Shutdown

[FAcFriend]

Falcon,

This brings up an interesting quandary. I have seen this argument, especially on this board, for over five years.

How do you keep people trying to break into this industry to refuse sub standard wages? I think most of us in the beginning had to settle for a sub standard wage just to get our hours unless you came out of the military and jumped into the right seat of a major.

Am I wrong about this? If anyone has any exceptions please post them.

I think part of the problem of changing wages is technology. You see the economic problem with all technology jobs- eg. Programmers- paid 80k out of school 10 years ago- now they are lucky to have a job.

When the airline concept was new and pilots were in less supply- (there were less quick get your license schools, etc), they were paid more.

Now more colleges offer aviation programs (as they do CS programs) more private schools have cropped up, etc. Remember the days when flying was big deal and the passengers used to dress up?

Now it is old technology. This generation has grown up with airlines- the pilot mystique is gone, and airlines are replacing Greyhound and Amtrak- they had to or there would be no area for growth- same in computers, cars, all technology.

Your pilots salary is a function fo supply and demand- just like all other jobs-
If there were enough AirTran, Jet blue and higher paying jobs to go around, all the net jets pilots would have left by now. They are stuck because of lack of opportunity.

Today there seems to be an endless supply of young people willing to take a programming jobs out of college for 30k instead of 80k. Same Same with pilots.

 

[Ultra Grump]

FacFriend, I hate to say it but I agree with you on your last post. That is exactly correct. IMHO, that is.

 

[El Chupacabra]

I don't know. I believe that if it were not for who some in WoodBridge and Omaha must refer to as Saint Osama.... We would have had 6S 4 yrs ago.

 

[El Chupacabra]

Based on customer retention data? They are so young that most of the owners can't leave as there is some sort of huge penalty if you leave prior to 2 or 3 years. Spin, spin, spin away. Maybe they could say, "We have the highest prices in the industry because of my huge salary combined with gross mismanagement."

AIN:
fractional providers continue “to lose existing shareholders at high levels.” UBS measures shareholder turnover using “churn,” or the ratio of shareholders lost to the number gained. At the end of June, UBS estimated the fractional churn average at 0.69, meaning 69 shareholders leave for every 100 that join. CitationShares had the highest retention rate at 0.11 (11 shareholders lost for every 100 that join), “primarily due to its rapid growth in recent years,” UBS said. NetJets followed with a below-average churn of 0.54. Flexjet at 1.59 and FlightOptions at 2.15 “are both losing nearly two shareholders for every one gained,”
​

 

[FalconPilot69]

Falcon,

This brings up an interesting quandary. I have seen this argument, especially on this board, for over five years.

How do you keep people trying to break into this industry to refuse sub standard wages? I think most of us in the beginning had to settle for a sub standard wage just to get our hours unless you came out of the military and jumped into the right seat of a major.

Am I wrong about this? If anyone has any exceptions please post them.

Squonk,

I could not agree more with your posting. I also do not have the answer to your question. I do however have a hard time believing, and this is my own opinion, right, wrong or other wise, that the fractionals are a beginning and not a middle of the road or even final road depending on how you are with you goals.

The major gripe that I keep seeing is being teed off because of the wages being paid that someone has agreed upon prior to accepting the job. You could never get people to not accept sub standard wages, but if you knew your pay going in, than you be able to accept that and either continue with your job or go else where. Every time I have ever interviewed and was offered a job, I do not remember someone pointing a gun at my head and saying you will take this job at this amount or we will blow your head off. It is ultimately the prerogative to accept of decline the job based on personal needs.

Regarding the situation at Netjets, to my knowledge, I do not remember ever seeing where management came in and told everyone that you were taking pay cuts. If I understand it, they are just unhappy with the sub industry pay. If I am correct, then I feel that you either accept it or leave. If I am wrong, then I say you stick it to management.

 

[Ultra Grump]

I don't know. I believe that if it were not for who some in WoodBridge and Omaha must refer to as Saint Osama.... We would have had 6S 4 yrs ago.

You may or may not be right about that. Impossible to know. But while I feel we will be successful in achieving 6S, FacFriend's post wasn't just about NetJets, but about aviation in general. And generally speaking, he is correct. Regardless of the technology issue, there are too many willing to do the job for too little. Except for pilots and starry-eyed little kids, for most the mystique is gone from the piloting profession.

...Flexjet at 1.59 and FlightOptions at 2.15 “are both losing nearly two shareholders for every one gained,”...

Looks like Flexjet and FlOps aren't long for this world at those rates...

 

[squonk]

FalconPilot posted:

The major gripe that I keep seeing is being teed off because of the wages being paid that someone has agreed upon prior to accepting the job. You could never get people to not accept sub standard wages, but if you knew your pay going in, than you be able to accept that and either continue with your job or go else where. Every time I have ever interviewed and was offered a job, I do not remember someone pointing a gun at my head and saying you will take this job at this amount or we will blow your head off. It is ultimately the prerogative to accept of decline the job based on personal needs.

Falcon,

That is a good observation and right on the mark.

The only caveat I would point out is a lot of us came here with it being a stepping stone job in mind. Gain some PC jet time and bolter. When I was hired I think we had somewhere in the neighborhood of 10-15 a month leaving for greener pastures.

World events and the resulting aviation economic paradigm shift has altered all that. Now folks that had dreams of flying a heavy by 40, now settle for a 400 by 40. Largely due in part to furloughs in the past and just plain tired of chasing the dream. At some point you just want to make a stand where you land.

I think people have lost sight of that fact with some posts I see on this board.

 

[FalconPilot69]

FalconPilot posted:
I think people have lost sight of that fact with some posts I see on this board.

I have to agree again. If people are that unhappy, there are other jobs to be had and probably paying a lot more. One must just make the choice that best serves them and their families.

 

[El Chupacabra]

OR.... you can make this the job you always wanted.

If managements benefited from the fact that jobs were once stepping stones that people did not take as final destination... well that was the past. No more can you say I will be here a couple yrs and then scram.

Deal with the present. When people deal with the possibility that this is all there is... possibly ... one takes more interest in improving the job for the long term.

thus: Strong Union... and IBT1108.

 

[Fracster]

Management doesnt want to make this a career job hence the current salaries and labor/management relations. Their business model factors a pilot staying a few short years and moving on.

We have never given them a reason to appreciate us. Our owner satisfaction ratings are at the same level now as they were in 2000 or before. We didnt crash airplanes or piss off owners then and were not doing it now so where is managements incentive to step up to the plate and treat us as long term employees.

It's just so hard to comprehend how many can portray their union as their saviour from low wages when they are the lowest paid if compared to non-union employees from the same company! At what point do you have to start admitting the union is part of the problem???

No one is portaying the union as the savior from low wages. We are looking to the union to help with bad management, better working conditions, more efficient operations and better salaries.

Under the old "union" which was management friendly what did we get? Less money, no scope, no improvement in working conditions, etc... The old union was essentialy in the companies pocket and management still didnt try to improve things.

At this point its not a union/non-union issue. Its simply a pilot company issue. Pilots want a career job, management wants a consistent turn over rate. 9-11 did a lot to hurt and help NJA. People who were on the fence about a fractional share signed up and spread the word. Pilots had less opportunities and were forced to imporve their situations.

At NJA the union is certainly not the problem. Not even close. The union is fighting for more efficient opperations(less sell offs, better scheduling and pairing), safer operations(circadian rythyms, continuous 14-10, dispatch into level 5 cells, etc.), better wages(equal to corporate counterparts) and fair and equal treatment. Without the union people would get fired for not flying through a storm, calling in sick or tired or not having the proper catering on board, even though thats handled by another department.

You will convince very few pilots at NJA that the union is bad for them. Maybe the Fab 5 and a few others but even those who never truly believed in a real union at NJA are seeing the benefits. As the size and scope of our operations increase the Union becomes more of a safety issue than anything else.

Well, Im off to picket.