NetJet is gonna EXPLODE!

[CatYaaak]

Hey CatYapp, you shot yourself in the foot with your own words:

"and returning high pay with loyalty"

You're referring to employers' paying high salaries for loyalty.

Well, Sh&t man, from where do you think they're trying to stop their pilots from going to?

The Airlines!

To GV and others, you wouldn't be making 200k a year if it wasn't for your predecssors ten or twenty years ago comparing their own pay to their buddies in the airlines.

"Loyalty" isn't just limited to not leaving the job..it also has to do with security, discretion, and non-diclosure. I also cited as part of the equation risk and asset management, and giving the owners something the airlines can't deliver...efficient and time-saving service. Corporate aircraft don't directly generate revenue, and thus no formula for what the pilot's "cut" should be for generating it.

And a pilot leaving a Fortune 100 company for an airline job is a rare thing. There has never been high turnover in good corporate flight departments, regardless of what the airlines are paying, or if they are hiring. If pilots leave, it's usually for a better corporate job. Going to an airline represents a HUGE cut in pay initially and cumulatively for years to come, sitting at the bottom of a senority list, and a lowering in quality-of-life and benefits. Uptick in corporate salaries has more to do with what another Corporate flight dept is offering in the same city or region, and benefits the pilots enjoy are tied into what that particular company makes available to it's own upper management employees. Raises are usually usually percentage based on longevity. You stay, they keep going up and up.

And your admonition to GV is probably misplaced. Chances are he is the "predecessor" you are referring to. He11, I was doing 15 years ago, and helped raise those salaries. I didn't do what you guess happened.

 

[Aspiring to be]

You flew at 3 Airlines, BS. Maybe a commuter but not an airline and I doubt that. Three airlines? Two as Captain? What is the matter could not pass a check ride. I expect you could not get past probation. I notice you list nothing in your qualifications that any airline that I know of flies. Did the airplanes your airline use weigh less than 12500. I guess you decided to underestimate your flying time so that you would not appear too experienced when you make your phony post.

Your entire post is full of BS. You only want to cause conflict or try to start controversy. You like any form of creditability.

Never heard of anyone getting a clearance to taxi or pushback with a four hour delay that was not advised by ATC. It is my experience that ATC hates for aircraft to taxi out when there is a long delay as there is not place to put the planes. If the ATC delay is four hours everyone would know. When long delays were in effect and gate hold was in effect and company did not need the gate then the passengers were not required to be onboard. I have never seen anyone throttle back to hold block times. If it was done then it was by low class people like you. No one with integrity would do such a thing.

Yes some rare occasions some planes do get caught and have long delays. I have sat with all engines shutdown many a time. I was on Delta when security was breached in Atlanta. After boarding I spent 10 hours on the aircraft trying to go on a 1 ¼ hour flight. I have been at Teb, (AA A-300 crashed leaving JFK) and sat with indefinite delays.

I sat in Teb and no departures North, South or West for over 4 hours due to weather. Airlines were departing EWR, LGA, JFK, heading in all directions. Your type only wants to cause trouble. I have flown many different airplanes, from small SE to the L-1011. I have a type in several small jets. Flying a 1011 is different from say a Lear but the biggest thing is the few jerks like you that could not make it with the airlines that can only badmouth good people. No, some people might not want to go the airline route; some have not have the chance and then those like you that could not cut it. When I read your BS it makes me want to puke to think that we have pilots that think like you. Thank God there are not many with your attitude.

No one has ever denied that private aircraft are more convenient. If the average man could afford a small jet I am sure that most would prefer them over an airline flying from a large airport when they have a small airport next door. The advantage of small aircraft is that they can depart when the owner wants to and go and come from many more airports. The airplanes can conform to the owners schedule and not the other way around. It is no doubt that it is easier to manage 8 people versus 3 or 4 hundred. It is no doubt that it is easier to fly a Lear, etc than an L-1011. I am not saying that it takes a better pilot; I am just saying that there is much more that can and does go wrong and many more things to do.

You can preach your hatred and ignore the history and the contribution of the airline pilots but you are only showing how little class and knowledge you really have. Better keep your job if you have one as I expect you have a hard time holding a job very long. Like I said you need to grow up.

 

[FatesPawn]

You flew at 3 Airlines, BS. Maybe a commuter but not an airline and I doubt that. Three airlines? Two as Captain? What is the matter could not pass a check ride. I expect you could not get past probation. I notice you list nothing in your qualifications that any airline that I know of flies.

You better think before you post next time. He flew the Beech 1900 as well as the Canadair Regional Jet. I'd say his career progression is VERY believable... BE-20 Captain... jumps ship to go to a respectable regional... CL-65 Captain... leaves for a major airline job where he gets furloughed. There you have it!

BTW, I have flown at 2, 121 Airlines (one as a Captain) and 2, 135 operators (both as Captain) and a Fractional. I'm 30. Not too difficult to believe.

PS. Regionals (or commuters as you put it) absolutely are airlines. It is harder to pass a checkride at many regionals then some Global carriers - first hand knowledge

 

[CatYaaak]

Cat.. Help me out here! What I believe is a MYTH and what you believe is REALITY? Why is that? I only flew for 1 airline. (34 years worth) Didn't have the benefit of working for 3 - 121 carriers. Why was that anyway? Mergers? Bankruptcies? My original post was my OPINION. Never quoted anyone, never said it was fact, just my OPINION. You're not change my mind and I won't change yours. Let's move on in life.. PS: Your replies to Aspiring concerning gate holds, having to push from the gate into delays and slowing down so as not to arrive early, demonstrate to me a lack of knowledge, on your part, as to normal 121 operations. AND THATS A FACT! Send a self addressed envelope and I will be happy to explain each of those to you.

It's certainly comes as no suprise that you flew for 1 Part 121 carrier for 34 years. Sounds like a nice gravy-train run for a career, and that in itself guarantees I won't change your opinion. As for your question regarding me.. 3 Part 121 airlines over 5 years - 1st one merged into 2nd, then furloughed. Hired by 3rd. Recalled by 2nd (that really was 1st) while working for 3rd, but resigned from both 2nd and 3rd when the opportunity arose to return to Corporate flying where you're treated like an adult and where there's much less whining.

In my 12 years of corporate flying (before and after my 121 experience), not once as an FO, captain or Chief Pilot did I ever negotiate salary with my company based on what 121 pilots were being paid somewhere "out there". What you were doing wherever you were simply had no relevance. I never heard that my peers did either. What's to compare? Different aircraft, different missions, different lifestyle, different pay structure, and a completely different reason for existence in the first place.

There's an industry standard based on years of corporate flight departments upgrading the value of equipment, taking on a more prominant role in company affairs as airline service deteriorates, competing for pilots with other flight departments, and demanding a standard of living based on where they live. That last fact plays a huge role in the corporate world, but is absolutely unknown in the 121 world.

I notice that a lot of 121-only pilots "knowingly" declare thow Part 91 salaries are derived. I'd like to know how many of them have actually sat in the CEO's office and negotiated the salary for themselves or their pilots in the Part 91 world? Telling the boss that you deserve $X-amount because "United 72 captains make $$$ and therefore that's what I want" is about as silly as walking into the boardroom and declaring "We want $X-amount or we will strike". Yeah right. Tell me, what do you think your OPINION of what drives salary levels in Part 91 corporate flight departments is worth, given your experience with working in them?

P.S. Oh, and IT'S A FACT that I personally witnessed (more than once) all those incidents I cited to Aspiring while engaged in "normal" 121 ops...that is, out of O'hare, LGA, DCA, LAX, EWR, etc. etc. I'm not referring to the unavoidable hassles that come with the insanity and inanity of hub and spoke airline ops, I'm talking about incidents where there has been a choice.

I can show you threads on this website where guys are bragging, whooping and electronically high-5ing each other because theyonly worked, say, 8 hours for their 75-hour guarantee, or flew 3 trips in 2 months by virtue of creative bidding, bypassing upgrade, etc. "The least amount of work for the greatest pay", I saw one write, with agreement all around. Nice attitude, especially when practically every airline is hemhorraging money (oh yea it's all managements fault). If you think I'm somehow besmirching reputations by relating things I've seen that don't fit the image of the "preserving the profession" mantra, then perhaps you should go reign in some of your peers.

 

[beytzim]

Hey CatYaak, I agree with you that most 121 guys want to "fly the least, and make the most". However, I would bet that most 135/91 guys would do the same if they had the chance. We're all the same.

To Aspiring to be: You've been on the money up until you said "No doubt flying a Lear is easier than an L10-11" You were kidding, right? If you weren't, you obviously haven't flown 20-series Lears. I can go on forever on how many gotchas are in those airplanes that will ruin your whole day! And there are plently of Lear 25/35/36s that fly out of florida in the middle of the night on air-ambulance flights to South America with 30 minutes notice. Try to do that without Dispatch holding your hand, tough guy!

 

[Aspiring to be]

I have flown the Lear 24, 25 and 35 like you described. I have also flown the L-1011. How much time do you have in a 1011? Not trying to be smart but it is hard to compare unless you have experienced in both types. I know you think that the Lear pilot has more to do and to some extend that is true. I did not normally have to file a flight plan on the L-1011 but with the Lear I would use some service and it would give me the route with fuel burn, time, best altitude, etc., almost the same as we would get from the computer.

I would guess it would take me about 10 minutes to figure a 3 or 4 leg flight when flight planning the Lear. Another five minutes or so to file or I could do that with the service with no additional time required. We had canned flight plans with the airlines since about the mid 70's. The computer would print out the canned route with the 3 best altitudes based on cost. If the weather was not a factor we did not normally change the flight plan. Long range international was a different matter. The dispatch work load was about as demanding as flying without a dispatcher. The dispatcher would basically figure the min and max fuel loads. Only time I would normally talk with a dispatcher was to reduced fuel. Increasing fuel was a give me but decreasing of course, both had to agree.

Most of the time the reason to call was due to a change in dispatchers. You might depart one place and the recommended fuel code was to take enough to return or some other stop. The new dispatcher would figure a different fuel load for a minimum than the first so I would get to the first stop and not have enough fuel for return flight. I would call dispatch and tell him to reduced required fuel. Many dispatchers were new and inexperienced and would pad the required fuel. They would always reduce when the Captain requested.

The orals and check rides are more difficult in the L-1011. You just have many more systems, more profiles, and more procedures, more concerns. A Lear has one door and one emergency exit, one of most things except two engines. Not trying to make the airliner job seem more difficult but in most ways it is.

Flying the Lear was a ball, I loved it. That little 24 is really a hot rod. Very light load (only minimum fuel for a 40 minute flight) summertime temp. but climb to 41000 in 8.5 minutes. Use to love playing when no passengers onboard. It was truly fun and would bring out the kid in me. The 24 is the hottest thing I have ever flown. The Lear is not a toy but I did seem to think of it as a toy at times, it is just fun. I did tend to over control at first due to the light control. I know in sim training the toughest part was the taxing. I had never really flown anything without nose wheel steering through the rudder peddles and I had a time trying to steer the little thing (I have a few hours in an aerostar and an aero commander).

Flying is flying and most of us could with time llearn and adapt to the environment. My opinion the biggest difference in duties for the crew is in the servicing of the aircraft and the passengers. The airlines you have someone else to do those things. My opinion it takes more knowledge and skill to fly say an L-1011 than say a Lear. The smaller jet will do many things quicker and are much more forgiving than the larger jets. The power in the 757(with a light load the 757 is really a performer) was close to the Lear but was not as forgiving.

 

[Texasskicker]

If you guys strike, then....

I even work for NJA and i think the above is a little flame bait and a little too optomistic. I enjoy steady growth not explosion growth.

Falcon Capt-

While I enjoy reading your posts I think your pretty far off the mark when it comes to our pay. Sure there might be thousands of pilots on the streets but that doesn't help the company. Sure it puts a cloud over negotiations but it doesn't really mean much.

The company has 5 year contracts with the owners. There are over 1900 pilots right now. Yes we are about 150 fat so they could get rid of 150 and it wouldn't affect service. After that though the company operates on high utilization of the pilots.

Owners still require flights to be flown and they can hold the company to this because of their contract. Selling off flights are not a long term option. Some owners won't even accept anything less than a QS tail number.

It takes about 6 months for a pilot to go through indoc to end up on the line after IOE. That's just as an FO. The company has learned their lesson with the new hire PIC's.

We might not have anywhere to run off to but the company has no where to turn to. I guess you could say we have each other by the short curly ones.

If you guys strike, can the company survive?

 

[Grizz]

Yes,

Although it wouldn't be the best business move on their part. Much easier and smarter to pay a reasonable wage with reasonable work rules. We'll see if they're smart enough.

 

[Lrjet55]

If you guys strike, can the company survive?

I imagine the company would be able to cover trips for a few days maybe even weeks. The problem with 135 companies is they aren't going to drop all their own customers just because big, bad NetJets needs them. EJM and NJI will be able to cover some but with EJM the owner has priority on his/her airplane.
Lastly, owners pay for QS airplanes. There will be a very short honeymoon period where owners will accept sell offs.

It certainly will be interesting to see what happens in the next few weeks.

 

[FracCapt]

I imagine the company would be able to cover trips for a few days maybe even weeks.

I don't see that happening. They will be able to cover SOME of the trips...but not all of them, except maybe on the slowest of the slow days. If the strike occurs, many owners will be getting screwed on a daily basis, just adding fuel to the fire. What may make a difference is whether they side with the pilots(just to get you guys, and them, back flying) or with management(to hold an F the Union stance). Uncharted territory. It will be interesting.

 

[paulsalem]

So what happens to all of the non pilot employees if NJA strkes and goes under?

Anyone thought about them?

 

[Diesel]

You might want to hope we strike so you can go from the 310 to the Falcon 2000 it one day.

 

[semperfido]

So what happens to all of the non pilot employees if NJA strkes and goes under?

Anyone thought about them?

glad you aren't in charge

 

[paulsalem]

I don't work for NetJets

 

[semperfido]

no s***