Shutdown

[FAcFriend]

I've never said "let's bury the company." You fail to realize that management has the ability to bring this to a close. How much do all the selloffs cost the company? How much does losing owners because of OS and lack of aircraft cost? I would venture a guess that the pay we're asking for is a drop in the bucket in comparison. Management has the ability to change ALL of this. The question is, when will they?

Many have said lets bury the co.

But you guys know it all- you know that it is mismangement causing all your monetary problems. You know that raising fees will cure all your ills, and you know you are at an impasse and some pilots blame the mediation board.

/You think everything revolves around you guys- guess what...everyone feels that way- dispatch, CS, sales.....
without sales, we would have no NJA.
Without pilots we would have no NJA-
Without billing, we would have no NJA-

Everyone wants more--

 

[dukeofdub]

The Union has the ability to make it end now!

I've never said "let's bury the company." You fail to realize that management has the ability to bring this to a close. How much do all the selloffs cost the company? How much does losing owners because of OS and lack of aircraft cost? I would venture a guess that the pay we're asking for is a drop in the bucket in comparison. Management has the ability to change ALL of this. The question is, when will they?

The problem is that you guess. Management is constantly working to improve operations, and there will always be a percentage of sell-offs because it makes economic sense. You Union is basing it's demands on guesses. Use facts and not guesses. The Union has the ability to bring this to a close tomorrow. The questions is, when will Union bring it to a close? Management has solid proposals on the table. And don't forget that the last TA, the one voted down was called the richest in the aviation industry in recent years by the head of the IBT Airline division. So lets get back to being realistic and when is the Union going to bring this to a close?

 

[You're right]

Ultra Grump, et al

Here are a few interesting excerpts from an article regarding the "rise and fall" of United Airlines.

The article is entitled "The Legacy Airlines have lost $33 Billion, since the beginning of 2001"

"(the union management) preached that all the union employees had to do was to maintain "solidarity," and they could expand their own economic prosperity simply by demanding that United Airlines capitulate to their every demand. The gullible rank-n-file actually believed.... that the customers would keep flocking to their doors, no matter how much they abused those loyal customers, no matter how high the ticket prices had to go to support all those obscene labor union costs, hanging like millstones about United's neck.

The Summer From Hell, reveals how Frederick Dubinsky (labor representative) was directly responsible for the beginning of the end, at United Airlines.

Of all the 25,000 canceled flights, of all the customers stranded by United Airlines' summer of delays and disservice three years ago
Dubinsky promised hard-nosed tactics. Dubinsky in one meeting repeated his oft-stated philosophy of negotiations. "We don't want to kill the golden goose,'' he said. "We just want to choke it by the neck until it gives us every last egg." With United "awash in cash," in Dubinsky's words, he figured the goose had plenty of eggs to spare.

As long as anyone is willing to accept the idea that wealth and abundance can be produced, just by union "solidarity" forcing the employer to capitulate to every irrational demand of the union bosses----without any regard to the realities in the Free Market Place----then union jobs will continue to go the way of the Dodo Bird. Loyalty to one's peer group is a poor substitute for understanding the basic laws and fundamental facts of economics."

Anyone heard of this Fred "Jim Jones" Dubinksky guy? How did it work out for United? (what was it again? About $215/share before Dubinsky and $1.70/share after Dubinsky). I wonder what he's doing now?

If you do know him, and don't care, perfect, let's all just "put on our white sneakers and drink the koolaid" together.

The "chicken game" is almost over fellas. The market will demand it.

 

[Diesel]

you're right the market is demanding it.

owners are moving to CS (great for them they have taken customer service to the next level) NJ doesn't even have a customer service class anymore. smmmmmmmaaaart

NJA can't recruit pilots. NewHire classes are being cancelled

The list goes on and on.

 

[You're right]

Surprise--Surprise--Diesel missed the point.

However, your comment about the "service class" is spot on. This is actually a constructive comment. This class should be integrated with pilots, Bridgeway folks, managers, etc. in an attempt to push forward/work together. I hope we can find a way (after the contract).

 

[squonk]

your right:

All I'm asking, is that when some pilots post on here, "tick tock", "Red October", "Black November", "Happy Holidays", etc are you prepared to accept the business ramifcations of these actions?

Is the company prepared to accept the ramifications of dragging this out? We have already shown we can play chicken with the best.

The ball is in your court. What will you do?

 

[Diesel]

But why was the class taken away in the first place. God knows I hated the class to death but it did a great job of trying to get everybody on the same page. There were all types of people in the class not just the pilots.

Too bad it could have been a good way of getting people back on the same page. Both the company and the pilots.

Problem is I fear that this is no longer a service company. It is a sales company. That's where CS is going to kick A$$

 

[You're right]

God knows I hated the class to death but it did a great job of trying to get everybody on the same page. There were all types of people in the class not just the pilots.

Too bad it could have been a good way of getting people back on the same page. Both the company and the pilots.

You know, I think back on the times that the pilots and Bridgeway teams worked together best and it was for reasons like you state above. I too "hated" the class, but the class content wasn't really what "sunk in", it was the conversation and relationship building between the pilot and support teams that I remember most. Not certain if this class would be affective before the contract, but it would certainly help in beginning to tear down the walls after the contract.

ps We should stop conversing like this---people will talk

 

[squonk]

cmhtroll:

When or if the contract is done and the pilots decide to want to be part of a team, then we can get back to working on cost savings. But until then we will watch money fly out the window as pilots ground aircraft and show their solidarity.

WE are part of a team. That is what you fail to see.

If you could get around your condescending attitude long enough to look at the facts.

I guess you think we didn't have these problems before? You fail to realize how much 2200 pilots putting their fingers in the dike helped out over the last eight years. It is a leaking levee that can't be plugged from your white tower. You have to get out on the line to fix certain problems.

Do you see the light now? You need to remove your blinders.

There is a way to stop watching the money fly out the window and actually plug that leak. It doesn't look like you or your ilk want to stop it though.

 

[Ultra Grump]

Ultra Grump, et al

Here are a few interesting excerpts from an article regarding the "rise and fall" of United Airlines.

This "article" was obviously written by someone with an axe to grind. The "fall" of all of the current ailing airlines is their refusal to charge the customer what the service costs to provide. Instead their solution is to charge the employees the cost of doing business through concessions. And still they lose more money. If every employee in the most troubled airlines worked for free, at the current airfares they'd still lose money. Airfares must increase. It's not rocket science, and it's not applicable to the NetJets situation.

 

[Ultra Grump]

The problem is that you guess...Use facts and not guesses.

Do you have all the facts? I don't pretend to. I'm guessing you don't have them either. We're then both guessing, aren't we?

Management has solid proposals on the table.

So do we. So why doesn't management accept it? Just because a proposal is on the table, doesn't mean it's acceptable or "solid" to the other side. That's why there are "negotiations." Fool.

 

[You're right]

(United stock was) about $215/share before Dubinsky and $1.70/share after Dubinsky). I wonder what he's doing now?

Let me slow it down for you Ultra Grump, as you too have missed the point.

 

[NJA Guy]

This "article" was obviously written by someone with an axe to grind. The "fall" of all of the current ailing airlines is their refusal to charge the customer what the service costs to provide. Instead their solution is to charge the employees the cost of doing business through concessions. And still they lose more money. If every employee in the most troubled airlines worked for free, at the current airfares they'd still lose money. Airfares must increase. It's not rocket science, and it's not applicable to the NetJets situation.

No, Airlines do not have to increase airfare because there are airlines out there that in fact are making money with the current prices. (i.e. SWA, JetBlue, Airtran). Majors have to reduce there operating cost. One of the reasons the majors are losing money is that they never made any money. Before de-regulation of the airline industry, airlines could buy any planes that they wanted, and have there cost at any point that they wanted because they were protected (subsidized) by the government. Once competition set it, that is when the airlines started seeing red more and more. They build those big hubs, and had fleets of 11-15 different types of aircraft and had those large salary payments. (i.e 250K for a 747 Capt.) It has been proven that the airline industry in these country has never made any money, and it never will, unless operating costs are streamlined. Right know pilots in the airlines that are losing money are taking major paycuts because the company cannot afford there current rates. Do you want these to happen at NJA? Do you want the company to agree on a salary that the company cannot afford, and later have to take a pay cut just to keep it afloat? Think of it? Do you want to improve your lifestyle by making $100k+, and then be told a year or two later that you have to go back to $80k because the company cannot afford it? It makes no business sense.

 

[Hogprint]

NJA guy,

It has been stated on this forum before and I will state it again seeing that you are new to this debate.

Raise the management fees. It will pay for the pilots and weed out borderline owners/marque holders and make this place an exclusive club again. That is what we built this company on. That is what we have moved away from.

CS is now the company that is getting it right. They will assume the exclusive top tier if we continue on this tack. It may take some time, but it will happen.

It all starts with taking care of your people. Plain and simple. I brought this up to BB in recurrent back when we were on speaking terms , and he had NO answer.

It spoke volumes.

 

[Ultra Grump]

Let me slow it down for you Ultra Grump, as you too have missed the point.

I understood your point, but chose to make another:

This "article" was obviously written by someone with an axe to grind.

 

[Ultra Grump]

No, Airlines do not have to increase airfare because there are airlines out there that in fact are making money with the current prices. (i.e. SWA, JetBlue, Airtran). Majors have to reduce there operating cost. One of the reasons the majors are losing money is that they never made any money. Before de-regulation of the airline industry, airlines could buy any planes that they wanted, and have there cost at any point that they wanted because they were protected (subsidized) by the government. Once competition set it, that is when the airlines started seeing red more and more. They build those big hubs, and had fleets of 11-15 different types of aircraft and had those large salary payments. (i.e 250K for a 747 Capt.) It has been proven that the airline industry in these country has never made any money, and it never will, unless operating costs are streamlined. Right know pilots in the airlines that are losing money are taking major paycuts because the company cannot afford there current rates. Do you want these to happen at NJA? Do you want the company to agree on a salary that the company cannot afford, and later have to take a pay cut just to keep it afloat? Think of it? Do you want to improve your lifestyle by making $100k+, and then be told a year or two later that you have to go back to $80k because the company cannot afford it? It makes no business sense.

Again, the airlines' situation has nothing to do with our situation at NJA.

Of the airlines that are making money, only SWA has a model and costs that truly work, mainly through fuel hedging. Everyone else is getting hammered by fuel prices. You're right that airlines must get costs under control, but they have squeezed labor as much as they can. Like I said, if the employees of the most-strapped airlines were working for free, they'd still be losing money. The airlines need to raise airfares. Fuel costs are their largest cost, and something they have no control over, other than to raise fares to cover it. Instead, they come to the employees for more concessions. At the beginning of all of this, I could see the need for some concessions at some airlines. But it has gone way past the point of reasonable.

At some point, as a business you must charge the customer what it costs you to provide the service. Those that do will survive. Those that don't, won't.

 

[FamilyGuy]

Again, the airlines' situation has nothing to do with our situation at NJA.

Of the airlines that are making money, only SWA has a model and costs that truly work, mainly through fuel hedging. Everyone else is getting hammered by fuel prices. You're right that airlines must get costs under control, but they have squeezed labor as much as they can. Like I said, if the employees of the most-strapped airlines were working for free, they'd still be losing money. The airlines need to raise airfares. Fuel costs are their largest cost, and something they have no control over, other than to raise fares to cover it. Instead, they come to the employees for more concessions. At the beginning of all of this, I could see the need for some concessions at some airlines. But it has gone way past the point of reasonable.

At some point, as a business you must charge the customer what it costs you to provide the service. Those that do will survive. Those that don't, won't.

Grump - it still comes back to supply and demand. If unions use their leverage to increase costs above the equilibrium point then competitors will undercut the higher priced company and force them to cut costs or go out of business.

That's why I dont buy into this argument of "pilots cost $X, pay it or STFD". This reasoning ignores the laws of supply and demand and starts the company down the path of ruin.

While the airline's business model is different from our own, we can still learn lessons from them. The union contracts at the legacy carriers became so rich over time that they became untenable. Now they are having to take deep and painful cuts to bring their costs back in line with their competition.

 

[BE200Driver]

So why doesn't management accept it?

Because THEY are Management. It is their company and you work for them. Very simply principle here.

I owned a company a while back. I told candidates what the pay was. They aggreed to work for that wage. When the time came and the crying started I told them that what they were making is what they were going to get. If they wanted a comfortable job they could accept it or try their luck elsewhere. Some did, some didn't but the point is it was up to them. Stop your bitchin grow up and do what you need to do. Have you ever been told not to trust anyone or rely on anyone for anything?

You feel you deserve more pay, better benefits...whatever. More power to you if you can get those things but if you can't then whose fault is it if you continue on in the situation?

 

[Hogprint]

BE200driver posted:

I owned a company a while back.

Are you still in business?

When the time came and the crying started I told them that what they were making is what they were going to get. If they wanted a comfortable job they could accept it or try their luck elsewhere. Some did, some didn't but the point is it was up to them. Stop your bitchin grow up and do what you need to do.

How did this autocratic style of leadership work for you? Did you keep quality personnel this way?

I see some parallels.

 

[BE200Driver]

I started a charter brokerage company when a flying gig went belly up. The company has been disolved since I gained employment again.

Like I said, Some left and some stayed. Never fired anyone for lack of performance and never discouraged anyone from moving on if they felt it was best for them.

 

[FamilyGuy]

How did this autocratic style of leadership work for you? Did you keep quality personnel this way?

I see some parallels.

Hog - I find it ironic that someone like yourself, who came from a military background, would try to complain about the effectiveness of an autocratic leadership style....

 

[Hogprint]

Hog - I find it ironic that someone like yourself, who came from a military background, would try to complain about the effectiveness of an autocratic leadership style....

Just asking a question. I did not mean to impugn B200.

I ment to make a parallel to some of our managers. I agree, an autocratic style is very effective in certain units and should be avoided in some others.

I have personally found it is not very effective for an aviation company/units. It seemed it worked for B200.

I will not cast stones as I've never run a company on my own.

 

[hydrarkt]

Hog - I find it ironic that someone like yourself, who came from a military background, would try to complain about the effectiveness of an autocratic leadership style....

Are you comparing the effectiveness of an autocratic leadership style like the military to that of corporate America??? The job of the military is wage war. The job of a corporation is to make money. There are many ways to do both and many ways to lead. The goal is NOT the same. That being said....
One way to lead and promote great efficiency is to create good morale. Having been in the military myself, I must tell you that those units that had good morale operated much more effectively. I've seen both.. units that have terrible morale due to poor leadership and units with good leadership fostering good morale. Now, in which units do you think had the hardest working soldiers? Which soldiers had an "I don't give a crap" attitude?? I'll give you one guess....

 

[FamilyGuy]

Are you comparing the effectiveness of an autocratic leadership style like the military to that of corporate America??? The job of the military is wage war. The job of a corporation is to make money. There are many ways to do both and many ways to lead. The goal is NOT the same. That being said....
One way to lead and promote great efficiency is to create good morale. Having been in the military myself, I must tell you that those units that had good morale operated much more effectively. I've seen both.. units that have terrible morale due to poor leadership and units with good leadership fostering good morale. Now, in which units do you think had the hardest working soldiers? Which soldiers had an "I don't give a crap" attitude?? I'll give you one guess....

The mistake you are making is you are assuming the two are mutually exclusive.

They are not.

I've seen autocratic leaders that are extremely effective and their units had great morale.

I've also seen the opposite.

 

[Ultra Grump]

Because THEY are Management. It is their company and you work for them. Very simply principle here.

You might want to read the whole discussion before taking one sentence completely out of context and replying to it. Here's what you missed:

The Union has the ability to bring this to a close tomorrow. The questions is, when will Union bring it to a close? Management has solid proposals on the table. And don't forget that the last TA, the one voted down was called the richest in the aviation industry in recent years by the head of the IBT Airline division. So lets get back to being realistic and when is the Union going to bring this to a close?

So he's saying that because management has an offer on the table, we should just accept that offer. Then I replied:

So do we (have an offer on the table). So why doesn't management accept it? Just because a proposal is on the table, doesn't mean it's acceptable or "solid" to the other side. That's why there are "negotiations."

"So why doesn't management accept it" was a rhetorical question posed in response to a rather simple-minded post. Understand now? And why are you here and why do you care? No King Airs here. Run along.

 

[BE200Driver]

You guys are bringing it to a public board, not me. Toughen up.