RE; Whatever Happened to My "FBI Profile of B19" Post? Revisted AGAIN

[realityman]

Well, this thread has gone down the "stupid trail" yet again, apparently because of the rantings of B19. He's on my ignore list, so I'm not sure what he's saying, but based on people's responses, plus the ones who quote him, it looks like the same old thing from B19: "Unions are bad. They cause ALL the trouble. They are self-serving. They don't care about anyone outside of the union. Management people are gods. Unions ruin companies. Blah blah blah." Did I miss anything?

But this time, it appears good all "B" is trying to blame NJ's current overstaffing problem on the union. It would be funny if it weren't so ignorant and biased.

Here's a real simple breakdown of how crew staffing works. But let me start by saying I'm sure NJ's has a certain formula they use to come up with a number. And I fully realize that our CBA factors into that formula. However, our CBA work rules very closely mirror the FAR's, so I'll base my own formula on the FAR's.

NJ's staffing ratio (what they try for) is 5.5 pilots/airframe. Let's take a very simplistic view of this. For starters, the FAR's REQUIRE that each of these planes be flown with 2 pilots. Absolutely no way around that one (unless you're operating a VLJ, which NJ's does not). Okay, so far we've got 2 pilots/plane.

But wait, the FAR's (NOT OUR CBA) state that under 91K or 135 we can only be on duty for 14 hours out of every 24 (it's actually a 24-hour look-back for the 10 hours of rest, but let's just leave it at 14 hours of duty to keep it simple). Well, the very nature of our business requires these planes be available 24 hours of every day. How do we do that if the 2 pilots we started with are only allowed 14 hours of duty per the FAR's (NOT our CBA)? You still with me B19? Good. That means we'll need another 2 pilots (you remember, the FAR's require 2 pilots to fly these things?) per plane to make this a 24/7 operation.

So we're up to what? 4 pilots/airframe. That seems to jive with the NBAA figures.

But wait! I'm sure B19 would love it if we did this, but those numbers only work if every pilot doesn't mind being available every single day of the year. No vacations. No sick days. No personal days. No weekends off or normal breaks. No holidays. Oh, and no pilots going to any sort of training. Everyone works every single day! There, now we see that we only need 4 pilots/airframe! Guess B19 is right after all.

Of course, we're pretty lucky that NJ's management doesn't live in B19's alternate universe. I think they realize that NOBODY works every single day of the year. Pilots DO have to come off the line for training. People DO get sick. And so on and so forth. So it looks like 4 pilots/airframe won't work.

I'm sure NJ's took all this into consideration, and the end result is a crew ratio of 5.5 pilots/airframe.

Has absolutely NOTHING to do with our CBA. So why are we looking at furloughs (maybe)? Because of the economy. Plain and simple. Owners are getting out. We hired in anticipation of a bunch of deliveries that aren't going to happen now. And so on and so forth. The union, and the CBA, have NOTHING to do with it. I don't care how loudly B19 screams that it's the union's fault. It's not. Stating a falsehood a thousand times still doesn't make it true.

I forgot to mention that on any given day, a certain number of our fleet is down for maintenance, so that brings the crewing needs down a little. But overall, 5.5 pilots/airframe is a pretty efficient ratio for the type of operation NJ's runs.

We ARE overstaffed. I don't think anyone can blame the union for that (unless your a raving idiot foaming at the mouth against unions all the time). And I actually don't blame management for it either. Who actually saw things getting this bad? It's just one of the vagaries of life. Sometimes there simply isn't any good place to assign blame.

 

[fischman]

Waka, I am who I say I am, and I do know this.

Well KB, since you never said who you are does that make you nobody?

 

[brokeflyer]

before we had the union it was still 5.5 per plane.

dont even bother to respond b19.

 

[brokeflyer]

with all the attention with netjets that he seeks it's probly that he got fired from there. Maybe right around the time our "industry leading" contract came through....lol

 

[gutshotdraw]

No. YOU are wrong and deeply misinformed.

The traditional NBAA staffing model is 4.2 pilots per airplane.

The current 91K rules are based on the Part 119, non-scheduled, on demand Part 135 certificate and was based on REST rules, not those conservative rules in your CBA that add an additional 1.8 pilots per airplane.

This staffing model that pre-dates Part 91K "fractional" certificates before we got together and regulated the cowboy arrogance of the Part 91 operators which had no rules.

If YOU were there when we put these rules together for your safety, you would understand the reasoning behind it. As you weren't, and it's clear since you haven't a clue as a cockpit lawyer, you should leave the hardstuff such as this to those of us that are dedicated to keeping you safe.

Just fly your airplane and let those of us that have the courage to manage do our jobs. Without us, you wouldn't have any rest rules at all and your whining would be twice as bad as it is today.

Boy, he just doesn't get it, does he boys and girls?

I WAS management 19. I was the Chief Pilot of a Part 91 Gulfstream "cowboy" operator until the department was closed in favor of fractional ownership. We were actually cheaper than fractional but other considerations were more important to the boss than money.

But we always used an augmented crew when the mission called for it. We always knew our takeoff time and were properly rested. Come to think of it, the Fortune 500 "cowboy" flight department I worked for before that always pre-positioned a relief crew for tech stops. And the "cowboy" Part 91 operators I fly contract for these days seem to always augment or pre-position relief crews for long range operations (which is WHY I sometimes get contract work). No, it wasn't until I started flying fractional that I saw the "cowboy" operations. 18-20 hour duty days, 12-14 hours of flying without an extra crewmember, 3 AM callouts when we were briefed for a 10 AM show, "you're the only one", etc.

You say "management" created the 91K flight and duty rules? Fantasy. I wasn't in the room but I know people who were at the FOARC meetings and I followed the proceedings more closely than most. Management fought the 91K rules tooth and nail. It was the voices of hundreds of pilots and Part 135 operators (like Marc Fruchter) that demanded FAA STOP PERMITTING MANAGEMENT ABUSE of Part 91 rules. Like most people with an axe to grind and few facts to back them up, you practice revisionist history.

I'm no union cheerleader. Ask anyone on this board. I am one of the 300 pilots at NJI that will be integrated involuntarily into NJASAP in about 17 months with decidedly mixed emotions. Our staffing model is about 5.5 per airplane AND WE DON'T HAVE A CBA. NJA staffs at a little over 6 per airframe but we only staff two fleets and they staff a dozen (which, last time I looked was a "management" decision, not NJASAP's). Does a union contract introduce some "inefficiency" into the system? Perhaps. But the union is clearly working hard with the company to fix the overstaffing issue in a mutually beneficial way.

And you STILL haven't answered the question of how pilots who WOULD OR SHOULD have been considering retirement anyway are somehow getting screwed by the early out program. That's because you refuse to have a FACT-BASED discussion of the issues and instead accuse anyone who even remotely disagrees with you of being a kool-aid drinking automoton.

I've read a few of your posts, mostly for the entertainment value but I am now going to utilize a button that I have avoided for 5 years on this board. It's called "IGNORE." Happy trails.

 

[skanza]

I don't see a Lear in my profile.

http://db.rambleschmack.net/images/posts/how-to-put-it/kirk-inspirational-awesome.jpg

I gotta say, this is a funny picture...

 

[fischman]

I know.

 

[ableone]

I am going to answer the question, and it is simply liability. Believe it or not we are held responsible for what could be considered slander of a member as the mods/admins of the site. I have said it before, and I am sure I will say it again, it is okay to attack ideas and philosophy's, but it is not okay to attack the member. I am not saying that this in enforced with every thread, mostly because we do not read every thread as there are simply too many, but when we do find something that we believe could put the site in jeopardy from a legal standpoint it is removed. Thanks for your feedback, and being part of our community. Fly safe.

B.S.

Slander is verbal Liable is written, but that's not the point.

Liable on an anonymous web-board?

Not actionable, therefore not believable.

Not buying it, stop selling it.

 

[netjetwife]

Seeing both sides...

Mods/admins, I understand the liability issue. I have heard my husband (an NJASAP volunteer/leader) voice the same need for caution regarding the NJ pilots' message board. However, it doesn't seem possible for the anonymous message boards to be held to the same standard. Perhaps the moderators judge the risk according to the personality of the complainer? For example, between B19 and NJW, I bet most board members would think that he is more likely to sue FI than I am. Thus his complaints (if made) see immediate action and my unofficial ones (simply made in a few posts) do not?

I realize that it isn't possible for the mods to read every post, but when there is a known source of non-compliance then I think a closer scrutiny of that poster(s) is mandated. B19 has posted numerous personal attacks against myself and others. Of even greater concern to me are his libelous statements falsely accusing NJASAP volunteers and leaders of corruption by publicly claiming that they are involved with the Union/Association only for personal gain and care nothing about the Membership or the programs, ideas, etc which the leadership promotes. NJASAP is in its first year as an independent, in-house union and their good name and industry-wide reputation is extremely important to them. They are a known group asking for the trust and respect of many people. Clearly, NJASAP has much more to lose from deliberate character attacks whose sole purpose is to discredit the organization than the anonymous B19 does from starring in satirical essays intended purely for entertainment. Thus, I ask in the name of fairness, for the mods/admins to more closely monitor posts made by known anti-union members whose posts are almost always made with the objective of destroying the credibility of NJASAP and 1108. I know that your increased vigilance would be greatly appreciated by the Union volunteers and leaders whose integrity and good reputation is important to them, personally, and on a professional basis, to the thousands of pilots they serve. Speaking of, thanks for your time and service, too. NJW

 

[Mike Jenvey]

<<<< Liable on an anonymous web-board? >>>>

Er, I think you will find that the word is LIBEL!

Be very careful, depending on the nationality of the host ISP, there are avenues that can be taken. This link lists several example of where anonymous comments have led to successful action against the forum providers........

I'm sure that there are more recent examples, but as a total outsider, I do seem to think that there is an element of bias in some of the moderation on this site.