NetJet is gonna EXPLODE!

[SkyGirl]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Nonsense

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

My comment was referring to my social and interpersonal skills - what are you talking about?

 

[Gulfstream 200]

Oh well,

how smart could you be to work for those wages anyways???.....

Good luck on the infamous EJA "CONTRACT"......you will need it!!!

 

[FL450]

"Oh well,

how smart could you be to work for those wages anyways???.....

Good luck on the infamous EJA "CONTRACT"......you will need it!!!"


__________________
Dont analyze it, just fly it.

Is that the best you could muster? Ha ha ha ha ha!

 

[CatYaaak]

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.

You miss the point entirely, or just don't understand that the owners care little for your labor problems, all they want is service as it was promised when they signed up for it. Where would they flock to? Wow, you really do take yourselves too seriously if you don't think that people with the buying power they have don't have other options, or can't create them. My guess is that your background is airline-oriented, not corporate.

If your internal problem with NetJets mngmt rises to THEIR level in the form of a strike that affects them, they will indeed begin look elsewhere long before their contract periods are up, and many won't renew them. Just an awareness by them that a pilot strike could leave them twisting in the wind (and as I said before, I doubt the majority of them even know the pilots are Teamsters) can have the same effect.

Why? because the very foundation of what they pay for is RELIABILITY. A pilot strike or threat to stike would cause that to evaporate, and word travels lightning-fast across corporate America. In fact and in reality, it would mean that you indeed had sunk to airline-reliablity status, but at a premium price. People who make large expenditure decisions within any corporation in effect put their neck on a chopping block. Do you think they will do that by signing on with you if your reliability (in terms of showing up for work) comes into question? You're not dealing with airline passengers who will put up with it, however.

But hey, if you really think that you have it all figured out, that you have your Mngmt over a barrel, and that the "owers" aren't a factor or will just gladly sit around twiddling their thumbs and siding with "labor" (yeah right)....then go for it. If corporate America sours on fractionals, good luck staying employed for the length of any new contract you do happen to get.

 

[FL450]

No, I don't miss the point. There isn't going to be any strike, and for the reasons that have been discussed. That is what some of you don't understand. Owners are not flocking away...........to the contrary. They also query crews repeatedly regarding our progress. They do, indeed, know what they're into.

By the way, I have never worked for an airline...............8+ years with NetJets.

The contract will get settled.

Life will go on.

 

[Diesel]

Man I go away and this thread really did explode.

GEXDriver- The owner was angry because NJA decided to error on the side of safety. There have been many times when the temperature or weight has not made it safe to go. We offer the owners many options. We can fedex their bags, wait for it to cool.

A fine example is in the ultra the temperatures in the manual are by 5. 0/5/10/15/20.

If the temperature is 11 degrees we go with the 15 degree numbers. Why? Because we are staying on the side of caution. Sure 10 degrees might work too but we aren't test pilots. We want to make sure we can make 2nd segment with no questions asked. I watch other airplanes takeoff when our numbers just don't work. Owners are upset everyone is leaving and they aren't. Then we explain why we aren't going and that safety is paramount and we wouldn't be leaving until it was safe.

We will still offer reliability and will continue to do so. The owners know what is going on. They ask questions about it all the time but we don't answer them. The contract will get settled over time but i will not settle for anything less than we deserve. And like FL450 said life will go on.

 

[Toploader]

Man, I would not CNX a pax trip because the temp was 11, and the 15 numbers said I could not go.

I would interpolate like a madman before calling the PM and telling him "no".

I would not, however, use "creative" interpolation. If I put the numbers under the microscope and they still say "no" then it's a reduced fuel load and a fuel stop.

There are many alternatives available before the flight absolutely cannot be taken. It is my job out on the road to see which alternatives are best for us and the pax.

Toploader

 

[Diesel]

G- It was just an example. I was just showing that we aren't creative in our interpritation of the numbers.

 

[Toploader]

Gotcha, Diesel. Just didn't want to leave the impression that NJA crews go around just LOOKING for a reason to CNX a trip.

As you know, we do not do that, and we look for safe alternatives, instead of accepting unnessecary risks.

Toploader

 

[GEXDriver]

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.

It is not easier to fly large complex aircraft than small aircraft. That is an absurd statement to make. Everything is more critical in a large jet. Ask the Sprint pilots who went off the end of the runway in their Global at Eagle last week if they think their Global is easier to fly than the smaller G-IV's they had been taking into Vail for years. If you could talk to the Pilots of Delta 191, I wonder what they would say. The Learjet that landed just seconds ahead of them at DFW had no problems because he didn't have to deal with the large jet problems of inertia, large fan spool times and available excess thrust.

The actual FLYING skills are irrevelant. A monkey can manipulate the controls.

In no case do I think flying skills are irrevelant. I think such a flippant attitude about your profession will only earn you an NTSB report.

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 see you say you are a Learjet pilot, what automation does the Lear 45 lack?
How small an airport are you talking about? The Boeing 727 was designed to go into LaGuardia when it was only 5000 feet long. All approaches meet the same TERPS requirements. It may be just me, but I think I had a far easier time going from Boston to Carlsbad to Aspen and back to the Northeast than I did on my last international flight to Athens, Nairobi, Singapore, Tokyo, Anchorage and then home.

It looks like the Feds are going to make life more difficult with the the "95K Rule" - as it stands all my passengers will have to be checked by TSA personnel.

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

Your wife's been lying to you.










.

 

[FatesPawn]

Re: Re: Re: Nonsense

It is not easier to fly small aircraft than large complex aircraft. That is an absurd statement to make.
.

You'll have to re-read my post. I never said that... but you're right, it would be an absurd statement - as would be the opposite. But MANIPULATING the controls of a Large Transport Category aircraft is not difficult. Flying a Learjet to ASE is. Of course, flying a GIII into ASE would be tough too. It all comes back to the particular operation.

Everything is more critical in a large jet.
.

No, it is not. Everything is equally as critical. Size is relative. When I flew a 727, I'm sure it was much easier to land in LGA than it was land a small GIII in ASE circling at night... What you don't seem to understand is that difficulty lies in the operation at hand, not the size of the aircraft.

Ask the Sprint pilots who went off the end of the runway in their Global at Eagle last week if they think their Global is easier to fly than the smaller G-IV's they had been taking into Vail for years.
.

I have no idea what happened in the Global accident in Vail. I won't play armchair quarterback either. You seem to assume that because the airplane is bigger, it was harder to land. Do you think their inexperience with the airplane came into play? I think it is a bit premature to assume that because a "big plane" has an accident, it is because the pilots were used to flying a tiny little GIV.

If you could talk to the Pilots of Delta 191, I wonder what they would say. The Learjet that landed just seconds ahead of them at DFW had no problems because he didn't have to deal with the large jet problems of inertia, large fan spool times and available excess thrust.
.

You'll have to go study up on that accident. I don't think Fan-spool is an issue if you don't follow proper windshear recovery procedures. Obviously, they got behind THEIR powercurve and didn't take appropriate recovery steps. I'm not judging the dead. I hope we can all learn from their mistakes. We've all screwed things up in our careers but not all of us have paid the ultimate price. Certainly there are many other factors that come in to play when flying larger transport category aircraft, but it all comes back to energy management.

On the same note, I'd rather fly an MD11 through a 757's wake than a Learjet.

In no case do I think flying skills are irrevelant. I think such a flippant attitude about your profession will only earn you an NTSB report.
.

Right back at you. Nice Flippant remark. If you take your "small jets are easy to fly" attitude into a light-jet cockpit, I'll be happy to stay 40 miles in trail of you.

I see you say you are a Learjet pilot, what automation does the Lear 45 lack?
.

LEARJET pilot that is. No 45 or 60 thank you.

How small an airport are you talking about? The Boeing 727 was designed to go into LaGuardia when it was only 5000 feet long.
.

Geez, that was about 3 "stretches" ago. A 190K B727 is not a short field airplane. I've used 10,000' of a 10,001' runway to take off with 3 motors turning at max gross on a hot day. I've also used 5000' of a 5001' runway with a Lear 35... you suck up an equal amount of seat cushion regardless of the size of the airplane.

All approaches meet the same TERPS requirements. It may be just me, but I think I had a far easier time going from Boston to Carlsbad to Aspen and back to the Northeast than I did on my last international flight to Athens, Nairobi, Singapore, Tokyo, Anchorage and then home.
.

I agree... but was it harder to manipulate the controls? Was it harder to FLY the aircraft? The decision-making was certainly different... but did you flare to land? The hand-eye coordination of flying an aircraft is different for each type, but it doesn't take more skill to fly a B727 than a Lear 35 - it's just a different set of considerations.

 

[beytzim]

To GexDriver:
I always get a kick out of flying with an ex-121 pilot. The younger guys who are ex-commuter can adapt fairly quickly, but the frac/charter world really shakes them up.

The worst guys are the retired 121 guys who are used to flying 747s across the pond. Those guys are blown away on how difficult our job is. These guys were making lots of dough, flying 10 days a month, and flying into the same routes over and over again - making it a breeze. Over here, they're really out of their comfy element. Many of them resign fairly quickly as they can't take the extra stress etc. You can argue with that, but it's fact.

Separately, in regards to pay by weight. Someone gave an example of a CEO making more money than a floor supervisor. Ok, should an FBO fueler get paid more when they fuel a GV vs. an Ultra. Of course, after all, he's putting 2000 gallons in the GV versus 400 in the Ultra. He's producing more revenue, right? And, fueling a GV takes more responsibility as its got SPR and if you damage it, it costs a lot more to fix.....

How about the Learjet 36 crew that fly round-the-world trips, Pacific, Atlantic, you name it, versus the G4 crew that never fly Int'l, but simply coast to coast. They are out there.

Further, what about the GIV pilot who flies 7 days a month for a total of 20 "Revenue hours" compared to the Hawker guy who flies 21 days a month and flies 60 revenue hours. (Standard G4 rate per hour is approx $5000 vs. a Hawker of $2500). In that scenario the Hawker pilot produced significantly more revenue!!

Of course, the pax of a GV are certainly worth more than a pax of a mere Ultra. Right?

Of course, I always remember the comment of my buddy who I tried to convince to fly corporate jets: "Dude, the only corporate jet I would ever fly is the GV or the BBJ, and even that is too small" Right. All corporate jets are in the same category: Small Jets. Believe it. A GV or F2000 are small jets, accept it.

Hey Gex or G200, let's see if you can respond with something intelligent for once, rather than insult.

 

[GEXDriver]

Pay for responsibility

It is apparent that no one is going to change anybody's mind here. My flight department pays based on the value of the largest aircraft you are flying, the complexity of the flight (i.e. more pay for international captains over domestic), and seniority. Aircraft upgrades to larger aircraft occur with seniority. I think our compensation packages accurately reflect what we do: a junior Hawker captain will make just under a 100K, a senior Global captain earns just under 200k.

 

[beytzim]

are you hiring?

 

[A4Forever]

"The worst guys are the retired 121 guys who are used to flying 747s across the pond. Those guys are blown away on how difficult our job is. These guys were making lots of dough, flying 10 days a month, and flying into the same routes over and over again - making it a breeze. Over here, they're really out of their comfy element. Many of them resign fairly quickly as they can't take the extra stress etc. You can argue with that, but it's fact."

Beytzim..I am one of those retired 121 guys who flew 747s across the pond. I am not "Blown Away" at how hard the frax job is, in fact I enjoy it! As far as flying the same routes over and over, a 15:30 hr flight from ORD to HKG is anything a breeze. I could bore you with everything that has gone wrong on that flight but I won't. As far as being out of my comfort element, I upgraded with 38 hrs in the Excel and have even landed on a 4000' runway at NIGHT! Sure, retired guys resign more often than 20-50 year olds. Most of our careers will be 2-6 yrs long. Gotta save a little time for golf. I have gained a new respect for the job that the Frax do but beleive me, my retired friends and I can do that job!

 

[SkyGirl]

I believe it....

But I doubt they'll cross a picket line to do it....

You're probably right, but I bet there are a lot of out of work Cessna, Hawker and Falcon pilots that would like to have your jobs.

SkyGirl

 

[HPuck]

Sorry beytzim, I have to agree with A4 on this one. There is much more to international overwater flight than meets the eye. Yep, all the automation has made it easier, but a 12 to 15 hours leg is nothing to sneeze at when you are considering fuel requirments, weather enroute, destination, eng failure or rapid depress before or after ETP, diplomatic clearances (if flying military), hazmat clearances.....blah, blah, blah, you get the point. Not that it is as busy as an average day at the fracs, just a different type of flying with different headaches. And believe me, flying over here in the good ol' US of A with our controllers makes life much easier (go to Egypt some time- yikes!!). Frac flying is nothing special, just different.

 

[Lrjet55]

This post represents the worst problem in the aviation industry. Huge egos! Sad, sad, sad.

 

[HPuck]

Are you referring to my post lrjet22?

 

[boxcar]

The parent company has the assets to survive almost anything and can throw enough money around to make any plan eventually work. However, of all the possible scenarios following a pilot strike, hiring replacement pilots is the least likely, IHMO.

First, assuming adequate numbers of replacement pilots could be enticed to cross picket lines, it would take about three months to hire, train, and launch the first of them. (Potential replacement pilots need to remember that strikes are settled sooner or later in almost every case. Replacement folks end up back on the street with a big "S" permanently affixed to their forehead.)

Second, mechanics and flight attendants are also Teamsters and would certainly honor picket lines. The company would need to hire and train replacements for them.

Third, it's likely that parts and fuel would be in short supply, at least in Columbus, as union drivers would refuse to cross picket lines to make deliveries.

Fourth, almost all management pilots hold seniority numbers. While there's not enough of them to make much difference, it would be interesting to see the choices made.

I suspect a strike would turn out in one of three ways:

1. A quick settlement
2. Flying a few flights with management crews and selling off as many flights as possible to Part 135 operators until settlement.
3. Selling contracts to existing frax operators and shutting down the company.