NetJets Strike Vote Fails

[Hogprint]

CMHtroll said:

If it was pilots excerising their god given right to proceede as slowly as possible in preflight and reviewing the brief until they would go over on duty time, then that needs to be corrected.

OK troll, you know as well as I that in this example it was NOT the crew exercising their god given right to preflight and review briefs. I would add though that it is a NETJETS REQUIREMENT to do a thorough preflight and review of all data concerning their flight.

I did intend to defend a crew that was being disparaged by a supposed owner. Not necessarily to lay blame at the feet of any one entity in CMH.

Having said all that if the shoe fits......

 

[FLYLOW22]

Originally Posted by FLYLOW22
Sounds to me like SCHEDULING should have allocated a different crew to your trip. There are several other operators who look at regulations with a bleary eye.

Your words:
The trip was plain and clear, it required a crew that could fly nonstop on a CX from SFO to New York. What is so hard to understand about this? I'm just not buying the fact that scheduling did this to us.

My response:
It happens all the time. Everyday. It is the job of the crew to call "UNCLE" when the whims of Owner Services and Scheduling (Fantasy) no longer line up with the strictures of Flight Operations (Fact). They called "Uncle" and if they were in the wrong, would not have been allowed to do so (unless for reasons of sickness or fatigue). They exercises OPERATIONAL CONTROL of the aircraft in the interests of the FARS (if your info is correct).

My words:
The crew ran out of duty time.

Your words:
Why if they indeed were short of duty time (which I don't believe they were) were they placed on this mission?

My response:
You can believe what you will. The regs are the regs. 91K has deblt a significant change to the way that FRACTIONAL (not charter) pilots can be scheduled. The 91K Flight Crew Duty Time and Rest Requirements are quite simple. 14 hours of duty followed by 10 hours of "Rest".

There are other possibilities here as well. I have been in the exact same scenario you describe (changing planes mid flight at another desination with the same owner onboard) for 2 completely different reasons.

1. The plane needed to be somewhere else the next day for Maintenance and the crew flying lacked the dutytime to fly from West Coast to East Coast and then to the Service Center.

2. The crew (or 1 pilot) was not going to be able to complete your flight and then get home prior to 14 hours of duty or by midnight. NJA must get us home after being on the road for 7 days in a row by the end of the 7th day.


Summary,

Respectfully, I am guessing here and trying to think outside of the "pilot hating" box. Since you seem to lack all of the facts I suggest maybe you seek them out or by all means continue to make up a reality that seems right in your mind. The choice is yours. NJA Pilot shave no beef with Owners. We love you guys! You pay the bills... the money just isn't making it to the pilots. Hell I made 40K last year as a Captain!!

It would be great to take you out on tour for a few days just to show you some of the issues we deal with on a daily basis. I would consider it an honor.

Ultimately I am dissapointed that your "NJA Experience" failed to meet your expectations. I think that we are debating about symptoms here rather than the cause though.

 

[Majik]

It's their decision to keep working for sub wages.
J3

It's also our decision (and our right under the RLA) to try to correct that through negotiations while we keep working for substandard wages. The owners are just caught between the pilots and Santulli until we work this out. Maybe we'll reach a mutual agreement before we lose too many owners. Doesn't seem to be adversely affecting the business. For every owner NetJets loses, Santulli is able to sell multiple Marquis cards to a line of waiting buyers for twice the revenue, so he is making even more money. Maybe this is his new business strategy and we're just helping him rebuild his core fleet to make room for the more profitable Marquis market.

 

[Hogprint]

PMVULB says:

This is a scheduling problem not a crew problem. How much time in advance did you give the schedulers? Over a weeks notice on the trip, with SPECIFIC mention that I needed the speed of the X to make for a short treancon flight. What were some of the other circumstances? How much clearer can I make it, I NEED THE SPEED! Did you complain to your Owner service rep? Obviously. What did they tell you? They couldn't believe it![/i]

OK. Let's break this down. You called over a week in advance. That particular crew did not have this info a week in advance, but you KNOW this right? OK, we know you need the SPEED. Don't we all? You obviously contacted your rep, and here is the crux, what exactly could they not believe? The CREW or THE SCHEDULE, OR THEIR OWN DEPARTMENT?


Exactly what did you want this crew to do? Fly past their FAA mandated duty day/flight time? I find it absolutely impossible to believe that this crew was out of time. My passenger was ON TIME for his departure!!! You need to wake up pal. Wake up for what reason. The mission was plain and clear, and was given to NJ that way. Unfortunately we see this more and more on the road. Once again...not the crews problem. Scheduling knew this crew was on the tail end of their day. Why am I not buying this?????

Why do you find it impossible to believe. We're telling you this is happening on the road constantly since the implementation of 91k. It is just a fact. Believe it or not. It is appreciated that your pax was on time. Was the crew late for their departure? Is that what I'm reading between the lines that your trying to say here? Or had you not thought of that yet?
The mission was clear to NJA, but looks like it wasn't to the pilots or schedulers.


If you are this arrogant and ignorant of the rules we must abide by, then by all means, do us ALL a favor and look at the rest. I've been in Corporate Aviation for over 33 years now, and thankfully can say that I've been very successful in the business. You don't get that way by being arrogant and ignorant of any rules. I run one of the most respected flight departments on the East Coast, and every job I've ever had except my first one was offered to me, not me looking for it.

For someone with all this experience, this sure threw you for a loop. This is everyday boilerplate in frax flying. I guess your a newbie. Just what flight dept do you run anyway? Why weren't your boys flying this trip?

Rest assured, we are laying in the bed that Netjets has made. I don't like it and you don't seem to like it.

.[/QUOTE]

but this incident is BS.

If you are really an owner (and I have my doubts) then I agree. NETJETS let you down.

I think the crew shafted us, I am certain of this. Also, the way it was done, without any kind of appolgy on their part, proves that.

Just tell us how you are CERTAIN of this! Why are you demanding an apology from the pilots? Your venom should be directed straight at CMH.

We just experienced another HIT job on one of our crews. Almost had a couple of our boys fired. I wonder if your that type of rabble rouser?

 

[hammer2]

J3 I'm sure they aren't dummies, they don't see the big picture. The whole flight department is supposed to work as a team to make sure the owners get the best service possible, without jeopardizing the pax nor the crew. By assigning a trip on a crew w/out the duty time to complete the trip is against the companies rules & FARs, nor could the crew accept the entire trip per company & FARs. If the crew accepted the trip the dummies on the client end would pile more of these situations on them. If managment looked at the waste created by the dummies on the client end, all of us in the frac business wouldn't be working for sub wages.

 

[El Chupacabra]

I have been scheduled to exceed crew day and or 10 hrs in 24 a number of times. I don't think they have an effective way to track it at CMH. You have to track it yourself and when you bring it up to scheduling they act surprised. Oh schitt whatta we do now?

some times if you look at your line last day you will wonder how you can do your last trip and still get home. We can't get you home unless you volunteer to go over 14 hours. Ok? Not Ok.

you know the tail you were flying on hours ahead of time. Does not mean I know the tail I will fly or trip I will do 45 minutes from now.

 

[Sarka]

I did a little research and if PMVULB AvMgr is referring to the flight I looked into that had an incident similar to the one he described, then just about everyone that posted an opinion here should get all the facts before playing the blame game. I could be wrong, but I did find a case that seems to fit the bill.

The flight I found was originally scheduled to go non-stop from SFO to NY (upgrade request to a CX). The crew originally assigned had a short west coast trip prior to the one PMVULB AvMgr is referring to, but were still legally scheduled to complete their duty line well within their 14 hours of duty (this included a 90 minute pre-flight, 1 hour turn, and 90 minute pad of duty at the end of the scheduled flight).

From reading the case notes, it appears that due to weather conditions (winds, etc.) that the CX was unable to complete the SFO-NY leg without making a fuel-stop. Normally, the ten can easily fly coast-to-coast without a fuel-stop, but in some cases (due to weather, DAPP, etc.) they are not. It appears that this was the case this day which is pretty rare. Usually, this is not discovered until Dispatch runs the actual numbers given the current weather conditions sometime prior to the actual flight. This usually occurs a few hours prior to the actual flight, but in some cases is not done until just prior to the flight for a number of reasons. It appears that in this case, the fuel-stop requirement was not discovered until shortly before the scheduled takeoff (1 to 1.5 hours). It was determined that given the additional fuel-stop and slower flight speeds (longer time to complete both legs) due to winds, the original crew could not complete the entire trip within the 14 hour crew day.

Looking at the flight demand for the day and looking at the schedule it appears that there were no other CX crews available on the west coast that would have had the duty to complete the entire trip either (with fuel-stop) as it was scheduled to depart late in the day. As usual, it was a heavy demand day with limited resources available. It appears that the stop was then scheduled through CMH because that is where we had an available crew to complete the trip. The first leg of the trip actually departed shortly after the scheduled departure time and took longer than scheduled (most likely due to weather/winds). It does not appear to have been delayed at all due to anything the pilots did or did not do. I'd have to say that by looking at the info I have available, PMVULB AvMgr has made some bad assumptions concerning the pilots performance of their duties. However, it does appear that you were not given a complete picture of why your flight did not go as planned either.

I'd have to say that some of the pilots here have placed some blame in areas that seem to be misplaced also. While we always try to accomodate each owner's request while maintaining all the rules and regulations, there are always some un-forseen possibilites/problems that can make the best made plans go south. While we try to build in some contingency plans for such situations (hot spares, early or extended crew duty times, etc.), not every situation can be planned for. I'm sure if you look into most cases, there are some reasonable causes to most problems. In this case, it appears that weather (which neither pilots, scheduling, dispatch, owner services, etc. can control or predict) played a big part in the flight not going as scheduled. I do believe that things could have been communicated better, though.

 

[Ace-of-the-Base]

Wsc Cx

it appears that due to weather conditions (winds, etc.) that the CX was unable to complete the SFO-NY leg without making a fuel-stop.

Are you saying that there is a set of conditions (other than the pressurization system being MEL'd) that would make the CX not be able to non-stop eastbound from SFO to NY and have destination plus alternate plus :45? I cannot beleive that. Please some X pliot, show me those numbers! I know those things break alot, but can't make SFO to NY with WX, wow.

Ace

 

[El Chupacabra]

climb gradient out of VNY. I could not load fuel enough.

I think there is a departure out of SFO with a gradient that might affect how much fuel you can load. Also Ace is correct. Some MELs could limit Flight level to a point that fuel flow is too high.

 

[Hogprint]

SARKA found out:

First of all, great job on the research Sarka! It seems to fit the bill. I will agree, the different departments are spring loaded to point the finger in the others direction when things go wrong.

then just about everyone that posted an opinion here should get all the facts before playing the blame game.

I do hope though you were including Avmgr in this? After all he did cast the first stone.

I'd have to say that by looking at the info I have available, PMVULB AvMgr has made some bad assumptions concerning the pilots performance of their duties. However, it does appear that you were not given a complete picture of why your flight did not go as planned either.

This is the problem. We work in a fluid environ. This is a case of having to roll with the punches. Everyone seems to have covered their bases for a safe flight. Where was the breakdown? It was not communicated to the owner. In light of the genial tone of this post, I will not lay blame, but we all know someone dropped the ball here. I have posted before that owners are telling us they are not being told the whole truth at best and outright lied to at worst about this kind of mix up. I don't understand why we would ever put ourselves in this position?!

In this case, it appears that weather (which neither pilots, scheduling, dispatch, owner services, etc. can control or predict) played a big part in the flight not going as scheduled. I do believe that things could have been communicated better, though

Well Avmgr....you have your explanation. If I were you I'd be pretty steamed that I had to get it through an Internet chat board. I'm sure you've seen this sort of thing in your 33yrs of top flight management though. The net is after all the wave of the future!

Oh, about those apology's you spoke of. I think the pilots and schedulers, would appreciate them.

 

[Sarka]

climb gradient out of VNY. I could not load fuel enough.

I think there is a departure out of SFO with a gradient that might affect how much fuel you can load. Also Ace is correct. Some MELs could limit Flight level to a point that fuel flow is too high.

I was not directly involved with this flight (not working that night), but it does appear that the aircraft was MEL'd after the first leg into SFO that limited altitude/range. The case notes are a little vague as to the reason for the fuel-stop. Just says a fuel-stop was required.

I do hope though you were including Avmgr in this?

Yes, I was including everyone that did not have all the facts.

Where was the breakdown? It was not communicated to the owner.

Bingo!

 

[dukeofdub]

Strike vote?

.... so when will we hear about the counting of the strike vote?

 

[CMHTroll]

Vote count this weekend?

"89% is a good start with the election of an MEC that is working for the pilots. We just need to get the rest of the 11% to see the big picture here. Make no mistake the strike vote WILL pass. If you vote not to strike you are only hurting yourself. Come on trolls, what do you have to say? What will be your spin on a 100% strike vote? Oh, you won't want to touch that one because you can't divide the pilot membership on that one."

Duke, we look forward to a 100% strike vote this weekend. You guys will need the shot of solidarity, as it seems to be a little less than what you expected. Of course if the vote is less than 89%, which voted the MEC in, then I guess you will be on a slide to loss of confidence, which is understandable as your MEC is still following a path of bad faith bargaining. Granted they have said they will look at the books, but they won't use the facts for their basis in bargaining. It was that concept that got us in abeyance and will be their (and your) recess unless they change their ways. So we look forward to that 100% strike vote this weekend. I have been saving up to buy a lot of beer if it hits 100.

 

[FLYLOW22]

Duke, we look forward to a 100% strike vote this weekend. You guys will need the shot of solidarity, as it seems to be a little less than what you expected. Of course if the vote is less than 89%, which voted the MEC in, then I guess you will be on a slide to loss of confidence, which is understandable as your MEC is still following a path of bad faith bargaining. Granted they have said they will look at the books, but they won't use the facts for their basis in bargaining. It was that concept that got us in abeyance and will be their (and your) recess unless they change their ways. So we look forward to that 100% strike vote this weekend. I have been saving up to buy a lot of beer if it hits 100.

How would you define "bad faith negotiations" Troll?

Do you have examples of how Olsen has engaged in bad faith negotiations with NJA? Specific examples?

I also think the fellows you bet beer on regarding the strike vote are a bit slow. Why would they accept a bet that would only yield a win based on 100% success. Every democratic group of people (pilot group in this case) will have some that agree and some that disagree.

We'll see what the final result is. It will be high me thinks.

Regardless of the outcome though the important thing is that the voice of the pilots was heard. It's more than I can say for most other employee groups at NJA. They are forced to take what scraps they are given.

Also, regardless of the outcome of the strike vote (a measure of whether the pilots would LIKE to strike) the vote itself changes nothing regarding abeyance.

Both sides will still be on hold. The company will still be
hemorrhaging cash like the Kitner boy in the water at the beach in Jaws 1.

The pilots will be sitting here in relative stasis. In the coming weeks a total of 98% of pilots will be making Captain's pay. NJA pilots
have stabilized themselves financially as best as possible to weather the storm.

The company will continue to try and cover the schedule with selloffs and by squeezing all aspects of the schedule, exerting pressure on pilots, etc.

What we have here is a good old-fashioned standoff.

It'll be nice if both sides can ever get back to focusing on business. Until then... let it burn I suppose. Whatever.

 

[CMHTroll]

You are correct.

I agree that the vote will come in but not as high as you think. Common bet is between 69 and 76%. But you are correct it would be great to get back to business and stop the foolishness

I agree that the vote will come in but not as high as you think. Common bet is between 69 and 76%. But you are correct it would be great to get back to business and stop the foolishness so everyone can get back to serving the Owners.

Both sides will be on hold until the Union finishes it analysis of the Company books, (an unnecessary delay if they had done it 6 months ago.) And as far as the hemorrhaging money, the pilots seem to be the major factor in that equation. With added DINF and other foolishness the Company is forced to have more sub-contract to cover the demand. Less money to pay crew with in the future. Looks like you are causing some self-inflicting wounds.

As you say a standoff. I just hope your MEC gets it and doesn't force it into a recess. Your MEC is in control of that situation all they have to do is bargain in good faith.