NJI recruiting

[Starman]

Take a first year business law course. Any section of a contract that violates federal law is null and void. 284 never challenged that section but you can bet that 1108 is going to get it done one way or the other - bargaining or via the courts. The majority of NJA pilots understand exactly where the cancer is in this company and they are the ones that get a vote.

 

[gutshotdraw]

Six,

If we want to have a philosophical discussion about fairness, remember one thing: the American system guarantees equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. Big difference.

As to the peculiar organization that is Netjets, you asked for the one logical argument for the separation of divisions. Why do you think the IBT wants to see ALL the books and not just the NJA books to determine the financial health of the company? Because Netjets Services, Netjets Sales, Netjets International, and Executive Jet Management all show operating profit while Netjets Aviation shows an operating loss. Accounting smoke and mirrors perhaps but it is the reason why Woodbridge wants to maintain the separate identities of each division.

Note to suen1843: A pay cut for their pilots is exactly why many managed aircraft owners would LEAVE the program. Most pay extra in order to keep the SAME FACE in the cockpit because of their personal comfort level. A merger of EJM pilots into one seniority list and pay scale would cause widespread cancellation of EJM management contracts.

 

[gutshotdraw]

There you are Starman, I knew you couldn't resist.

I know the MEC has retained the same counsel and consultants involved in the successful American Eagle single carrier lawsuit. I also know that 1108 has tabled a legal challenge on single carrier until negotiations are complete on a new CBA. To my knowledge, the existing CBA violates no labor law of any kind and is binding until superceded. (BA in pre-law and brother-in-law to a barrister by the way. Yes, I've asked him.)

Whether RTS chooses to negotiate away the competetive advantage NJI gives him is open to debate. As I wrote earlier, I will never say never. Regardless, keep in mind that there is nothing that prevents the folks in Woodbridge from selling off whichever division they see fit.

 

[G4dude]

Take a first year business law course. Any section of a contract that violates federal law is null and void. 284 never challenged that section but you can bet that 1108 is going to get it done one way or the other - bargaining or via the courts. The majority of NJA pilots understand exactly where the cancer is in this company and they are the ones that get a vote.

So tell me, where exactly is the "cancer" in this company? I would submit the "cancer" is the IBT. Just curious. The idea of the Union ratifying- and its lawyers approving- a contract that violates Federal law is absurd. I needed a good laugh this morning, however, so thanks for the null and void observation.

 

[Starman]

G4 -

Local 284 did a lot of absurd things. We're still trying to repair all the damage.

If you look at our current contract, it's pretty easy to tell that not a lot of legal review was done on our side. That's our fault and it won't happen again.

gutshot - have your barrister relative look over the RLA and court decisions on single-carrier status. The fact that we've tabled any legal appeal to the NMB on that issue doesn't mean it's dead.

 

[gutshotdraw]

Starman,

I never said the single carrier issue was dead. In fact, it is one of the hot buttons in negotiations and I'm sure will be a primary topic when talks resume today. I am only pointing out that the more likely avenue to merger, should it happen at all, will be contractual changes and not legal action. My guess is, the negotiating committee will ultimately sacrifice single carrier in exchange for the right pay hike. Whether you and the rest of the membership choose to approve that trade-off in a new TA is an open question.

Meanwhile, I would like you to address the seniority blending issue. Rationally, please. As I wrote before, the main argument for single carrier is that NJA, NJI, EJM, and NJE all work for the Same Company. Doesn't that mean merger based on date-of-hire since all those crews supposedly were hired by the Same Company?

 

[Bumz_Rush]

NJE do now operate G

Not certain since when but they do operate Gulfstreams....Bumz

 

[seethecircus]

Not sure if anyone cares for an outsiders opinion, but since the advent of 91k isn't it really a moot point about union or non-union at NJI. The biggest reason for them being non-union in the first place was the range of the aircraft involved. What owner was going to want to buy into a plane that could go 14 hours if the pilot could only fly 10. Now since Feb. this has changed and the rules are now the same for all again anyway.

 

[Heavy Set]

Not sure if anyone cares for an outsiders opinion, but since the advent of 91k isn't it really a moot point about union or non-union at NJI. The biggest reason for them being non-union in the first place was the range of the aircraft involved. What owner was going to want to buy into a plane that could go 14 hours if the pilot could only fly 10. Now since Feb. this has changed and the rules are now the same for all again anyway.

My opinion is that if NJE already operates a fully mixed fleet from the Citations to the Gulfstreams, NJA should do the same given that all of the aircraft are already interchangeable with owners (e.g., GIV owner uses a Falcon 2000 if a GIV is not available or broken). Those barriers don't make sense anymore... They should grandfather the pilots in their current positions - GIV/GV FOs would need to bid NJA if they wanted to be Captains and all NEW Gulfstream FO positions should go to NJA pilots. Everyone would then work under the Netjets banner. Sounds fair to me...

 

[wolfpackpilot]

They should grandfather the pilots in their current positions - GIV/GV FOs would need to bid NJA if they wanted to be Captains and all NEW Gulfstream FO positions should go to NJA pilots.

And take a $30,000 paycut?

No thanks, I"ll keep the status quo.