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 Unrest Puts Warren Buffett in a Rare Pinch

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
The latest ad is embarassing. And silly, in my opinion. Apparently, these problems will go away if we are paid more. What a laugh.

Our quest for an improved CBA is unrelated to how the EMT is destroying our brand. Some examples of their ineptness. Airlining us from one city to another on day six to show a jet crewed for a couple hours. After a late check out that resulted in a full day's rate. Zero productivity involved, but hey, the jet is crewed. Up to three ferry legs to get a pilot home so they don't have to pay him an after midnight. Taking a couple dozen line pilots off line to be temp ACPs while we never needed them before, not to mention our shortage of crews. Violating federal law in accessing a private Union web sit and admitting it in their feeble attempt to have the lawsuit dismissed. Need I go on?

With the seemingly unlimited funds to do the above, among many other wasteful practices, they can damn well pay us a lot more. In fact if they got smart in how they run the business they could double our salaries and feel zero impact to our bottom line.
 
Stop making sense. This is FI.com. It isn't allowed here.
 
Our quest for an improved CBA is unrelated to how the EMT is destroying our brand. Some examples of their ineptness. Airlining us from one city to another on day six to show a jet crewed for a couple hours. After a late check out that resulted in a full day's rate. Zero productivity involved, but hey, the jet is crewed. Up to three ferry legs to get a pilot home so they don't have to pay him an after midnight. Taking a couple dozen line pilots off line to be temp ACPs while we never needed them before, not to mention our shortage of crews. Violating federal law in accessing a private Union web sit and admitting it in their feeble attempt to have the lawsuit dismissed. Need I go on?

With the seemingly unlimited funds to do the above, among many other wasteful practices, they can damn well pay us a lot more. In fact if they got smart in how they run the business they could double our salaries and feel zero impact to our bottom line.

You're never needed until you're needed.
Like you, I don't get the temp ACP thing
Does your CBA not mention that you must be realaistically scheduled to arrive home on last day? It can certainly be cheaper to pay the aftermidnight then ferry you home a few hours....but that wouldn't honor the CBA.
Wasteful spending? It's the cost of doing business. If there's an open tail that you can get to, 98/100 times you'll go to it...day 1, or day 6. Crew at the hotel with a tail in mx is of zero use to covering trips when there are other uncrewed tails. Plain and simple.
 
Hey Family Guy!

Let's get this done!!

If I was in charge, it would have been done a long time ago. I'd have exercised the three year extension option and started work on a new agreement during that three year period.

Have you guys ever given any thought to challenging the basic premise that all air carrier operations have to be covered under the RLA? The original intent of the RLA was to prevent strikes in essential transportation industries like railroads or airlines, but I think everyone would be hard pressed to argue that NetJets is essential to public transportation in the US.
 
You're never needed until you're needed.
Like you, I don't get the temp ACP thing
Does your CBA not mention that you must be realaistically scheduled to arrive home on last day? It can certainly be cheaper to pay the aftermidnight then ferry you home a few hours....but that wouldn't honor the CBA.
Wasteful spending? It's the cost of doing business. If there's an open tail that you can get to, 98/100 times you'll go to it...day 1, or day 6. Crew at the hotel with a tail in mx is of zero use to covering trips when there are other uncrewed tails. Plain and simple.

The CBA does not require extremes to get us home or we would not have after midnight language. The intent of the CBA is to give scheduling incentive to see that we get home through common sense scheduling, not avoid after midnighs at all costs. Multiple legs into known weather followed by a couple legs on an airline simply indicates poor staffing and planning.

A airline to cover a jet on day six for one hour, after the flight home is already booked for a ten hour turn after arrival is not utilization. It fills the square. Bottom line is we are way short staffed.

I am very familiar with the nature of on demand service. The waste today is no better than during the boom of the last decade. In fact it is worse in many aspects. Yet every effort to avoid paying the crews is made when the plan falls apart.
 
You're never needed until you're needed.

Like you, I don't get the temp ACP thing

Does your CBA not mention that you must be realaistically scheduled to arrive home on last day? It can certainly be cheaper to pay the aftermidnight then ferry you home a few hours....but that wouldn't honor the CBA.

Wasteful spending? It's the cost of doing business. If there's an open tail that you can get to, 98/100 times you'll go to it...day 1, or day 6. Crew at the hotel with a tail in mx is of zero use to covering trips when there are other uncrewed tails. Plain and simple.



The CBA does not state that. It only says that if we aren't returned home by midnight, there is a monetary penalty for the company.

In many cases, it is way cheaper for the company to pay the after midnight than the cost they spend to get us home. The only logic for 3 ferry legs to get a crewmember home is that the idea of paying us an after midnight is so nauseating that they would rather drop $10,000 than give us an extra $2000.

Besides, they need to have a reason to cry poor when we demand $250,000 a year (which they can easily afford).
 
If I was in charge, it would have been done a long time ago. I'd have exercised the three year extension option and started work on a new agreement during that three year period.

Have you guys ever given any thought to challenging the basic premise that all air carrier operations have to be covered under the RLA? The original intent of the RLA was to prevent strikes in essential transportation industries like railroads or airlines, but I think everyone would be hard pressed to argue that NetJets is essential to public transportation in the US.

Whether we are covered under the RLA or the rules of Marcus of Queensbury, it doesn't matter; you just need to sit down and get it done before the place disintegrates!
 
Whether we are covered under the RLA or the rules of Marcus of Queensbury, it doesn't matter; you just need to sit down and get it done before the place disintegrates!

I wish I could, but I'm not involved in the negotiations.

I do agree with your sentiment though. If they don't get it resolved quickly I fear there will be irreparable damage to the company and brand.
 
Something needs to be made very clear at this point.

It is NOT the union holding up negotiations and dragging this thing out.

I don't care if you're pro-union, anti-union, somewhere in between or just don't care. There is no denying who is behind the fact that this isn't getting done.

For starters, the union has repeatedly requested, and made clear, that we are ready to negotiate more than just the one week every month the company has decided is appropriate. Heck, we're prepared to be at the table every single day of every month if the company wanted to move this along. There is NOTHING stopping us from expediting the process EXCEPT an intransigent management team who, in spite of the fact that they keep putting out communications on how it's the union dragging things out, refuses to meet with us more than one week a month. And please don't tell me it's because they are negotiating with four different groups simultaneously. That's a pretty lame excuse. This is a multi-billion dollar company, and they can only find a total of five people to do negotiations? Ah, riiiiiiiiiiighht.

Second, in order for this to get done, the involved parties have to actually be willing to negotiate. The company, up to this point, has shown a stunning stubbornness to actually making any real negotiating progress. Negotiations occur when both parties throw out offers on a section, then adjust those offers as negotiations go on until an agreeable point is reached. For example, when it comes to wages the company might say, "We want you to take a 5% pay cut.". The union may counter with, "Actually we were thinking about a 100% raise.". Then the back and forth begins and maybe we end up with a 50% raise and two less days worked every month, or a 90% raise with more days worked. (Please don't get hung up on the numbers. They do not reflect what may actually be presented or what I would accept. This is for example purposes only)

But what's actually happening is something like this:

Company: We want you to take a 5% pay cut.

Union: No. But we'll take a 100% pay raise.

Company: No way. It has to be a 5% pay cut.

Union: No, but here's a counter offer of 95% pay raise and an hour less of required duty every day.

Company: No. Here's our counteroffer- 5% pay cut.

Union: No, but how about an 85% pay raise and one less day worked every month.

Company: No. Our counter offer is a 5% pay cut.

Do you see why this isn't getting done? One of the parties involved (I'll let you guess which one) isn't really negotiating. It really doesn't matter whether you think the union and/or company's demands are unreasonable. The fact is, one of the parties involved simply will not move off its unreasonable demands to actually reach a middle ground.

So when anyone here says, "They just need to get this done" perhaps a note or two sent to management expresing that sentiment may be time better spent. I know some of you hate our picketing, WSJ ads, social media blitz, and all our other initiatives including operating to the letter of the law. But guess what? All of that is designed to put pressure on the company to move these negotiations along. Again, I know many of you hate this stuff, but if you have any better ideas on how to get the company to "move it along" I'm sure everyone, including our union, would love to hear about it. We only have so many avenues open to us (legally) to try to incentivize the company to get er done. Whether they work or not may be debatable, but at least we're trying. What have you seen the company do to move things along?
 

Latest resources

Back
Top