FlexJet / Flight Options / SkyJet

[Propilot77]

some 300's that he wants, which would actually go to FLOPs based on his latest vision fleet plan.

Actually I don't think that is correct I think guys are misunderstanding the brand setup. The slides show 300's under the FLOPS brand, but would still be flown by Flex pilots just marketed under the value brand and the 350's marketed under the Flexjet brand at least that's my understanding. Remember KR said 300 pilots will always fly the 300.

 

[slowtation capt]

Remember KR said

No that is funny!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I remember a lot of KR said over 15 years, want to take a guess on how much was true and followed through on.

 

[V1 Rotate]

Actually I don't think that is correct I think guys are misunderstanding the brand setup. The slides show 300's under the FLOPS brand, but would still be flown by Flex pilots just marketed under the value brand and the 350's marketed under the Flexjet brand at least that's my understanding. Remember KR said 300 pilots will always fly the 300.

It's true that he and the slide show indicated that. But that being said, he definitely has his sites set on those 300's, regardless of who flies them within DAC.

 

[X-rated]

And yes I'm making an assumption about XO's profitability. But why else would they sell?

I don't believe they will... at least not to DAC anyway.

 

[Propilot77]

No that is funny!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I remember a lot of KR said over 15 years, want to take a guess on how much was true and followed through on.

I get it!!! I was just sayin'

 

[GlorifiedCabbie]

So who is going to get thrown under the bus? FO and their in-house union tried it before. Here is the emails with the initials only.
Capt. EM’s letter and My Response

Fellow Pilots,

I received the following e-mail from Capt. Ed EM. The following are his comments and my response.

June 20, 2008

To: MS, Chairman
Master Executive Council

Fr: EM, Beechjet Captain

Mr. S,

I have patiently watched the negotiation game between company and the IBT for these two years from the shadows – having made no verbal or written statements to either party – until today. My philosophy regarding unionism is well known amongst my fellow pilots, and is as sacred to me as yours is to you. My respect for those that choose unionism is exactly the same as for the members opposed to the union philosophy. Regardless of my position, you are charged to represent me.

You might imagine my dismay when I read BT’s letter today referencing the company’s comprehensive proposal and how the union negotiating committee may be holding the negotiations hostage until the RIF pilots are re-instated. If this is true, I want you to know that I am strongly opposed to this position. Admittedly, I don’t have the entire picture, but the few pieces of the package presented by Mr. T today are VERY encouraging to me. And, it is far more information than I have been able to garner from the negotiating committee.

Yes, I am opposed to harboring un-productive employees. Yes, I favor merit reward systems. Yes, I want to make a lot of money doing what I love – flying. And, I believe we should be compensated commensurate with the industry, but that doesn’t necessarily ONLY include NetJet wages. NetJets income is based substantially on income from mid and large cabin aircraft that provide considerably better operating margins than does a BeechJet. We know that we must be competitive with companies in the same category. Let us not jeopardize our future by being un-realistic.

In the summer of 2001, I was the chairman of the compensation committee at Travel Air. Nine other motivated and highly qualified pilots served with me – including one current distinguished committee chairperson. During that period of negotiating with the company, we were charged with improving three compensation topics: PAY, DOMICILE, and SCHEDULE. These were the “hot buttons” of the day. They still are. From my vantage point, I see that the company may have addressed all three, but the negotiating committee appears to be stalling.

The company’s managers felt the need to downsize the workforce as many companies are doing in this disappointing economic climate. Downsizing is perhaps the most horrific task for any manager, but I expect management to make the hard decisions and execute. The entire organization is vulnerable if management is weak and indecisive. And yes, many of the recently terminated employees were my personal friends, but if they were un-productive, they jeopardized my job and yours.

Mr. S, I want to reward the IBT for its efforts through this strenuous period, and I want to do it soon. Please! - I encourage you to drop the topic of RIF pilots and meet the managements request to get the proposal to the pilots for a ratification vote in July. What is the M.E.C. position?

Please post this letter to the union website and respond.

Respectfully submitted,

EM



Capt. M,

I want you to know I received many emails subsequent to BT’s most recent e-mail that published management’s “Comprehensive Economic Proposal.” Only a very few messages were similar to yours. I will take this opportunity to respond to you, but I hope the few other pilots with the same opinions as yours will view this as a response to them as well.

As I stated in my most recent Chairman’s Message, the Union has been and remains ready to enter into a partnership with a management group ready to restore Flight Options to its industry leading status as a provider of the highest quality customer service with loyal pilots dedicated to its success at the core of the operation.

That being said, I wonder if you would want me to take the position you advocate, relative to the 70 terminated pilots if you, yourself, were among them. Management alleges that these pilots productivity was the basis for their terminations. The Union does not acknowledge that our pilots have any significant control over their productivity while at work. Our pilots do not make schedule decisions and they certainly are not authorized to perform aircraft maintenance, although I am aware that some very few have done so inappropriately. However, pilots do have a federally mandated responsibility to document maintenance discrepancies, where and when they find them. I know you are aware of this responsibility as a result of your own experiences.

Therefore the only way a pilot could increase his or her productivity would be to intentionally overlook maintenance discrepancies. Again, from your own personal experiences, I suspect you appreciate this fact as well. We have repeatedly questioned management about their unrealistic measure of productivity. They have clearly stated they have no advice to give our pilots about how to improve their productivity. They have also stated they do not want our pilots to overlook maintenance discrepancies, again a fact I am confident you appreciate.

As you suggest, I do understand that in tough economic times furloughs may become necessary. But they should be furloughs not terminations and they should be carried out in seniority order. To develop and enforce some unsubstantiated, artificial criteria, such as productivity, as a basis for the recent terminations is a slap in the face to every pilot employed in aviation.

The members of this Union that I represent will not desert our fallen brothers and sisters. That’s what people of honor and character do; they look out for each other when times get tough. They support each other when others attack them and their families. This Union will not, as you seem to be suggesting, grasp for the “30 pieces of silver” management is dangling in front of our noses, while simultaneously abandoning some 70 pilots whom we also represent. I am disappointed you admit you do not share this same honorable point of view.

If we were to follow the course of action you advocate, a job at Flight Options for those of us who have not been selected for special favors by management would not be worth having, no matter what we are paid. We would be forever known collectively as the group of cowards who abandoned our principles, deserted our friends and slunk away to count the meager recompense we scraped from the dirt after management tossed it at our feet. The very sight of a Flight Options pilot would incur the disdain of our fellow pilots at other carriers. You, personally, may not be troubled by such a contemptuous existence, but the vast majority of the Flight Options pilots have determined not to condemn themselves to such a fate.

No sir, I will not lead the Flight Options pilots down the path you suggest. The rest of us will work through this matter together–with or without you, like we have done since the Union was voted in two years ago. We will bring our brothers and sisters back in good order and we will finish the work of negotiating a Collective Bargaining Agreement that benefits us all, you included.

Capt. MS, Chairman

Flight Options Pilots’ Master Executive Council

 

[BushwickBill]

 

[X-rated]

You seem to have it all figured out...

The only company in DAC's portfolio that loses money is Flops. It's set up that way for a reason. Yes, of course. Flops has been losing money for years in the off chance Netjets would make a large Bombardier order and pressure Bombardier to divest. Pure genius!

I remember when rumors of KR taking over RTA everyone at RTA denied it was going to happen. Same thing at Flex. Lately there has been rumors XO is next. If I was a XO employee I would be worried. There have been many, many rumors over the years. Far more have proven untrue than true. The current rumor is that XO is buying select Flight Options assets, and Ken will buy the whole thing back later when the union is a distant memory. By your "logic" maybe Flight Options pilots are the ones who should be worried? Just ask an RTA or Flex pilot. You guys are screwed.

 

[Praetorian]

You seem to have it all figured out...

Wow, that came across as really agenda driven.

 

[X-rated]

Wow, that came across as really agenda driven.

Really? Well, If you think my agenda is to try and get some of your loud mouth brethren to stop needlessly scaring people about loosing their jobs, then you would be correct. My sarcasm was pretty obvious, but if you think I have some other agenda, I'd love to hear your paranoid theory.