Netjets Globals

[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?

 

[X-rated]

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.

Realityman,

That's the first argument that has made any sense to me. I can understand not permitting deviations because it could be a slippery slope. However, if the union needs to specifically allow all deviations on a case by case basis, I don't really see the issue.

I think you get right too it when you say you don't want anyone getting something you don't get. Somehow it makes you feel better to deny your fellow pilots a couple measly days OT because you don't get them. Better you should all do without and the owner should pay an extra 75K. I'm pretty sure that's the definition of selfish.

 

[realityman]

Realityman,

That's the first argument that has made any sense to me. I can understand not permitting deviations because it could be a slippery slope. However, if the union needs to specifically allow all deviations on a case by case basis, I don't really see the issue.

I think you get right too it when you say you don't want anyone getting something you don't get. Somehow it makes you feel better to deny your fellow pilots a couple measly days OT because you don't get them. Better you should all do without and the owner should pay an extra 75K. I'm pretty sure that's the definition of selfish.

Well, that sorta cuts both ways, doesn't it?

I mean, that flight crew had the option of bidding onto the 18-day schedule to make the trip work. Voila!! Happy owner, and lots of extended days for the crew.

But they refused. Didn't want to give anything up to help out the owner or the company. So they wanted a special deal that would have made them a bunch of extra money without having to sacrifice anything.

Isn't that pretty selfish? They had contractually compliant options that would have worked. Instead, they refused to use them and were hoping the company would work out a special deal for them. Selfish.

As for a case by case scenario, why would we want to do that? You're still missing the bigger picture. If owner #1 wanted a CBA deviation for his around the world trip, can we say no to owners #2-#150 that want the same thing, or something similar? Even if they want something entirely different, is it really great service to our owners to grant deviations for one owner but not for the next?

More importantly from the pilots' perspective, is it helpful to the group as a whole to allow a constant stream of CBA deviations? And if you really think it'll just be an occasional thing, I have a bridge to sell you. Once management sees that our union is willing to go outside the CBA to "Help the owners out", it'll be requested of us more and more often. On any given day of the year we probably have dozens of situations where things could work better for the owners if we could just scooch a teensy tiny bit outside of one CBA provision or another.

No thanks. Still very happy our union stood firm on that one.

 

[realityman]

Oh, by the way, I'm not interested in denying ANY pilots here money. And it doesn't make me feel better to do so.

Please try to avoid the mind reading thing. You're not very good at it.

I'm saying it's wrong for our union to cut deals with the company that allow special favors for specific flight crews.

Like I said, that crew could have bid the 18-day schedule and sucked up all the extended days they wanted on that trip.

Yes, a gutshot pointed out, their pay protection would have gone away, but thems the breaks of working under the CBA. Nothing is perfect.

 

[gutshotdraw]

As I understand it, under 19.1, the longest possible tour is 8 days. So having them go to the 18 day wouldn't have helped in this situation.

Regardless, loss of pay protection was the dealbreaker here.

Going forward, I would like to see the limit on extended days be calculated by YEAR, not bid period. There has to be a limit of total days, no doubt. Perhaps a reduction in the total number of days but over the year. Would have prevented another expensive crew swap when a pilot ran up against the trimester limit when the owner pushed his departure back an extra two days on an overseas trip. Still puts a cap on the Bubba Club but makes it a bit more flexible.

 

[VGerect]

Well, that sorta cuts both ways, doesn't it?

I mean, that flight crew had the option of bidding onto the 18-day schedule to make the trip work. Voila!! Happy owner, and lots of extended days for the crew.

But they refused. Didn't want to give anything up to help out the owner or the company. So they wanted a special deal that would have made them a bunch of extra money without having to sacrifice anything.

Isn't that pretty selfish? They had contractually compliant options that would have worked. Instead, they refused to use them and were hoping the company would work out a special deal for them. Selfish.

As for a case by case scenario, why would we want to do that? You're still missing the bigger picture. If owner #1 wanted a CBA deviation for his around the world trip, can we say no to owners #2-#150 that want the same thing, or something similar? Even if they want something entirely different, is it really great service to our owners to grant deviations for one owner but not for the next?

More importantly from the pilots' perspective, is it helpful to the group as a whole to allow a constant stream of CBA deviations? And if you really think it'll just be an occasional thing, I have a bridge to sell you. Once management sees that our union is willing to go outside the CBA to "Help the owners out", it'll be requested of us more and more often. On any given day of the year we probably have dozens of situations where things could work better for the owners if we could just scooch a teensy tiny bit outside of one CBA provision or another.

No thanks. Still very happy our union stood firm on that one.

Amen brother !

It doesn't matter if it's the G-whiz bubba club or the Citation X/G200 A-Teamers who magically get crew swapped into an aircraft on the west coast for the Hawaii trips while the original crew watches their aircraft head into the sunset before airlining back to TEB for more abuse.

 

[jetlag7]

19.1 (b)

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

Keep reading....

19.6(B)

Crewmembers on the 18-day schedule are allowed an "unlimited" number of extended days.

Again, this 2-week around the world trip is exactly the type of mission the 18-day schedule was designed for.

 

[X-rated]

If owner #1 wanted a CBA deviation for his around the world trip, can we say no to owners #2-#150 that want the same thing, or something similar? Even if they want something entirely different, is it really great service to our owners to grant deviations for one owner but not for the next?

More importantly from the pilots' perspective, is it helpful to the group as a whole to allow a constant stream of CBA deviations? And if you really think it'll just be an occasional thing, I have a bridge to sell you.

These two points are excellent and valid.

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.

I'm not sure you can really call it mind reading when all I did is paraphrase what you wrote.

 

[OPECJet]

Sounds to me like the crew was asking NJASAP to take one for the team so they could pad their wallets.

 

[BORG]

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.

Those extended days DO cost US something - "us" being the furloughed pilots.

IT IS UNACCEPTABLE TO PICK UP EXTENDED DAYS WHEN THERE ARE FURLOUGHED PILOTS!!!

Thanks for the brotherhood and solidarity though.

 

[acaTerry]

IT IS UNACCEPTABLE TO PICK UP EXTENDED DAYS WHEN THERE ARE FURLOUGHED PILOTS!!!

Last thing I want is more workdays...they're working us hard enough as it is. I get the feeling some of the repeat extenders have no life outside of NJA.