it! If he likes it, back off, let it be. For crying out loud, quit being a bunch of 3 year old cry babies! Go do your job and quit being an a$$.

 

[BarryMan]

i agree with KSU....This is not a "My c*ck is bigger than yours!" contest. We all do the same job, just for different companies. I enjoy working at flex, and just about everybody that I have met at Flexjet have been great and I have enjoyed flying with. I have friends that work for Netjets, and love it as well. We are all happy doing what we love to do. You dont see the Major airline guys talking sh*t to each other like you do at the fractionals. There is a handful of guys at flex and netjets that post crap just to start a pissing contest...

 

[Wiggums]

rumrnr78,

Please stay off the sauce before posting -- I never asked about your 401k matching or retirement plan. Also, don't forget that Enron had a generous retirement plan backed up by its stock, and we all know how that one turned out.

The pension is backed by the United States Government. Based on the PBGC information for plans terminating in 2006 no FlexJet pilot would lose any of their benefits if the pension went away today.

 

[FraxJockey]

rumrnr78,
Over the last three years, Flexjet has been claiming it has been profitable. So is the latest story that they're profitable correct, or the any of the ones published over the past three years? They can't all be correct, as the latest story says the company has finally become profitable (not in the past tense, but present tense). This was my point by posting the AIN story from earlier this year.


Also, what constitutes profitability? Note the reference to AIN story that says it was "operationally" profitable. Include sales and general overhead, and, poof, they're no longer profitable. Even then as now, Flexjet has not provided any publicly released financial numbers to show it really is profitable this time. And the Bombardier filings do not break out Flexjet from the balance sheet, so who really knows if Flex is profitable. If Flexjet has claimed profitability in the past but was just bluffing, then how do we know the company is not bluffing again? The answer is that we don't. Take that to the bank...or not.

I am no accountant, but from my understanding the accounting rules have been evolving ever since ENRON. Several large companies have had to revise their earnings because of the changes. The fact is that Flexjet was profitable according to traditional accounting rules. After the rules changed, the numbers changed. No bait and switch here.

If you really must know what the changes are , google the Sarbanes-Oxley Act or look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarbanes-Oxley_Act


Bottom line is that Flexjet has several missions inside the grand scheme of things. One of them is selling whole airplanes, so a direct comparison is between Flex and any other company isn't entirely accurate. I guess maybe you could compare Flex to Options (OEM fractional operators), but then again there really isn't any comparison. I agree with KSU_aviator, this is not a pissing contest. Each company has its merits and many people are happy at both places.

Frax

 

[rumrnr78]

Hey Aero- I was just ribbing ya, you know, for ********************es and grins. I think FraxJockey is on the mark in regards to Flex. I was told on day one that our true mission is to sell Bombardier aircraft. If we get more fractional biz great but they would like people to buy a share or two, love the airplane and then buy a whole one. So, maybe it is apples to oranges when we are compared against the likes of Netjets. Cheers- Rum

 

[FoxJet]

Great!

I'm happy to hear that Flex is doing so well, it's great for them and the industry. What I'm unhappy to hear and I think a lot of the NJ animosity is coming from is that this B.S. article is quoting 2005 numbers and down playing NJ superiority in the industry.

 

[jtf]

I hope Flex is making money so they can afford to beat the NJA contract. Then NJA 1108 can use that as a goal to beat in the next round of negotiations. A good contract raises the bar for the other guys to beat and keeps us all moving forward.

 

[Number$Cruncher]

rumrnr78,

Please stay off the sauce before posting -- I never asked about your 401k matching or retirement plan. Also, don't forget that Enron had a generous retirement plan backed up by its stock, and we all know how that one turned out. So don't count your chickens (or in this case, pension) before they hatch. My point was this:

Over the last three years, Flexjet has been claiming it has been profitable. So is the latest story that they're profitable correct, or the any of the ones published over the past three years? They can't all be correct, as the latest story says the company has finally become profitable (not in the past tense, but present tense). This was my point by posting the AIN story from earlier this year.


Also, what constitutes profitability? Note the reference to AIN story that says it was "operationally" profitable. Include sales and general overhead, and, poof, they're no longer profitable. Even then as now, Flexjet has not provided any publicly released financial numbers to show it really is profitable this time. And the Bombardier filings do not break out Flexjet from the balance sheet, so who really knows if Flex is profitable. If Flexjet has claimed profitability in the past but was just bluffing, then how do we know the company is not bluffing again? The answer is that we don't. Take that to the bank...or not.

Don't forget the "bump in accounting" that's mentioned. Until NET margin (after taxes, interest, overhead and EVERYTHING else) reaches a risk-adjusted comparable rate of return, it's not a successful investment. Right now they're all lucky to breakeven on an "operating" basis, including share sales but excluding non-operating expenses. Fortunately for the fractional pilot ranks the client base is extremely influencial and the costs to dissolve a program are very, very high...

 

[NETFLIER]

the flex ownership will never pay the pilots until they stand up and stop being the "jetbluers" of the industry. Unless they unionize, stop answering the phone durring rest, and make the company operate in the "proper" manner, nothing will come of the place. 100 airplanes is the max they will ever have.

Most of the pilots there are freight dogs who think its the best thing ever to come and dont know how much better it can get.

I have been a flex pilot, I have talked with flex pilots, I know someone on the inside.. The above is a pinch of opinion combined with known facts.

 

[bailey3083]

*hijack*

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcy5drEOdjU

*you may have your bitch thread back*