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

Netjets Casino employees

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
Its better to have fewer people who pay more than many who pay less.

Its bad for the environment to burn all this jet fuel. Airspace too crowded. Ramp space too crowded.

The entire cost of pilot salaries and benefits is LESS than the change in enroute altitude of a few thousand feet would be in fuel costs.

Pilot salaries are like fuel you just have to pay to make the jet go fast.

It boggles the mind that management is willing to destroy this company rather than pay a relatively few dollars to properly compensate pilots.
 
El

Actually, that is a calculus equation- fewer people pay more vs more people pay less. There is a point where you are correct.

I do not know the numbers about pilot salaries, what you are asking, what management is giving etc. Whenever I ask the tough questions here, pilots call me a troll and from what I have seen noone from management in the know, has been here.

It is much more complicated than a one liner-

It appears management wants to increase your base pay (the 27k everyone talks about though noone really makes 27k because everyone works some ot).

but your Ot will be limited in the now famous rejected TA. So your net pay will be less even though your base hourly wage has increaed?
I am not sure whay Ot is decreased- I think it is in part due to 91k rules.

I think this is what I am hearing so far.

It is just complicated than a one liner and noone is having a real dialogue except your negotiators, MEC and top mangement.

Though they appear to hate each other and want to talk but not listen.
 
El Chupacabra said:
Its better to have fewer people who pay more than many who pay less.

Its bad for the environment to burn all this jet fuel. Airspace too crowded. Ramp space too crowded.

The entire cost of pilot salaries and benefits is LESS than the change in enroute altitude of a few thousand feet would be in fuel costs.

Pilot salaries are like fuel you just have to pay to make the jet go fast.

It boggles the mind that management is willing to destroy this company rather than pay a relatively few dollars to properly compensate pilots.


$120 Million is NOT a relatively few dollars. And it boggles my mind that you are willing to destroy the company and the thousands of jobs it provides to pilots and others because you want to double your salary.

How many aviation companies are giving raises right now? You're pay is going to increase, the only question is by how much....meanwhile the vast majority of pilots are either furloughed or getting their pay cut by large amounts.
 
Family guy,

Please read all of the BRK and Netjets news releases that state time and time again "U.S. profits were offset by loses in Europe"? In other words Netjets is so profitable that it is floating the operations in Europe....All at our, your's and mine, expense....

Netjets is not a typical airline....Why? one huge reason...Because what they sell they sell at an incredibly high price...And 1000's are willing and able to pay it...They charge so much that they can pay European employees more than their U.S. employees, at a time when the Europeans aren't holding their own....And at the same time Netjets is trying to increase the number of days and hours U.S. employees work...the europeans are working less and making more...

Netjets profits should be rolled into Netjets employees quality of life...not Europe....Isn't it amazing that the employees of U.S. companies cry buy American...Right up to the point when those same employees ask for a reasonable raise, while the company they are working for is buying european...

George Orwell had it right....We are all becoming ignnorant cogs in the wheels of corporations and Govt's....
 
Setting the record straight---

FamilyGuy and others who are repeating this rumor. The NJ pilots are NOT asking to DOUBLE wages for all of the pilots. Those LOWEST paid pilots--yes--but that just shows HOW FAR BELOW PAR their wages are. Others need a substantial pay increase to be compensated fairly; they haven't had a pay raise since 1998! However, not ALL of the NJ pilots would see their paychecks double. As others have pointed out, there are FAs at NJ making more than the pilots. That is so unacceptable as to be a non-argument. I cannot see the pilots agreeing to a wage scale that would continue that injustice. If that requires SOME of the salaries to be doubled, one must realize how easily the company was able to build NJ Europe on the backs of their American counterparts.

Furthermore, please stop the uninformed posts worrying about the doors being shut at Bridgeway. It doesn't stand up to the common sense test when one looks at the rapid expansion of NJ Inc. Buffett's priority was growth and that is exactly what they have done--at the expense of their employees. IF doors HAD (and I don't see it happening with all the assets they have) to be shut, the ones closed would be those that are NOT profitable. The NJ that is subsidizing others, MORE than pays its own way.

Quoting from the May 10th NY Times--"Last year, NetJets accounted for 70 percent of the dollar value of new business generated by fractional jet ownership programs." Last year when the failed TA came out, I was saying that IT IS NOT A MATTER OF CAN'T. IT IS A MATTER OF WON'T! Everyone that looks, will see that the money IS DEFINITELY there. And yes, to an international company like NJ Inc (remember that NJ America is just a small part of a much larger corporation) $120 million really IS relatively few dollars.
 
ghostrider64 said:
Family guy,

Please read all of the BRK and Netjets news releases that state time and time again "U.S. profits were offset by loses in Europe"? In other words Netjets is so profitable that it is floating the operations in Europe....All at our, your's and mine, expense....

I've went back and read the last 5 years of BRK annual reports. In every year they stated that NetJets US made a small profit, which was offset by losses in Europe. I would characterize this as being at BRK shareholders expense, not mine or yours. We have both been paid the wages we agreed to when we took the job here at NetJets, so we havent subsidized anything.


ghostrider64 said:
Netjets is not a typical airline....Why? one huge reason...Because what they sell they sell at an incredibly high price...And 1000's are willing and able to pay it...They charge so much that they can pay European employees more than their U.S. employees, at a time when the Europeans aren't holding their own....And at the same time Netjets is trying to increase the number of days and hours U.S. employees work...the europeans are working less and making more...

If you're so enamored with the european wages why not move there? I for one dont want to pay the 40-60% tax rates that are levied over there. Would I like more pay and fewer days worked? Sure, who wouldnt....but our life here is very good, especially considering the state of aviation today.

ghostrider64 said:
Netjets profits should be rolled into Netjets employees quality of life...not Europe....Isn't it amazing that the employees of U.S. companies cry buy American...Right up to the point when those same employees ask for a reasonable raise, while the company they are working for is buying european...

Some of NetJets profits should be rolled into NetJets employees and their quality of life. Some should also go into building the business and back to Uncle Warren and the BRK shareholders, without whom we wouldnt be where we are today. My concern is that your salary demands are to take 300% of the current NJ US profit....this isnt good for the business or our jobs.
 
netjetwife said:
FamilyGuy and others who are repeating this rumor. The NJ pilots are NOT asking to DOUBLE wages for all of the pilots. Those LOWEST paid pilots--yes--but that just shows HOW FAR BELOW PAR their wages are. Others need a substantial pay increase to be compensated fairly; they haven't had a pay raise since 1998!

Here's the 1st year FO monthly wages (courtesy of airlinepilotpay.com)




NetJets​
$2,260
Flight Options $2,833
Flexjet $2,810
Citation Shares $2,920
American $2,555
Continental $2,160
Delta $3,920
Northwest $2,691
United $2,100
US Air $1,800
AirTran $3,010
Alaska $2,660
America West $2,926
Southwest $3,744
Comair $1,725

Doesnt look like they are that far below par. Especially when you consider the scale hasnt been increased for several years. If your union was so concerned about the 1st year guys why didnt they accept the company's offer of an immediate 20% increase, no strings attached? Doubling the wages of even the lowest paid FO's would make them the highest paid in the industry....something I dont think is sustainable. Sorry, but low entry level pay is the nature of the business. Everyone knows this going in. Also, according to your own union leaders, NJ pilots average $50,000 - $72,000 per year.

netjetwife said:
Furthermore, please stop the uninformed posts worrying about the doors being shut at Bridgeway. It doesn't stand up to the common sense test when one looks at the rapid expansion of NJ Inc. Buffett's priority was growth and that is exactly what they have done--at the expense of their employees. IF doors HAD (and I don't see it happening with all the assets they have) to be shut, the ones closed would be those that are NOT profitable. The NJ that is subsidizing others, MORE than pays its own way.

I havent seen anyone on this board except for the pilots talking about shutting the doors at Bridgeway. Our management has publicly stated several times that none of the Bridgeway employees will be laid off. The pilots are the ones publicly stating STFD.

netjetwife said:
Quoting from the May 10th NY Times--"Last year, NetJets accounted for 70 percent of the dollar value of new business generated by fractional jet ownership programs." Last year when the failed TA came out, I was saying that IT IS NOT A MATTER OF CAN'T. IT IS A MATTER OF WON'T! Everyone that looks, will see that the money IS DEFINITELY there. And yes, to an international company like NJ Inc (remember that NJ America is just a small part of a much larger corporation) $120 million really IS relatively few dollars.

Sorry, Last time I looked NJ US had roughly 400 aircraft and NJ Europe less than 100. That means NJ US is over 80% of the total company....So where is this much larger corporation that is going to fund your salary demands?
 
Last edited:
Mr Boisture, (aka family guy)
Don't you have better things to do with your time? We're all waiting for more than tall tales posted on crew ops.
 
Again NJW

I am asking - what are you asking for in total compensation compared with today's rates.

I get your message that you are not asking to double salaries (the pilots dont work on salary) you are not asking to double your hourly rate, but again it is more complicated.

Mangement put out a graph that shows you would double payroll expenses for pilots. If this is not true- tell us what is true. If NJ pays $1.00 today in payroll expenses for pilots for X amount of work, what does your proposal cost?

If management has lied, what is the truth?
 
x402 said:
Mr Boisture, (aka family guy)
Don't you have better things to do with your time? We're all waiting for more than tall tales posted on crew ops.


LOL....I'm going to have to call payroll....I knew I was being underpaid, but this is ridiculous. Maybe I can have the union renegotiate for me....Will I be able to throw terms like SCAB around loosely?
 
FamilyGuy said:
$120 Million is NOT a relatively few dollars. And it boggles my mind that you are willing to destroy the company and the thousands of jobs it provides to pilots and others because you want to double your salary.

How many aviation companies are giving raises right now? You're pay is going to increase, the only question is by how much....meanwhile the vast majority of pilots are either furloughed or getting their pay cut by large amounts.

The company offered a pay increase of ZERO. They offered to let me work more days if I want more money. That is not a raise. I would be happy to work more days as long as we reduce the number of duty hours every day and ferry me home every night.

You think 120 million is a lot of money? Thats how much the pilots have been UNDERpaid every year.

Shouldn't the company make its profits by properly charging for its services instead of by underpaying its pilots?
 
Last edited:
FamilyGuy said:
LOL....I'm going to have to call payroll....I knew I was being underpaid, but this is ridiculous. Maybe I can have the union renegotiate for me....Will I be able to throw terms like SCAB around loosely?

We'll be happy represent you. But, please search my posts before you accuse me of using the s word. I think I've been careful.
 
Last edited:
Total BRK flight operations revenues per SEC filings- $3.42 billion.

Pilot cost today's contract- $125 million, doubling pay= $250 million.

For those of you that failed math in the third grade= $3.42 billion is

3,420 million dollars! thats $3,420,000,000.00!

Hey morons, $250 million is a cost of doing business and is chump change compared to the total revenue income.

They DON'T WANT TO PAY? STMFD and go fly it yourself!
 
El Chupacabra said:
The company offered a pay increase of ZERO. They offered to let me work more days if I want more money. That is not a raise. I would be happy to work more days as long as we reduce the number of duty hours every day and ferry me home every night.

If that's the case, what causes the cost difference in the graph that mgmt published? Is it not due to the increase in wages?

El Chupacabra said:
You think 120 million is a lot of money? Thats how much the pilots have been UNDERpaid every year.

Underpaid against what standard? According to the graph, that $120 million is roughly 3 times the NJ US profit. Should the company lose money to pay you that amount?

El Chupacabra said:
Shouldn't the company makes its profits by properly charging for its services instead of by underpaying its pilots?

This appears to be a problem plaguing all aviation in the last 4 years...NJ is already the highest cost provider, how much of a premium can we charge before owners go to another provider?
 
Zero or what?

El Chupacabra said:
The company offered a pay increase of ZERO. They offered to let me work more days if I want more money. That is not a raise. I would be happy to work more days as long as we reduce the number of duty hours every day and ferry me home every night.QUOTE]
El Chupacabra said:


Isn't it interesting that Chuy here says it was a raise of ZERO, and someone else said it was regressive, and still others said it was meager? It sounds you guys aren't getting a consistent message from you SU boys. But then I don't suppose they would want you to be too well informed as they want to keep you hopped up so you will vote for a strike.



Well go and get-em Chuy. But don't come crying here on the board when the mediator slaps you will a year deep freeze because your SU can't figure out how to bargain in good faith.
 
Bad Monkey! said:
Total BRK flight operations revenues per SEC filings- $3.42 billion.

Pilot cost today's contract- $125 million, doubling pay= $250 million.

For those of you that failed math in the third grade= $3.42 billion is

3,420 million dollars! thats $3,420,000,000.00!

Hey morons, $250 million is a cost of doing business and is chump change compared to the total revenue income.

They DON'T WANT TO PAY? STMFD and go fly it yourself!

For those that failed accounting......REVENUES do not equal PROFIT.

$120 Million in increased pay is roughly 3 times the NJ US Profit.

If you're so bright and control the scarce resource (labor) why dont you start your own airline or fractional?

Simple, you dont have the CAPITAL to get it done....that's the scarce resource.
 
FamilyGuy said:
If that's the case, what causes the cost difference in the graph that mgmt published? Is it not due to the increase in wages??

Its not a graph of what they offered.


FamilyGuy said:
Underpaid against what standard? According to the graph, that $120 million is roughly 3 times the NJ US profit. Should the company lose money to pay you that amount??
They lose money in Europe to pay it.

FamilyGuy said:
This appears to be a problem plaguing all aviation in the last 4 years...NJ is already the highest cost provider, how much of a premium can we charge before owners go to another provider?
Yes that's very interesting. Netjets is the highest cost and pays the least. In the last six years I have been paid over 100K less than I would have at CS flying airplanes half the weight and 1/3 the cost there compared to here.

Can anyone spell mismanagement?
 
x402 said:
We'll be happy represent you. But, please search my posts before you accuse me of using the s word. I think I've been careful.

you're correct x402, you havent used the S word. Sorry if I mixed you up with some of the others.
 
Bad Monkey! said:
Total BRK flight operations revenues per SEC filings- $3.42 billion.

Pilot cost today's contract- $125 million, doubling pay= $250 million.

For those of you that failed math in the third grade= $3.42 billion is

3,420 million dollars! thats $3,420,000,000.00!

Hey morons, $250 million is a cost of doing business and is chump change compared to the total revenue income.

They DON'T WANT TO PAY? STMFD and go fly it yourself!

Very good. that means 120 Million is just 3.5% of the total revenues for flight operations.

Family guy! said:
...NJ is already the highest cost provider, how much of a premium can we charge before owners go to another provider?!

There is your answer ... 3.5% MORE
 
x402 said:
We'll be happy represent you. But, please search my posts before you accuse me of using the s word. I think I've been careful.

Thanks for the offer of representation, but I've had my fill of union shops. Too much strife and arguements for me. I'd rather just come in and do my shift and go home to my family.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top