FL450
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 28, 2002
- Posts
- 108
Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
- Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
- Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
- Share the passion for aviation
- Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun
NetJet is gonna EXPLODE!
- Thread starter been-there
- Start date
- Watchers 25
Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
- Invite your friends
- Share the passion of aviation
- Friendliest aviation community on the web
Gulfstream 200
Database Expert
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2002
- Posts
- 4,574
100LL... Again!
youwantapieceofme??
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2002
- Posts
- 1,533
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
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.
Last edited:
FL450
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 28, 2002
- Posts
- 108
"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.
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.
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.
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.
Gulfstream 200
Database Expert
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2002
- Posts
- 4,574
FL450
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 28, 2002
- Posts
- 108
CatYaaak
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2002
- Posts
- 809
FL450 said:
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
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 28, 2002
- Posts
- 108
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.
By the way, I have never worked for an airline...............8+ years with NetJets.
The contract will get settled.
Life will go on.
Diesel
TEB Hilton resident
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2001
- Posts
- 4,394
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.
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
472 Cubes
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2001
- Posts
- 51
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
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
GEXDriver
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2002
- Posts
- 200
Re: Re: Nonsense
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.
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.
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.
Your wife's been lying to you.
.
FatesPawn said:
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.
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.
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.
Your wife's been lying to you.
.
Last edited:
Share this page
Latest resources
-
-
-
-
-
AC 90-89C - Amateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing HandbookAmateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing Handbook
- Neal
- Updated:
