Netjets Globals

[be99fr8dog]

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.

Maybe the company should have thought of that when they negotiated section 19.

You A teamers keep enjoying your extended day pay.

 

[OPECJet]

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.

The company has the option to engage the union in getting relief. I don't believe for a minute NJASAP wouldn't work with them to accomplish something cost effective and workable.

 

[X-rated]

Like I said, contentious, and now divisive.

It's not about doing what's in the companies best interest, it's about hurting the company while complying with the contract so the union has a bargaining chip to get something they want later. I understand the company does it too, and it's just the way the game is played, but, it seems like a stupid way to run a business to me.

 

[imacdog]

If the company didn't take advantage of pilots then there would be no union.

 

[X-rated]

I'm not arguing that point, and I know the company does the same. It's still wasteful and counterproductive, but it is what it is.

 

[imacdog]

I'm not in this business to be as productive as possible for the company. I expect a certain level of time off, to be compensated for my work fairly, and to be allowed to do my job in a safe manner. To the company, things like time off, working conditions, and pay are wasteful and counterproductive. The goal is to find the right balance of productivity, quality of life, and pay that works for both parties. In a union shop, it's give and take. In a nonunion shop, you take whatever the company decides to give. Might work fine in a small company, but companies have proven themselves to unilaterally makes changes to the above that negatively impact their employees.

 

[gutshotdraw]

The company has the option to engage the union in getting relief. I don't believe for a minute NJASAP wouldn't work with them to accomplish something cost effective and workable.

Actually, I can recall at least one very specific instance where the company asked NJASAP for relief. It was for an around-the-world trip the owner (a valuable owner with big shares in big airplanes) had done with same crew, every year, for a decade.

The union told the company to pound sand and it cost the owner an extra $75,000 in crew swaps. So your theory doesn't hold water.

But what do I know? I'm just an A-Teamer.

By the way, we call it Bubba Club.

 

[jetlag7]

Actually, I can recall at least one very specific instance where the company asked NJASAP for relief. It was for an around-the-world trip the owner (a valuable owner with big shares in big airplanes) had done with same crew, every year, for a decade.

The union told the company to pound sand and it cost the owner an extra $75,000 in crew swaps. So your theory doesn't hold water.

But what do I know? I'm just an A-Teamer.

By the way, we call it Bubba Club.

That particular crew was invited to bid the 18-day schedule during the period in question. They had ample opportunity to do so and it would have provided a remedy to that particular problem while still working within the boundaries of the CBA. -- They refused.

 

[OPECJet]

Actually, I can recall at least one very specific instance where the company asked NJASAP for relief. It was for an around-the-world trip the owner (a valuable owner with big shares in big airplanes) had done with same crew, every year, for a decade.

The union told the company to pound sand and it cost the owner an extra $75,000 in crew swaps. So your theory doesn't hold water.

But what do I know? I'm just an A-Teamer.

By the way, we call it Bubba Club.

That's certainly one side of the story. I seem to recall a strenuous period following selective CBA compliance on the company's part, as well as trying to engage in sell-off / scope relief talks in efforts to furlough more pilots. This was ongoing around the time management made changes to the 401K without NJASAP input, as contractually guaranteed if I remember correctly. This approach was also on short notice, after the union had approached the company on the very subject and was told to "pound sand".

I freely admit I may be confusing events and lump them into the same timeframe. If so I'm open to correction, but do you expect NJASAP to be open to much of anything immediately after the company walked out of a meeting because they didn't want NJASAP's attorney present?

 

[Sammy]

Actually, I can recall at least one very specific instance where the company asked NJASAP for relief. It was for an around-the-world trip the owner (a valuable owner with big shares in big airplanes) had done with same crew, every year, for a decade.

The union told the company to pound sand and it cost the owner an extra $75,000 in crew swaps. So your theory doesn't hold water.

But what do I know? I'm just an A-Teamer.

By the way, we call it Bubba Club.

No disrespect intended, but why would you have knowledge of this or more importantly the amount of $75,000?

 

[gutshotdraw]

It is....er, was, a small company.



BTW, for JetLag, the 18 day wasn't an option for the trip in question either because of the contractual limitations of the 18 day schedule. Jusssss sayin.

 

[jetlag7]

It is....er, was, a small company.



BTW, for JetLag, the 18 day wasn't an option for the trip in question either because of the contractual limitations of the 18 day schedule. Jusssss sayin.

That is incorrect. The crew in question were free to bid the 18-day just like every seniority-list pilot and had ample time to do so. (after all, they knew about this trip a full year in advance having flown it the previous decade....)

This is the type of trip ideally suited to the 18-day schedule. The only caveat, is in order to bid onto the 18-day schedule, the crew would have had to bid off of their respective 7/7 schedules. (if they desired, they would have been free to bid back onto the 7/7 schedule during the next bid period just like every other seniority-list pilot)

The "limitation" this crew sought relief from had nothing to do with the 18-day schedule, but rather they wanted a special exemption made on their behalf to fly the trip without ever leaving the 7/7 schedule. - in other words, they wanted special treatment. (Bubba Club anyone?)

Because there was a remedy to this situation within the boundaries of the CBA (bid the 18-day, fly the trip, then bid back to 7/7 during the next bid period) I believe the union was correct in their decision to deny such an unprecedented "Bubba Club" request.

The union response was provided prior to the close of that particular bid period (again, allowing the crew sufficient time to bid the18-day). For reasons unknown to me, they choose not to.

Bottom line is THE CREW screwed this particular owner when they choose not to bid the 18-day.

Of course, it's much more fun to blame our union.

Jusssss sayin'......

 

[X-rated]

That is incorrect. The crew in question were free to bid the 18-day just like every seniority-list pilot and had ample time to do so. (after all, they knew about this trip a full year in advance having flown it the previous decade....)

This is the type of trip ideally suited to the 18-day schedule. The only caveat, is in order to bid onto the 18-day schedule, the crew would have had to bid off of their respective 7/7 schedules. (if they desired, they would have been free to bid back onto the 7/7 schedule during the next bid period just like every other seniority-list pilot)

The "limitation" this crew sought relief from had nothing to do with the 18-day schedule, but rather they wanted a special exemption made on their behalf to fly the trip without ever leaving the 7/7 schedule. - in other words, they wanted special treatment. (Bubba Club anyone?)

Because there was a remedy to this situation within the boundaries of the CBA (bid the 18-day, fly the trip, then bid back to 7/7 during the next bid period) I believe the union was correct in their decision to deny such an unprecedented "Bubba Club" request.

The union response was provided prior to the close of that particular bid period (again, allowing the crew sufficient time to bid the18-day). For reasons unknown to me, they choose not to.

Bottom line is THE CREW screwed this particular owner when they choose not to bid the 18-day.

Of course, it's much more fun to blame our union.

Jusssss sayin'......

Considering all that, why would the union even give a rip? Aren't they supposed to be on the pilots side? Maybe the crew didn't want to bid the 18 day, maybe they preferred to get the OT. Somehow, it makes you feel better that no pilots made any extra cash, the owner got to pay an extra 75K, the company looked bad in the eyes of the owner, and the union lost out on some fee goodwill and instead got zip. Everyone loses, and nobody wins. Awesome.

 

[OPECJet]

Because why should the union stamp off on a special favor the remainder of the pilot group cannot take part in as well?

Straight up DFR lawsuit if they do, and close to a slam dunk one.

 

[gutshotdraw]

Considering all that, why would the union even give a rip? Aren't they supposed to be on the pilots side? Maybe the crew didn't want to bid the 18 day, maybe they preferred to get the OT. Somehow, it makes you feel better that no pilots made any extra cash, the owner got to pay an extra 75K, the company looked bad in the eyes of the owner, and the union lost out on some fee goodwill and instead got zip. Everyone loses, and nobody wins. Awesome.

Ding! Winner, winner. Chicken dinner.

The bid to the 18 was untenable for that trip for a couple of reasons.

One: Bidding to the 18 day and then back to the 7-7 would have dumped the pay protection those two pilots EARNED.

Two: There is a limit, even on the 18 day, on how long a crew can be out. The trip exceeded that limit.

Best part? They exploited the tour swap provisions of the contract to complete MOST of the trip but the required crew swaps still cost the owner bug bucks.

Bottom line: Sure, we deserve improved compensation, retirement, continued paid health care, etc. etc. etc.

But there are some serious BS limitations in the contract that need to GO. Chief among them is the trimester limit on extended days. There needs to be a limit. No argument. But it needs to by the YEAR, not bid period. To me, that's something that costs us nothing as a group but could be a negotiating point to get us something else.

 

[imacdog]

Great. Let the company fix its mistake. We can use the negotiating capital.

 

[OPECJet]

What pay protection did those two pilots earn that would have been dumped by bidding the 18 day?

What is this trimester limit to extended days you're referring to? I'm not aware of any limit on extended days, but I'm open to correction.

 

[realityman]

Considering all that, why would the union even give a rip? Aren't they supposed to be on the pilots side? Maybe the crew didn't want to bid the 18 day, maybe they preferred to get the OT. Somehow, it makes you feel better that no pilots made any extra cash, the owner got to pay an extra 75K, the company looked bad in the eyes of the owner, and the union lost out on some fee goodwill and instead got zip. Everyone loses, and nobody wins. Awesome.

You don't get it. The CBA rules are the CBA rules.

The CBA isn't worth the paper it's written on if people can just make special deals and get special treatment.

Okay, you think the union should have just allowed the deviation from the CBA.

Fine. But either the CBA is in force, or it's not. If that crew and that owner wanted relief from the CBA, then they should be granted relief from the ENTIRE CBA for that trip.

Do you understand what that means? It means they can go out on tour for as long as necessary to complete the trip. So no tour length limitations. It also would mean no extended days as provided for in the CBA. No hourly O/T as provided for in the CBA.

Sorry, there is no cherry picking of certain sections which would still apply. Otherwise, it's just a special deal for a crew that no other pilot has access to.

I would have no issues with the union voiding the ENTIRE CBA for that crew to do that trip.

I have major issues with our union voiding certain sections that would allow a specific crew to make a ton of extra money that the rest of us have no access to.

It isn't about keeping that money from that crew. It's about opportunity that the other 2499 pilots don't have.

The biggest loser was really the owner. Hey, contracts aren't perfect. And admittedly the conditions of the contract aren't ideal for every owner considering our program. But what should the union do? Start allowing exceptions for every owner who would like to utilize the planes and crews in ways that fall outside our CBA protections and limitations? Once we start down that road, there isn't any going back. We may as well just burn our CBA at that point.

I know, I know, that owner wasn't restricted by the union CBA when he joined the NJI program. Like I said, it does kinda suck for the owner. And no contract is going to work as well for each and every owner. But, well, here we are. Again, how many owners should we start granting exceptions to the CBA for? That's a HUGE can of worms I'm glad our union has chosen not to open.

 

[gutshotdraw]

What pay protection did those two pilots earn that would have been dumped by bidding the 18 day?

What is this trimester limit to extended days you're referring to? I'm not aware of any limit on extended days, but I'm open to correction.

Under the terms of the LOA, any pilot from NJI that bid the 18 day fixed HAD to go to CBA pay. If and when they bid back to the 7-7, they would have to stay on CBA pay which would have been a substantial pay cut for those two pilots given their seniority.

19.1 (b)

Max tour under the 18 day fixed is 8 days. The trip in question was roughly two weeks.

 

[OPECJet]

Under the terms of the LOA, any pilot from NJI that bid the 18 day fixed HAD to go to CBA pay. If and when they bid back to the 7-7, they would have to stay on CBA pay which would have been a substantial pay cut for those two pilots given their seniority.

19.1 (b)

Max tour under the 18 day fixed is 8 days. The trip in question was roughly two weeks.

Gotcha. I'm following you on the pay issue.

What's the deal with the extended day cap though?