NJA size

[G4dude]

poke poke...

Yeah, I don't like it when people volunteer to weaken my hard fought CBA, take food off my table, and take the roof off of my children's heads.

I am just very worried about the long term viability of our employer. I don't want to starve widows and orphans.

 

[G4dude]

My point was that, had we not pushed for integration, you wouldn't have that opportunity. Our contract with the company encompassed all flying other than the large Gulfstream aircraft, which would have put you out of work when those aircraft went away.

My understanding of the integration process and who wanted what is different. If you are correct, then thanks, I stand corrected. I do know the Union Crazies wanted to staple us to the bottom. You are obviously not one of them, thank goodness.

 

[CA1900]

No, I'm not, and I think you'll find most of us aren't. My feeling is that we've always been one company, and should never have been separate groups.

 

[G4dude]

poke poke...

Yeah, I don't like it when people volunteer to weaken my hard fought CBA, take food off my table, and take the roof off of my children's heads.

My understanding about the scope issue doesn't lead me to the same alarming conclusions. If it did, I would agree with you. The company's position on scope seems to be reasonable, that's all. I am not alone by any means at the former NJI, by the way. That doesn't mean I am right, but it does mean I am not some lone kook on the fringe, as has been suggested a few times.

 

[G4dude]

No, I'm not, and I think you'll find most of us aren't. My feeling is that we've always been one company, and should never have been separate groups.

That would be another excellent discussion. I do have a question though. I did NOT hire on with EJA because their pay was subpar, and DID hire on with EJI because their pay was good. Why did people hire on with EJA and then begin complaining about compensation? There may be a good answer, but I am mystified as to what it would be.

 

[Willy21]

My understanding about the scope issue doesn't lead me to the same alarming conclusions. If it did, I would agree with you. The company's position on scope seems to be reasonable, that's all. I am not alone by any means at the former NJI, by the way. That doesn't mean I am right, but it does mean I am not some lone kook on the fringe, as has been suggested a few times.

With 11 years of seniority it might not alarm you now. I have just over 5 years and any movement on scope scares the hell out of me. Maybe if I trusted management it would be different, but I don't. All I have seen out of them is threats. This is the view of scope from my end of the list.

 

[imacdog]

My understanding about the scope issue doesn't lead me to the same alarming conclusions. If it did, I would agree with you. The company's position on scope seems to be reasonable, that's all. I am not alone by any means at the former NJI, by the way. That doesn't mean I am right, but it does mean I am not some lone kook on the fringe, as has been suggested a few times.

If you didn't become alarmed by the company's proposal then it means you didn't read it. The proposal allowed a significant increase in outsourced flying, and the penalty if the company exceeded the limit amounted to chicken scratch. Yeah what a brilliant proposal, I'm shocked it wasn't put out to the pilot group for a vote. That's okay though, the union will represent the ignorant just as they would any other dues paying member.

 

[BentOver]

And a bit more irony......The pilots that would be most harmed by any scope relief would NOT benefit from even the chicken scratch.. Because they would be furloughed.

 

[jtf]

My understanding about the scope issue doesn't lead me to the same alarming conclusions. If it did, I would agree with you. The company's position on scope seems to be reasonable, that's all. I am not alone by any means at the former NJI, by the way. That doesn't mean I am right, but it does mean I am not some lone kook on the fringe, as has been suggested a few times.

We are trying to give you a better idea of the importance of scope. Many here have experienced exactly what happens when scope starts getting whittled away. It always starts small and then builds. The regional airlines doing half the flights or more under the name of the major airlines and foreign airlines doing "code shares" that literally replace the international flights that the major used to do are exactly what giving up scope has done to the airlines. We aren't an airline, but even giving just a little away will allow the company to get rid of more airplanes (core fleet) and have the flying done by outside airplanes and pilots (mostly EJM, but not all with them and inside the companies umbrella). If we have a smaller core fleet we will need fewer pilots. While the company will promise they won't furlough any more pilots, they will insist on some contractual wording that will let them get around their promise. That is exactly what happened at the airlines also.

Giving up a little sell-off scope will allow for the majority of flying to still get done under the BK umbrella, but it will still be other pilots who are most likely making less money and most likely won't be furloughed pilots from NJA who even get the jobs. Allowing more sell-off also hurts the NetJets brand. Ask the the owners how they feel about sell-offs. Quite a few are angry enough that it is in their profile that they won't accept any sell-offs. If the number of sell-offs goes up- the number of PO'd customers also goes up. That is not a good recipe for owner retention or owner referrals. It is a good recipe for increased short term profits, but forsaking long term health for short term gains is one of the main reasons the economy is in the pooper to begin with.

And as far as how the current scope limits the company, it doesn't stop them from any sell-offs. It just costs them if they go over the 11 days per quarter while we have pilots on furlough. From my understanding, they would have to recall about 40 pilots if they do the amount of sell-offs they are forecasting for the busy season. I'm sure they would then refurlough them and it would definitely have some cost involved, but is that cost less than pissing off a bunch of the customers to the point that they are willing to leave the program? Our elected leaders used their knowledge of past scope issues to do their best to protect the pilots under their watch while also providing the the company the ability to do what is right for the customers should the need arise, albeit at a cost.

 

[BentOver]

And as far as how the current scope limits the company, it doesn't stop them from any sell-offs. It just costs them if they go over the 11 days per quarter while we have pilots on furlough. From my understanding, they would have to recall about 40 pilots if they do the amount of sell-offs they are forecasting for the busy season. I'm sure they would then refurlough them and it would definitely have some cost involved, but is that cost less than pissing off a bunch of the customers to the point that they are willing to leave the program? Our elected leaders used their knowledge of past scope issues to do their best to protect the pilots under their watch while also providing the the company the ability to do what is right for the customers should the need arise, albeit at a cost.

And this is very important.. The contract does not limit subcontracting what-so-ever. They can sell-off as much as they want. But after sell-offs on the 12 day, they must call back a certain % based on the number of sell-offs vs. the number of revenue flights for that quarter.

Like 1900 stated, based on forecasts, if 4QT planned sell-offs are stretched out more than 11 days, then NJA has 120 days to initate a recall. However I am pretty sure they would furlough more pilots within the 120 dyas just to recall them. And also based on the forecast, that would be about 35-40 pilots.

As far as this quarter, I am pretty posive the vast majority of the sell-offs will occur over a 4 or 5 day period. (Turkey day and X-mas time). I highly doubt they will be very close to 11 days.

However, 1Qt2010 had 10 sell-off days that would have resulted in close to 90 pilots if they would have gone to 12 days. If I recall, the days NJA was selling off flights, they would sell-off much more than 50 a day. Probably average close to 75 or so. (I used to have the exact numbers)

So low and behold, sell-offs are once again becoming an issue for management (like they will avery 6 months), and once again they want scope relief. They want to avoid call-backs. (and shrink the company at the same time)

I personally believe it is nothing more than threats. And also believe that the company is not hurting enough financially to garner and type of concession. I'm pretty sure we'd start hearing about potential NJA bankruptcy from someone somewhere long before it would happen. There are enough people that follow WB and BHK religiously that would catch wind of a potential NJA demise.