Shutdown

[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.