NetJet is gonna EXPLODE!

[LR45JI]

Re: Re: Strike? Think about it first.

The CEO had such a bad experience with them being late or one time cancelling a departure from Las Vegas for being less than one degree too hot, that he sold the share as soon as the Global was delivered. The CP thinks the whole experience gave them job security. I'd be carefull out there.

GEXDriver

How is it possible to be "less than one degree too hot"? Wouldn't that be the "max temperature"? Anyway....

If this individual was upset for us[NetJets] following the rules then I'm glad he's gone - we don't need owners like that. I'm sure his Global will also be the one taking off out of Aspen when it's 300/2 in blowing snow while we are sipping hot coco in the terminal.

 

[boxcar]

LR45JI

Couldn't have said it better! As you know, one of the many positive attributes of NJA is their backing of pilots on safety issues.

For GEXDriver: If one degree beyond limits is okay, how about two? Five? And to open up myself even more, I also think pay for weight is a stupid idea.

 

[.92wshn1.92]

However, since all company revenues go in one pot and disembursed to pilots irrelative to the aircraft type, pilot pay-by-weight is only academic and important to those pilots with egos' leading the way.

The point: Paying pilots by aircraft type/weight is only to satisfy pilots' own egos and insecurities. It is in the best interest of all aviation companies to pay by seniority, period. The Majors have proven over and over again how to run something into the ground. Paying-by-weight is one thing we should learn from them NOT to do.

Dude, that's garbage. If company A only flys Ultras and can only charge their pax/owners accordingly, while company B flys BBJs, GVs or SSBJs (take your pick) and can charge 10x what company A can. Do you think their pilots will/should get paid the same. That said it's not differential pay that's crippling the Airlines it's guys only flying 30 hours a month for pay that's based on twice that and other guys getting 747 pay for flying a 737 for loopholes in their contract.
It's not my ego that wants to make the most money I can for a career flying airplanes. But why should I be penalized so you can stroke something other than your ego? One of the things that makes America great is the opportunity to be anything you want and get paid accordingly, not be what ever you want and get paid the same regardless.

 

[GEXDriver]

Nonsense

LR45JI

Couldn't have said it better! As you know, one of the many positive attributes of NJA is their backing of pilots on safety issues.

For GEXDriver: If one degree beyond limits is okay, how about two? Five? And to open up myself even more, I also think pay for weight is a stupid idea.

It isn't pay for weight. It's pay for responsibility and the cost of the airplane you're flying. It's pay for commanding a larger crew. It's also pay for the additional revenue you're making the company. It's also pay for the skill and ability required to operate larger more complex aircraft. Small, straight wing, short range airplanes are easier to fly than large, swept wing intercontinental jets.

They do the same thing in ships. You have to have a Master's License and experience in coastal ships over 200 tons before they'll let you have a Master's License in oceanic ships over 1600 tons. To make it even easier to understand, in retail they paid you more to manage a big store than they do a little one.

Usually it's also pay for experience and judgement that you gained as you paid your dues in smaller aircraft. It just sounds to me like you guys want something you haven't earned and are doing it on the backs of your fellow pilots who are flying the bigger airplanes.

As far as the Netjets pilot not going because he thought it was too hot; this is the way the story was related to me. Because of altitude and temperature the tab data could not be used. The pilot had to go to the charts in the AFM. The temperature limitation he came up with was a certain degree and a fraction. The reported temperature was the next whole degree. So he took the CEO back to the FBO and the guy had to go commercial. Somewhere, common sense should enter into the decision whether to fly or not.

GEXDriver

 

[boxcar]

Re: Nonsense

[
Usually it's also pay for experience and judgement that you gained as you paid your dues in smaller aircraft. It just sounds to me like you guys want something you haven't earned and are doing it on the backs of your fellow pilots who are flying the bigger airplanes.
[/B]

Yeah, we little airplane drivers need to look up to you "heavy" drivers and pay our dues. Tell you what, I'll spot you 1000 hours and we'll compare swept wing jet PIC time over 250K gtow. Last time I checked, this was the minimum weight for a heavy. Low man doesn't say any more about "paying dues".

 

[AFELLOWAVIATOR]

I have read a lot of talk about the Boeing Super Sonic jet being on target for 10 years or some thing like that. I thought I had heard that the program had been scrapped. So I went to the Boeing site, and sure enough, it has been.
It has been replaced with a new concept plane called the SONIC CRUISER. It will have cruise speeds 20% faster than todays airplanes, and cruise in the mid 40 flight levels.The initial prototype is being designed to carry between 200 and 250 pax. It is pretty cool looking, you should go to the Boeing web site and check it out. I heard about this on the news about 2 months ago or so.

 

[SkyGirl]

Re: Re: Nonsense

Yeah, we little airplane drivers need to look up to you "heavy" drivers and pay our dues. Tell you what, I'll spot you 1000 hours and we'll compare swept wing jet PIC time over 250K gtow. Last time I checked, this was the minimum weight for a heavy. Low man doesn't say any more about "paying dues".

Boxcar! Sounds like you're retaining water!

What GEXDriver says sounds right to me. I don't think I should get paid as much for flying my Cessna 172 as you do for flying your Ultra Jet. Sounds like you messed up your career, too. That's not his fault!

SkyGirl

 

[FatesPawn]

Re: Nonsense

Small, straight wing, short range airplanes are easier to fly than large, swept wing intercontinental jets.

GEXDriver

Gotta waive the BS flag here! GEXDriver, I agree with almost everything you said about pay for responsibility... When you brought "size" into the argument you fell off your soapbox. It is much easier to fly large transport category aircraft than it is to OPERATE small jets/turboprops/piston twins.

The actual FLYING skills are irrevelant. A monkey can manipulate the controls. The simple lack of automation on smaller gauge aircraft make the job 10x harder - not to mention tougher approaches to smaller uncontrolled airports with multiple legs per day.

I do agree that pilots should be paid for responsibility, revenue generation, etc... But like my wife says, "Size just don't matter."

 

[boxcar]

Re: Re: Re: Nonsense

Boxcar! Sounds like you're retaining water!

What GEXDriver says sounds right to me. I don't think I should get paid as much for flying my Cessna 172 as you do for flying your Ultra Jet. Sounds like you messed up your career, too. That's not his fault!

SkyGirl

Well you could be right, I might be retaining water. But I've never flown an Ultra, and my career's been above expectations so far. I do get a little irritated when people make assumptions. GEX is one example of that and you're another.

 

[SkyGirl]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Nonsense

Well you could be right, I might be retaining water. But I've never flown an Ultra, and my career's been above expectations so far. I do get a little irritated when people make assumptions. GEX is one example of that and you're another.

Sorry, Boxboy. I usually don't rub guys the wrong way. OK big boy, what 250,000 pound jet are you flying for NetJets?

SkyGirl

 

[boxcar]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Nonsense

Sorry, Boxboy. I usually don't rub guys the wrong way. OK big boy, what 250,000 pound jet are you flying for NetJets?

SkyGirl

StyGirl, are you saying you usually rub guys the right way?

 

[CatYaaak]

CatYaaak

<<No disagreement with your points. But, shouldn't your message be directed toward management rather than pilots? The pilots aren't looking for a windfall, just a wage structure that's somewhere close to industry standard....>>

No, I'm directing it towards the pilots, the ones who would actually strike and PO the ones who are footing the bill. And just how do you define "industry standard", when NetJets basically invented and defined the fractional industry in the first place? Whatever NetJets pilots earn IS the industry standard.

However, if by "wage structure" you are attempting to co-opt the higher-wage industry standard of corporate flight department pilots (a wage scale established over many years without unions, I might add) just because fractional pilots fly similar aircraft, then you are missing an important part of the equation from the standpoint of those on corporate boards who pay those salaries and who ride on those airplanes; corporate pilots don't go (or threaten to go) on strike, and their loyalties ride with owners sitting in the back as long as they keep working for them, not with a third party or a union.

What you say about the wages being low may be true unfortunately, but I'm just pointing out the reality of what a corporate aircraft owner (or fractional pseudo-owner), expects for the big bucks they are shelling out. So anyway, which "wage structure" and "industry standard" are you referring to? Fractional? Corporate? Or some kind of amalgamation of them both? The fact is, pay scales in the corporate world have a lot to do with the fact that a company knows that the people sitting up front driving the airplane are THEIR pilots and part of their own corporate structure.

<<If it takes a strike to get the company's attention, so be it. If the company chooses to fold, scale back, or hire replacement workers, (good luck getting the Teamster mechanics to fix the aircraft) so be it. After the dust settles, life will go on.

>>

Well, again that's the airline mentality at work...."blame management"...yada yada. "We'll burn the village in order to save it"..more yada yada. I still say it's a misplaced mentality in the business aviation sector. And my guess is burn it you indeed will if there is a prolonged strike that affects the contract-signing owners. They are primarily well-heeled business travelers who fled the now-burning airline industry because airline hassles and inconvenience weren't worth those $2,000 walk-up tickets. They'll flee fractionals too if given the same reason because they have options. The airlines are now banking on the $59 ticket, flip flop crowd to keep them afloat, but unlike them, fractionals have NO similar fall-back customer base to tap into.

But I see by your last statement that you don't really care if the company goes bye-bye, and that you think everyone will be just fine and even happy doing other things besides pursuing their chosen profession. I have do doubt that every charter operator and corporate flight department manager is crossing their fingers, hoping you DO strike, PO your "owners", and cast them adrift. There would no doubt be a healthy chorus of "I told you so"s, followed by even higher wage scales in the corporate world.

 

[FL450]

Naaaaaaaaaaaaa. Way off base. The Owners will just break their contracts and walk? Where are they going to flock to? Do you really believe NetJets is going to ask the Owners to "be patient, we have a little labor problem"? The Owners are going to buy that? I doubt it.

If it gets to a strike, there will be a meltdown of the telephone system in Omaha. I would guestimate 24-48 hours, max. NetJets has multi-million dollar contractual obligations that cannot be covered with NJI, NJM or our Vendors............combined. Then what? Who flies the planes? What Union will service them? Back to the table in a flash. But that's all a long, long way off.

When we have to worry that being compensated fairly will bankrupt the second richest man in the world...............that will be the least of our problems!

 

[mike]

Did I miss something....

When you say "who would service" the airplanes I assume you mean that Garrett, Duncan, Gulfstream, CFS, etc. I don't know if all of them are union. If they are union shops, what control do the mechanics have over acceptance of an aircraft for service?

 

[BigFlyr]

Re: Re: Nonsense

Gotta waive the BS flag here! GEXDriver, I agree with almost everything you said about pay for responsibility... When you brought "size" into the argument you fell off your soapbox. It is much easier to fly large transport category aircraft than it is to OPERATE small jets/turboprops/piston twins.

All airplanes are designed to be operated by pilots with just average skills. Some require more skill and/or more practice to become proficient than others. Size has nothing to do with it, but large transport category aircraft do have more complex operating systems than say a typical small business jet. What pilots get paid to fly is typically based on the revenue that airplane is capable of producing, nothing more.

 

[FL450]

Mainly referring to work done in CMH, which is substantial. As to what other Union mechanics would work on striking Union aircraft.........I don't know. How close knit are Teamsters with other Unions and shops that would choose to work on them........that's another story.

 

[Gulfstream 200]

netjets gonna bankrupt Warren Buffett????

jesus, you really have the United Airlines mentality...

rememeber, this is business.....you will be liquidated and sold before you can say "unemployment"

Get a grip, you are a limo driver like the rest of us, you dont do anything special.

 

[100LL... Again!]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Once can argue that pilots should get paid in direct relation to how much money their respective aircraft brings. Since Falcon monthly management fees are higher than Ultra's MMF's, so should their pilots' pay be.

However, since all company revenues go in one pot and disembursed to pilots irrelative to the aircraft type, pilot pay-by-weight is only academic and important to those pilots with egos' leading the way.

The point: Paying pilots by aircraft type/weight is only to satisfy pilots' own egos and insecurities. It is in the best interest of all aviation companies to pay by seniority, period. The Majors have proven over and over again how to run something into the ground. Paying-by-weight is one thing we should learn from them NOT to do.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Doggone! Someone else who gets it!


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's the dumbest thing I ever heard come from a pilot's mouth.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And a VERY intelligent, unemotional rebuttal from th other camp.
HA!



When domestic flying is considered, pay-by-weight is a very crude method. And who really cares how much revenue the aircraft produces? The pilot does very little differently to fly a larger aircraft than a smaller one. A pay differential may be in order if a certain aircraft does take substantially more skill to pilot. Most of the required skills do not vary from a/c to a/c.

This is true especially in a fleet operation where the pilots have the same dispatch support for domestic operations.

The aircraft produces revenue because of the OPERATOR, not the pilot. The pilot is an employee that provides skilled labor and does as the company directs. The pilot should be well compensated, don't get me wrong. They should be compensated because they can bring ANY aircraft safely to it's destination. The amount of compensation should be based on how good a pilot the company wants. A really good CJ pilot is worth two or three half-a--ed Hawker pilots.

Remember, it is really ONLY the non-flying public that believes the myth that a larger aircraft takes more skill to fly. I'm too tired of this BS to even list all the reasons, because the 'true believers' do not want to acknowledge the truth. Pay-by-size has more to do with tradition than it does with reality.

This seems to be much more true in the corporate world than in the airline biz. I can't ever remember seeing two airline pilots (other than some rookies) get into a p----ing match over aircraft size.

Overseas ops have more responsibility associated with them and should be compensated accordingly. Regardless of size.



The CEO is just as dead in a Citation as a GV if the pilot is not doing their job. There ya go - pay 'em according to CEO value!


Please try to keep all flames logical and unemotional. Thanks.

 

[FL450]

"netjets gonna bankrupt Warren Buffett????

jesus, you really have the United Airlines mentality...

rememeber, this is business.....you will be liquidated and sold before you can say "unemployment"

Get a grip, you are a limo driver like the rest of us, you dont do anything special."

Ha ha ha ha ha. I can only laugh when I read crap like that and be thankful you're NOT part of our seniority list. The point was, we will NOT bankrupt Buffett, as someone else compared us to United. Nor will it get to a strike situation. Those cards are already face up on the table.

We're asking fare wage and work rules for what we do. It's about pride in our work and our worth, not about being "special". Remember, we were never going to make it this far, according to all the naysayers of the fractional concept. You simply attempt to add fuel to a fire that's already been pissed out.

 

[FracPilot]

Pilot pay

Pay is determined, at most companies, by potential income created by the aircraft and responsibility. Should a Captain on an airplane with 300 people be paid more than a Captain on an airplane with 150 people? You bet. More responsibility. Does a high level CEO get paid more than a factory floor supervisor? Why? Responsibility.

Bigger/more expensive airplane + more pax = more money. Should a Captain on a 300 pax airplane make twice as much as a Captain on a 150 pax airplane? In my opinion, no. There should be a pay difference, but not more than 15-20% difference between the two assuming same time in service.