Netjets will be fine. No strike will occur.

[SafetyTheSeat]

7 is to low... Hurricanes, Sickness or a problem at home throws to many wrenches into the crewing issue. The crewing of machines should be a variable that is covered, as it is now one DNIF and the bird is out of the flow for at least 15 hours until one is airline in too replace that crew member. When the schedule is built 4 on the road per machine will cover any losses. What is a higher cost; two extra crew members or a sale off with a late pax leg?

 

[Hawkered]

...and an angry owner who didn't get to their meeting on time and, "lost the deal".

Let's face it people, Rome is burning. It has been ever since Mr Boisture and his band of blame pointing men arrived on premises.

 

[El Chupacabra]

7 may be too low. Its more than we have now. I'd give it a try before I went to 12. 12 is too many.

 

[Ace-of-the-Base]

I know what you are getting at but you are not saying it very clearly.

I came up with 7 pilots per machine.

Reason.... Demand is not heavy at night. You do not need 100% available. Also a certain % of them are in maintenance. They do not need to be manned.

Recalculate and you will come closer to what I got.

We've had similar calculations in our flight department. Have you figured out how many sell-off hours = one pilot's salary? There are other factors, for sure. Things such as how many sell-offs does it take for an owner to leave. How much is it worth in pilot's salaries to keep one owner. Etc, etc, etc. You'd think they'd have folks in management that could figure this stuff out as well as some bored pilots on an internet forum.

Ace

 

[El Chupacabra]

Ace,

I don't have access to the data that management has. I did my calculations on the back of an envelope using assumptions from experience and data on aircraft availability and demand that gets published daily.

Common sense says try 7 before you go to 12.

 

[FL450]

I understand that your Union Propaganda Minister is Steward Steve. I didn't know that you had fiction writers as Stewards. At least you can document what BWYBOB has said as verifiable!

Ha ha ha ha ha. Let's talk about verifiable, shall we? How's 2,000+ grievances filed in the first 6 months of 2005? Verifiable. Speaks volumes during Section 6 labor negotiations. Did I forget to mention that 500+ resulted from the recently agreed to LOU? Interesting, and verifiable. How about the estimated 7-10 million the company will be paying as a result of an in depth audit going on concerning duty violations admitted to by the company? Ask your buddies about the Class Action grievance they just settled, even after an SBA deadlock. Also verifiable.

You keep spewing crap to stir up the pot, but all you accomplish is to remind us of how fast your dreamboat is taking on water. If you and yours would spend as much time and effort fixing problems and complying with signed agreements, rather that being hell bent on the opposite, this company could truly rock! If you and yours would sit at the negotiating table and spend half as much time seriously forging ahead instead of back peddling, we'd have had a decent, liveable CBA by now. Sad sad sad. Verify that.

I gotta tell ya Troll, you do entertain me!

Stick around!

 

[Starman]

Just wait until the 1.4 grievance hits the arbitrator. It'll make the current settlement look like nothing.

 

[freemind270]

see the problem here is that some of your " customers" are actually your" owners"