IBT out! NJASAP in!

[B19 Flyer]

I guess he is ignorant to the fact that some legs are flown 135, which require a certificate and consequently ops specs.....

plus, he could read 91K which has something really close to ops specs. forget what they are called though.

A 135 certificate is not needed or required for a fractional.

 

[B19 Flyer]

B19 Flyer,

Do MSpecs apply to Part 119 certified Air-Carriers? So ... Are companies operating under MSpecs considered Air-Carriers or not? Your sentence with "only" seven words allude to the "fact" that Air-Carriers operate under OpsSpecs, as well as, MSpecs.

Do you consider NJA a Fractional Ownership Operation? NJA does indeed operate under a Part 119 Air-Carrier Certificate, and, the required OpsSpecs. The same holds for the NJI and NJLA operations.

Therefore, please enlighten us and explain to us who has operational control for NJA operations? Furthermore, please enlighten us and explain what connection you see between operational control and labor-management relations.

IDEtoNJA

Depends entirely on the business model. Fractionals do not have operating certificates if they are operating entirely under 91K, but they do have management specifications because they are considered private aircraft. Under these rules, the owner always maintains responsibility for operational control.

If an owner does not want the responsibility of operational control, the sales contract will specify that the flight must be under Part 135 and there is an operating certificate required. Those flights are operated under Operations Specifications.

If the business model does not want to do anything but manage the aircraft, then 91K and management specs are all that are needed.

 

[IDEtoNJA]

Depends entirely on the business model. Fractionals do not have operating certificates if they are operating entirely under 91K, but they do have management specifications because they are considered private aircraft. Under these rules, the owner always maintains responsibility for operational control.

If an owner does not want the responsibility of operational control, the sales contract will specify that the flight must be under Part 135 and there is an operating certificate required. Those flights are operated under Operations Specifications.

If the business model does not want to do anything but manage the aircraft, then 91K and management specs are all that are needed.

B19 Flyer,

Thank you for your lesson!

But ... You have not answered my questions!

1. You claimed Air-Carrier Certificate holders operate under OpsSpecs, as well as, MSpecs. Would you mind consolidating your "sentence of 7 words," and the above lesson?

2. Now we know that most, if not all, fractional ownership operators operate under both Air-Carrier Certificates issued under part 119, as well as, under MSpecs issued under sub part K of part 91. Why do these operators have to be viewed differently? Are those operators still not Air-Carrier Certificate holders in your opinion?

3. You explained some of the intricacies affecting operational control at fractional ownership programs in the above lesson. However, please answer the following two questions:

A. Would it be in the best interest of a fractional ownership operator to limit itself to operations under subpart K of part 91? Would that be consistent with the kind of service such an operator is supposed to offer?

B. What does the discussion of operational control, or, the discussion of which rules an operator is operating under have to do with the discussion of labor-management relations?

Thanks
IDEtoNJA

 

[B19 Flyer]

B19 Flyer,

Thank you for your lesson!

But ... You have not answered my questions!

1. You claimed Air-Carrier Certificate holders operate under OpsSpecs, as well as, MSpecs. Would you mind consolidating your "sentence of 7 words," and the above lesson?

It was actually 2 phrases with the "and" splitting them, but IMAC and the others didn't understand

The original statement was:

I expect there will be a lot more misery before there is happiness in heavily union based certificated carriers with opspecs and management specs.

What could I expect though from a bunch of guys that let other people speak for them? I should have known better.

2. Now we know that most, if not all, fractional ownership operators operate under both Air-Carrier Certificates issued under part 119, as well as, under MSpecs issued under sub part K of part 91. Why do these operators have to be viewed differently? Are those operators still not Air-Carrier Certificate holders in your opinion?

That wasn't the original intent, but we all kind of figured that would happen. There is no such thing as a 91K operating certificate. So, there is only one certificate for operators who operate under both 91K and Part 135.

3. You explained some of the intricacies affecting operational control at fractional ownership programs in the above lesson. However, please answer the following two questions:

A. Would it be in the best interest of a fractional ownership operator to limit itself to operations under subpart K of part 91? Would that be consistent with the kind of service such an operator is supposed to offer?

Of course not if it's a large entity, but the working group was geared toward dealing with stabilizing fractional cowboys more than the established 135 operations.

B. What does the discussion of operational control, or, the discussion of which rules an operator is operating under have to do with the discussion of labor-management relations?

It doesn't, but IMAC didn't seem to understand the simplicity of what I wrote and the rest of you decided to jump on his bandwagon to correct what was correctly written in the first place. That's classic union for you, correct what isn't broken.

Thanks
IDEtoNJA

@@@@@@@@@@@

 

[realityman]

"Fracs are not certificated carriers and need to be considered differently from the simple viewpoint of operational control" -B19

You guys need to quit quoting this idiot. He just keeps on showing ignorance and no relevant points.

This quote above is classic, because I remember from threads about unions a while back how half his arguments hinged on how Fracs were, in fact, THE SAME as the airlines.

My, how the world (B19 arguments) turn!:bomb:

 

[IDEtoNJA]

B19 Flyer,

With all due respect, I did not ridicule you! Why do you ridicule others with a different point of view?

In case this is your discussion style I have nothing more to discuss with you.

A. Your comments did not clearly and directly answer any of my questions. Your comments dwell on the obvious which is mentioned in the body of the questions; however, you do not answer questions clearly and directly.

B. Your comments include multiple usage of words such as intent and misunderstood. Might there be a reason people routinely do not understand your intent?

C. Your comments show a discussion style that I can not respect. You are condescending and ridiculing at best.

I hope to never have to deal with such a management style in the future; whether, on the flight deck, or, anywhere else! The lack of direct and consistent communications would be very disruptive to an efficient operation. The lack of reliance on actual facts, and, the repeated usage of innuendo would have the same effects on efficiency.

Thank You and Have A Great Day,
IDEtoNJA

 

[fischman]

That was awesome!

 

[flyjetspeed]

That was awesome!

Totally, Now put the intellectual lightweight on IGNORE and be done with the TOOL!!!!

 

[B19 Flyer]

"Fracs are not certificated carriers and need to be considered differently from the simple viewpoint of operational control" -B19

You guys need to quit quoting this idiot. He just keeps on showing ignorance and no relevant points.

This quote above is classic, because I remember from threads about unions a while back how half his arguments hinged on how Fracs were, in fact, THE SAME as the airlines.

My, how the world (B19 arguments) turn!:bomb:

The legality of what constitutes an airline, and the administration and how to run operations are two different things.

A fractional is no different adminstratively than a regional, commuter or major when it comes to a CBA.

All aviation CBAs are based around two items. How much a pilot is paid and work rules.

In that sense, they are indeed all airlines.

 

[B19 Flyer]

B19 Flyer,

With all due respect, I did not ridicule you! Why do you ridicule others with a different point of view?

In case this is your discussion style I have nothing more to discuss with you.

A. Your comments did not clearly and directly answer any of my questions. Your comments dwell on the obvious which is mentioned in the body of the questions; however, you do not answer questions clearly and directly.

B. Your comments include multiple usage of words such as intent and misunderstood. Might there be a reason people routinely do not understand your intent?

C. Your comments show a discussion style that I can not respect. You are condescending and ridiculing at best.

I hope to never have to deal with such a management style in the future; whether, on the flight deck, or, anywhere else! The lack of direct and consistent communications would be very disruptive to an efficient operation. The lack of reliance on actual facts, and, the repeated usage of innuendo would have the same effects on efficiency.

Thank You and Have A Great Day,
IDEtoNJA

I feel the same way toward you. You are the type of pilot that is a cockpit lawyer, that will complain about management but never step into it.

Where was I not clear and not factual? Did you not understand the concept of a fractional not being a "certificated air carrier?" If a fractional has a certificate, you go and find it. Have fun on that wild goose chase. It doesn't exist.

Did you not understand the concept of a 91K operator not needing to have a Part 135 certificate to operate?

Did you not understand that 91K was designed to stabilize cowboy fractional aircraft and upgrade safety standards?

No sir, it's pilots like you that frustrate management the most. You don't understand the big picture outside of the cockpit, and haven't the courage to make a difference by stepping up to the plate as a manager. If you did, you would fail.

You are the type that will wave the CBA in management's face, yet when the CBA limits you in some way, you will try to worm around it using your cockpit lawyer credentials.

So, what is your opinion on all my posts that have repeatedly said that the NJASAP split off would get ugly, really ugly before it was over?

How many times have I stated that this split off would cripple 1108 and hurt the FO pilots when they needed the support the most?

How many times have I stated that the IBT wasn't going to go away quietly?

And most of all, I love saying I told you so..