Not justifying it -- but if concenssions are needed it is because business is down -- not growing as people may think or be led to believe. Retaining existing owners should be one of the highest priorities of management.
I certainly agree with your last sentence!
As for concessions, not gonna happen. If the company is shrinking, then furloughs may actually be necessary. But concessions will not save anything. Just look at the airlines. Every time management has promised no furloughs if concessions are given, when concessions were given, furloughs happened a short time later anyway.
Let me ask you this. Has your contract with Netjets changed at all? Have your management fees gone down? No? Well, part of what those management fees cover is pilot salaries and benefits. So if there are fewer owners, we may need fewer pilots, but the money coming from management fees should still be sufficient to cover at least the current salary and benefits package of the pilots who remain. If not, then the company has bigger problems than anything concessions will fix.
Profits recovered from labor concessions will not be a real business win for Netjets. If the only way Netjets can survive is with labor concessions then the company is already doomed. I'd rather go out making full pay and benefits (would allow me to save more for unemployment) than give concessions to a dieing company.
At any rate, despite the shrinkage of the company, they are posting profits. Don't see a need for concessions. Now, some will argue that they are cooking the books to show profits that aren't really there. Well, that may be true. Thing is, I have no way of verifying it one way or the other. All I can go on is the fact that the company says they are making money, even while shrinking. Therefore, I have no intention on giving a single thing back to a company that claims to be doing well.