Flexjet Takes Aim at Buffett?s Netjets for International Fliers

[X-rated]

By the way, the safety cultures of Flex and NJA are much better than many corporate and charter outfits. I know this by personal experience. The FAA oversight is better, and the conversations in the cockpits, when we trade stories and experiences with many different colleagues, really enhance frac's safety.

And, they are undoubtedly worse than many other charter and corporate operators. While you can point to specific things in your operation that can be widely agreed are advantageous, there are likely just as many things unique to your type of flying that are a disadvantage. The problem is, the disadvantages are rarely talked about here. I hope you're at least trying to identify them for yourself and are not complacent thinking you have an above average safety culture. All of aviation has changed a lot in the last decade. To assume your safety culture is better is both arrogant and likely naive. Yes, we all know of dirtbag operators, but there are many high quality 135s and 91s out there too.

The pace, diversity, volume, and pressure of fractional flying is inherently more dangerous than most other segments of the industry. I'm sure you guys do a great job mitigating those risks, but it's offensive to suggest you are the only groups taking safety seriously. When safety is used as a sales tool, it is almost always a sham. Don't buy the hype. Stay humble and constantly look for traps.

 

[NJAowner]

Operators

X-rated - I agree and do not lump all operators of any type (corp., charter or fax) into any generalization any more than I lump all restaurants into a generalized category of quality, service, cleanliness, etc. However, that being said, I personally have a few friends who have their own jet operations and I would never fly tight them on their personal jets. They are some of the cheapest people i know, don't spend enough on their own car's maintenance or even put off healthcare wondering about co-pays and deductibles even though $$ is not an issue. I can not assume they take a completely different approach to their aviation needs.

 

[X-rated]

X-rated - I agree and do not lump all operators of any type (corp., charter or fax) into any generalization any more than I lump all restaurants into a generalized category of quality, service, cleanliness, etc. However, that being said, I personally have a few friends who have their own jet operations and I would never fly tight them on their personal jets. They are some of the cheapest people i know, don't spend enough on their own car's maintenance or even put off healthcare wondering about co-pays and deductibles even though $$ is not an issue. I can not assume they take a completely different approach to their aviation needs.

I completely agree there are many people like your friends out there. However, I fly for a billionaire who honestly values safety and taking care of his 70M dollar investment. I have a blank check when it comes to maintenance and running the flight department, and have never been questioned on an expenditure. Ever! I've been directed to keep the plane in perfect condition at all times and money is literally not a factor. Pt 91 includes fortune 500 flight departments not just yahoos trying to fly private on a budget. There are cheapskates trying to cut corners and best in class operators in every segment of aviation. You've been reading this board long enough to know Avantair was one of the worst offenders, yet their fractional pilots swore what a quality outfit they were. I'm glad you know enough not to trust your cheapskate friends, but wonder if you would prefer to fly on Chevron's new Gulfstream with pilots who have been off duty for several days or a high time runout Hawker being flown by guys who have been on duty more than 85 hours in the past 7 days? It wouldn't be a tough choice for me.


I know many Gulfstream, Global and 7X operators who run top notch private flight departments. I would agree there are probably more small airplane operators flying jets they really can't afford who are more likely to cut corners they shouldn't. But it's been my observation, with all due respect to Warren, many very wealthy people prefer private to fractional and those operators often run very respectable flight departments.

 

[G4dude]

I completely agree there are many people like your friends out there. However, I fly for a billionaire who honestly values safety and taking care of his 70M dollar investment. I have a blank check when it comes to maintenance and running the flight department, and have never been questioned on an expenditure. Ever! I've been directed to keep the plane in perfect condition at all times and money is literally not a factor. Pt 91 includes fortune 500 flight departments not just yahoos trying to fly private on a budget. There are cheapskates trying to cut corners and best in class operators in every segment of aviation. You've been reading this board long enough to know Avantair was one of the worst offenders, yet their fractional pilots swore what a quality outfit they were. I'm glad you know enough not to trust your cheapskate friends, but wonder if you would prefer to fly on Chevron's new Gulfstream with pilots who have been off duty for several days or a high time runout Hawker being flown by guys who have been on duty more than 85 hours in the past 7 days? It wouldn't be a tough choice for me.


I know many Gulfstream, Global and 7X operators who run top notch private flight departments. I would agree there are probably more small airplane operators flying jets they really can't afford who are more likely to cut corners they shouldn't. But it's been my observation, with all due respect to Warren, many very wealthy people prefer private to fractional and those operators often run very respectable flight departments.

I am just relating my own experiences. I flew for Flex, and now for NJA. Previously I flew for several corporate and charter outfits, and the Frac model is far safer, in my opinion. I am SURE there are exceptions. The main problem in charter is the temptation to cut maintenance and training costs, while the corporate Achilles heel is (a) the Chief Pilot being a political animal who won't tell the President no when no is called for, and (b) the problem of the hovering CFO who thinks the Aviation Department is an unnecessary expense. Also, flying with many different pilots in a frac, and trading stories, creates a storehouse of experience. A larger pilot group allows a much less sclerotic culture to thrive. It seems to me. I don't mean to offend.

 

[X-rated]

Also, flying with many different pilots in a frac, and trading stories, creates a storehouse of experience. A larger pilot group allows a much less sclerotic culture to thrive.

That's without question very true. The best part about going to recurrent for us is the exchange of information with other operators. That benefit is in my opinion balanced by the fact that I've done two type ratings and at least a dozen recurrent training events with the same guy sitting next to me. We follow SOPs and know exactly what each of us is going to in just about any situation. You can say your group is standardized, but it's not nearly the same. I honestly don't believe we are sclerotic.

I find it disingenuous for you to try to convince owners fractional flying is the safest form of GA travel. I've done it, and it is inherently more dangerous. I've flown many dozen NetJets trips, and have actually been assigned to NetJets for days on end. We worked directly with your dispatch and had to follow all of your rules. They beat us like the rented mule we were, and we, like you, regularly flew into the the most challenging General Aviation airports with little or no notice. I'm sure you guys do a great job mitigating the risks, but you cannot fly 5 legs a day, to the most challenging airports with no notice and be on duty 14 hours a day for 7 days in a row and say you have the best safety culture. That's just B.S. Very few quality corporate operators do anything like that. Almost all, international operators at least, must now follow some form IS-BAO's best practices and have an SMS to include audits.

My boss is probably somewhat unique, but he never pushes. If I say the runway is too short, it's too short, and we'll get a helicopter to meet us. If I say we need more rest or to pre-position a crew that's what we do. Period. Our owner doesn't get involved with operations at all other than to sometimes say, if there are clouds at the airport, we can go somewhere else!

 

[imacdog]

We have a fatigue clause and union protection. Not many corporate operators can boast that. The flight and scheduling rules we operate under are more restrictive than 91, also fact.

 

[X-rated]

We have a fatigue clause and union protection. Not many corporate operators can boast that. The flight and scheduling rules we operate under are more restrictive than 91, also fact.

And in all seriousness, considering the amount of flying you do and the business environment you work in, you certainly need both. But let me ask you this:

Does Netjets follow industry best practices considering circadian rhythms? Is your maximum duty time adjusted for early start times, late end times, time zones crossed, Window of Circadian Low? Many pt 91 operators do these days. Just because it's not regulatory, doesn't mean quality operators haven't adopted IS-BAO best practices based on scientific research. The FAA is severely lacking in their approach. Saying 91k is more restrictive than 91, which has no restriction at all, is hardly convincing and doesn't represent todays best practices.

Your other misconception is that someone must always be pushing a pilot to do something unsafe. When an owner is actually concerned about safety and there are no financial constraints, pt 91 can be a dream you probably can't even fathom. You work hard, we generally don't. Fatigue clause or not, you are undoubtedly more tired than we are most of the time. Our typical leg is like a 10am start on your day one followed by several days off. Are you really arguing you're safer because you have a fatigue clause? How many days a week do you use it? Besides, I can use the F word just as easily as you can with no fear of repercussion.

 

[993_Pilot]

And in all seriousness, considering the amount of flying you do and the business environment you work in, you certainly need both. But let me ask you this:

Does Netjets follow industry best practices considering circadian rhythms? Is your maximum duty time adjusted for early start times, late end times, time zones crossed, Window of Circadian Low? Many pt 91 operators do these days. Just because it's not regulatory, doesn't mean quality operators haven't adopted IS-BAO best practices based on scientific research. The FAA is severely lacking in their approach. Saying 91k is more restrictive than 91, which has no restriction at all, is hardly convincing and doesn't represent todays best practices.

Your other misconception is that someone must always be pushing a pilot to do something unsafe. When an owner is actually concerned about safety and there are no financial constraints, pt 91 can be a dream you probably can't even fathom. You work hard, we generally don't. Fatigue clause or not, you are undoubtedly more tired than we are most of the time. Our typical leg is like a 10am start on your day one followed by several days off. Are you really arguing you're safer because you have a fatigue clause? How many days a week do you use it? Besides, I can use the F word just as easily as you can with no fear of repercussion.

I won't get it to this debate about which type of operation is safer, but I can tell you that in addition to the fatigue clause, Flight Options has reduced duty for Circadian Low, or multiple times zones, although there is still room for improvement. We also have "special use airport" restrictions, and minimum runway requirements (above & beyond 135 or 91K), a maintenance resolution process, an ASAP program, professional standards program, etc. I would be surprised if Netjets didn't have something that addresses all these issues too. While some of the better corporate and charter operators have some, or some may even have most of these things, most of the smaller 91 and 135 operators have few if any. However, you make a good point about the amount of flying that the fractionals do. Carry on.

 

[G4dude]

And in all seriousness, considering the amount of flying you do and the business environment you work in, you certainly need both. But let me ask you this:

Does Netjets follow industry best practices considering circadian rhythms? Is your maximum duty time adjusted for early start times, late end times, time zones crossed, Window of Circadian Low? Many pt 91 operators do these days. Just because it's not regulatory, doesn't mean quality operators haven't adopted IS-BAO best practices based on scientific research. The FAA is severely lacking in their approach. Saying 91k is more restrictive than 91, which has no restriction at all, is hardly convincing and doesn't represent todays best practices.

Your other misconception is that someone must always be pushing a pilot to do something unsafe. When an owner is actually concerned about safety and there are no financial constraints, pt 91 can be a dream you probably can't even fathom. You work hard, we generally don't. Fatigue clause or not, you are undoubtedly more tired than we are most of the time. Our typical leg is like a 10am start on your day one followed by several days off. Are you really arguing you're safer because you have a fatigue clause? How many days a week do you use it? Besides, I can use the F word just as easily as you can with no fear of repercussion.

You make many good points. I originally said many charter and Part 91 flight departments fall short, but not all. There are some very safe operations out there, no doubt.