Netjets Globals

[CorpCaptain]

No doubt about it. All I care about is keeping the folks in the back happy. If the boss wants a new G550, I'll just consider myself very lucky, and I certainly won't complain. I guess that's my point though. GLEX vs G; who really cares? They're both very capable machines, and each has certain advantages over the other. Sometimes I get the idea you're rooting for the Globals to fail because you love your G. If you are, I believe you may be disappointed. It honestly is a very good airplane.

I'm hopeful that Netjet's large orders with Bombardier will give them enough influence to improve the caliber of Bombardiers customer service and their willingness to stand behind their product. In my opinion, that is still Bombardiers weakness not the airplanes themselves.

Couldnt have said it better myself. Havent seen any type of issues outside the regular CAS messages and CTL-ALT-DEL continual resets. The frame and interior has held up fantastically without issue. Spent the day yesterday with a G-Bird rep expounding on the 650 over golf and simply could not believe the first one avail is nearly 4yrs out. 550? Almost 2 years. They arent hurting. IMHO, you have 6 in one hand, half a dozen in the other.

 

[CA1900]

We thought we were getting relief when she was scheduled to go home on our day 5. And then she extended two days.....

Wait, they're in contract negotiations and they're picking up extended days? Holy hell, way to devalue yourself in the middle of negotiations.

 

[gutshotdraw]

Wait, they're in contract negotiations and they're picking up extended days? Holy hell, way to devalue yourself in the middle of negotiations.

My exact point to her in a nutshell. I told her when you extend at the end of a tour, you are rewarding management incompetence because they either can't staff properly or else abuse people so badly they call in sick. Wait a tic. BOTH of those things are happening.

When they dropped an extra ferry and a 13 pax transcon onto what was an easy day, I was ready to shell her if she said one word about it.

She extended. You pay the piper.

My partner told me later she bitched to him and he shut her down which is why I didn't hear a peep out of her.

 

[CA1900]

My partner told me later she bitched to him and he shut her down which is why I didn't hear a peep out of her.

Tough love. Sometimes it has to be done!

 

[imacdog]

My exact point to her in a nutshell. I told her when you extend at the end of a tour, you are rewarding management incompetence because they either can't staff properly or else abuse people so badly they call in sick. Wait a tic. BOTH of those things are happening.

When they dropped an extra ferry and a 13 pax transcon onto what was an easy day, I was ready to shell her if she said one word about it.

She extended. You pay the piper.

My partner told me later she bitched to him and he shut her down which is why I didn't hear a peep out of her.

Uh huh. And the G pilots account for how many extended days, exactly?

 

[gutshotdraw]

Uh huh. And the G pilots account for how many extended days, exactly?

Some of you might not like to hear this but....

Because of long, complicated international itineraries, GLC crews are sometimes asked if they can go out for a 9 or 10 day tour so as to avoid a REALLY expensive crew swap in some far-flung international locale. That is actually smart business and, in my view, a legitimate use of extended days. Since it is for a known itinerary, Crew Planning will move down the list until they find a crew that can do the trip. Because it happens often and is sometimes multiplied by 3 because of augmented crews, those extended days rack up quickly. Hence the higher numbers of GLC extended days.

What is NOT legitimate is when a Gulfstream is bouncing around the CONUS and scheduling suddenly realizes "holy crap, we're short pilots, (or FA's) will you extend?" THAT is BAD business and mismanagement. For me, that answer is always "thanks, but no, thanks." I will admit, too many of my GLC colleagues actually agree to extend under this scenario.

The Global 6000 fleet is dominated by open bid, double digit seniority numbers but I would be willing to bet the extended day numbers (pro-rated by airframe) are very similar in that fleet.

And before you get all "holier-than-thou" on me, take a closer look at the percentage of former NJI that work the 18 day versus the percentage of 18 day schedules of the NJA crossovers and across the small fleets. The results are telling. I would argue that the high 18 day participation rate has extended the duration of the furlough and has a more negative impact on negotiations than extended days. Can you imagine the chaos if everyone that could bid OFF the 18 day?

 

[Pervis]

Gut, starting with your last, there is a restriction of 10% per bid period for the 18 day schedule reduction. It would take years before we could affect the bottom line. Extending, however, has an immediate impact. As you say, the cost of long distance crew swaps is prohibitive. Being allowed to rely on GLC and Global crews to cover their butts does not help our cause. It's simply business. Applying pressure to your adversary, legally of course, works both ways. The EMT has already started. Why help them in their efforts?

That said, we have not even started negotiations, so hard pressure is not necessary-yet. Be ready though. Remember, by August of 2005, company spent hundreds of millions on vendors. We had an agreement 2 months later. Now, as for the FAs? I mentioned the extended day is not helping their cause at all. She really didn't understand what I was talking about. Please educate them. With both groups involved, together we can improve our QOL significantly.

 

[gutshotdraw]

I agree in principle Pervis. Personally, I have extended MAYBE 10 days in the last 5 years and ONLY for specific, international trips. Extending off the cuff when asked by a panicked scheduler is something I NEVER do and I wish all pilots and flight attendants in ALL fleets reacted the same way. I truly believe there is a difference and a defensible one at that.

As for the 18 day, I am aware that only 10% per bid period can get off the schedule. But if we, as a group, started weaning people OFF the 18 day now, by the time things got down to brass tacks, we would be back to EXACTLY the selloff situation that brought things to a head 8 years ago. Short term financial loss now for long term gain over the life of a contract.

As to educating FA's? If last week's FA is any measure, that will be a tough sell and history repeating itself (AFA vs. Teamsters vote a couple years ago).

 

[Pervis]

Another thought on the 18 day Gut. If everyone did jump off, that would do nothing but make company jump with glee. The money saved and reduction from up to 6 to 4 airlines per month would make them even happier. It might, although I really doubt it, change the staffing requirements. As it is, we could and should bring back all furloughed pilots and we'd still be short staffed. And this is the slow season?

 

[X-rated]

Saw my first N-Reg Netjets 6000 in LFMN yesterday. I've got to say, the Netjets paint scheme looks great on it. Very sharp.

Also, I've got to agree with Gut. Unless your just trying to put your company out of business, you need to realize international flying is unique, and a certain number of extended days are necessary for some long international trips.

Why would punishing the company be a benefit to the furloughed pilots anyway? Those trips have no bearing on whether another crew member is brought off furlough. The airplanes are already properly staffed, it's just far more cost effective and practical to pay a second crew to sit at home while paying the operating crew extended days instead of trying to crew swap on a plane bouncing around Asia. It's economically and operationally unreasonable to crew swap on many of these international trips; that doesn't mean they don't already have enough pilots. Unfortunately, some hardcore types are too myopic to see the big picture.

 

[Pervis]

Those trips have no bearing on whether another crew member is brought off furlough. The airplanes are already properly staffed.

Wrong on both counts. Unfamiliarity with the contract is far more myopic than understanding the leverage crews have to facilitate recall and force company to staff at more reasonable levels. Currently, recalls are required if we involve vendors more than so many days in a given quarter. Extending allows company to avoid that. Additionally, the contractual "minimum" of 5 pilots per airframe is considerably lower than any other large carrier and is unrealistic, especially for the GLC and Global programs. Extending allows the EMT to keep staffing levels low.

While some would consider this an attempt to harm the company, they could not be more mistaken. If we gain a level of mutual respect and are treated as an asset rather than a liability, we will go way beyond any expectation to perform. That is not the current environment we live in, and it will only get worse before it gets better. Just ask the flight attendants.

 

[X-rated]

I stand corrected. Maybe not extending in those circumstances will actually help you get crews back per the contract, but it has no bearing on actually needing those crews. I never was any good at playing politics. If you say it's in everybody's best interest to stick it to the company, so you can stick it to the company, I'll take your word for it.

In my simple and naive way of thinking, I'd say keep the staffing appropriate so the company can be competitive and grow thereby allowing pilots to be recalled. Maybe your way is more expeditious.

 

[Pervis]

X, the company claims we are still overstaffed because of the minimal requirement in the CBA. Ask any goofy blue tie guy how much we are being worked. And this is the slow season?

I am not suggesting sticking it to anyone. However, considering our limitations imposed by the RLA, the only leverage we have at this time is to adhere as strictly to the contract as we can. If the very language they agreed upon forces a more equitable position for us at the bargaining table, so be it.

The EMT is pushing the limits of the CBA to their advantage every chance they get, at our expense, including changing long distance airline policy, placing crews in 6 hour limo rides, reducing quality of crew food in their quest to "save money", and many other areas. Who is trying to stick it to whom?

 

[X-rated]

Fair enough. There are two sides to every issue, and your points and your explanations are valid. It's unfortunate that everything needs to be so contentious. Like I said, I don't do well in large companies because I can't make myself play the game. In my current job, we as a crew simply try our best to save the boss as much money as possible while ensuring the highest maintenance, operating and luxury standards. He rewards us extremely well for our efforts. Too bad it gets so much more complicated when flight departments get larger. I'll be the first to admit I simply don't understand it, but it seems to me everybody loses in the process. Thanks for the cordial education.

 

[OPECJet]

The company has options at its disposal to mitigate the extended days in the G fleet. They have chosen not to.

I think you'll find few furloughed guys who appreciate the 18 day schedule holders. Doesn't show much unity whether or not pilots jumping off would cause recalls. Just like accepting open time at an airline with furloughs.

 

[X-rated]

The company has options at its disposal to mitigate the extended days in the G fleet. They have chosen not to.

I thought I would drop out of this part of the conversation, but I'm actually really curious what they are? Can you elaborate?

 

[imacdog]

Another thought on the 18 day Gut. If everyone did jump off, that would do nothing but make company jump with glee. The money saved and reduction from up to 6 to 4 airlines per month would make them even happier. It might, although I really doubt it, change the staffing requirements. As it is, we could and should bring back all furloughed pilots and we'd still be short staffed. And this is the slow season?

The productivity gains outweigh the cost of the airline rides. If the 18-day was such a bad deal for the company then they would not have agreed to it in the IBB talks.

 

[OPECJet]

I thought I would drop out of this part of the conversation, but I'm actually really curious what they are? Can you elaborate?

I can't. Don't have the details, but I recall NJASAP stating they approached the company to give them some relief on the subject and the company declined. Seems they'd rather negotiate that aspect with individual pilots rather than the entire pilot group.

I have no problem with the company needing and gaining the ability to keep guys on the road longer than 7 days when operationally or financially beneficial. It's preferable however to gain that flexibility through NJASAP rather than individual pilots.

 

[be99fr8dog]

I thought I would drop out of this part of the conversation, but I'm actually really curious what they are? Can you elaborate?

No negotiations needed. It's already in the CBA. The company just does not feel the need to use it. Works much better to just take care of the A-teamers.

19.9 International Flight Program (?IFP?) 19.9(A) General
A crewmember may elect to participate in the IFP as set forth in this subsection 19.9. The IFP will permit the Company to modify the published or anticipated work schedule of an IFP crewmember in order to create an IFP tour consisting of a minimum of eight (8) and maximum of ten (10) consecutive Company required work days, provided (1) the Company has received a request for at least one (1) international flight, as defined in subsection 19.9(A)(1); and (2) considering travel duty and known and possible flight duty, it is anticipated (based on customer request) that the IFP crewmember will spend at least five (5) consecutive days outside of CONUS.
19.9(A)(1) International Flying
For purposes of this subsection 19.9, international flying is defined as flying where at least one segment originates or terminates outside CONUS.
19.9(B) IFP Positions
The Company may post bids for positions in the IFP by fleet and duty position. Crewmembers may bid and be awarded IFP positions within their fleet and duty positions on the basis of seniority. A crewmember who receives an IFP position award will remain in the IFP for a period of one (1) year; provided, a crewmember who is awarded a position in a different fleet or duty position will be removed from the IFP.
19.9(C) IFP Training
Crewmembers in the IFP will receive adequate and standardized training equal to or greater than the international training the Company provides to other crewmembers. Training, if not previously accomplished, will commence within ninety (90) calendar days from the date of the IFP bid award, unless the training is delayed for reasons outside the control of the Company.
19.9(D) IFP Tours 19.9(D)(1) Posting
The Company will post IFP tours as soon as practicable. An IFP posting will include the dates of the IFP tour and a crewmember response deadline, which will be no less than forty-eight (48) hours prior to the first day of the IFP tour. An IFP crewmember may bid the posted IFP tour via the Company Issued Communication Device or other Company- designated response method.

 

[gutshotdraw]

No negotiations needed. It's already in the CBA. The company just does not feel the need to use it. Works much better to just take care of the A-teamers.

19.9 International Flight Program (?IFP?)

If you believe Section 19 is at all practical to the way our international trips operate, maybe you should bid the Global to find out what really goes on.