Some Thoughts on the TA Situation

[Publishers]

Understood what she

I understood what she said and from a business standpoint it is a bogus argument or analysis.

One problem in even talking about it is that the Netjets business model was created and is dominated by Netjets. There really is no comparable company to look at even if it was worthwhile argument.

There are tons of companies where the top managment pay would dwarf the amount of money to a particular labor group. Let's say I have one employee who is my secretary. I decide to pay myself $1.0m per year and her $30k per year. Of the !,000,030 available funds for salaries, management is taking 99%. So what?

If Santulliu wants to take a $zillion out, well he invented the whole business so far be it for me to tell him it is wrong. Pay ultimately is a supply versus demand deal in the CONTEXT of the particular business model. Pay is established to be good enough to attract the desired number needed at a rate that allows the desired profit. ---and you did not have to go to Wharton for that ---

 

[Diesel]

hey publishers don't you have a hole to crawl back into?

 

[Publishers]

hole

Of course I do, but at the moment it is being occupied by Lowcur and some other experts. Besides it is hard to get my golf clubs in there -- as you well know.

 

[netjetwife]

The corporate manager replies.

Publisher's insults--idiotic, inane, etc didn't sit well w/my friend apparently. Lacking a name for him, she provided her own in our emails to one another.


BOZO's Quote: "What does the below have to do with absolutely
anything????
Please have your person with all that "corporate management experience"
come up with something relevant to something. Just one small example,
just
how to account in that for flying done on behalf of Netjets by others
like
EJM etc. Is the money paid to those crews in these numbers. The point
I
was trying to make on the outsourcing of flights is that the number of
people at Netjets is reflective of all the flying, whether it is
Netjets,
EJM, our Vendor supplied. You need dispatch, customer service, etc.etc.
for
whatever the total flying is. You need pilots only for what you fly. If
your argument made any sense at all-- which it does not-- you would
have to
figure in all that as well."

Answer to BOZO: The EJM and NJI pilots' salaries would be included in
that
55% of the employees making 75% of the costs of labor.

BOZO's Quote: "Probably because it is such an inane piece of logic
that
even I hesitated to comment......or even calling it money for
distribution
available for funds for wages. There is no such thing."

Okay, BOZO: Would you agree that aviation businesses allocate or
define
costs of labor? If so, do they allocate or define costs of labor as a
percentage of total operating costs? What would SWA, JetBlue, or
perhaps
USAir or United's cost of labor as a percentage of total operating
costs
be?

BOZO's Quote: "Secondly, there is no disparity. What is it "supposed
to
be". What ratio is acceptable. How many people should it take to run
this
kind of operation?"

Dear BOZO: It seems perhaps you are uncomfortable outside your
explicit
sphere of business experience, rather than that view enjoyed by those
with
broader corporate experience. Would you be more comfortable if we
talked
about the labor costs as it relates to direct and indirect operating
costs
of aircraft rather than the total operating costs of the business?

Quote: "In this thread there has been some good points, but this is
totally idiotic. If I have a company with a great many older aircraft,
I
may have 4 times the number of maintenance personnel than another
company."

BOZO: Now, THAT sounds like an availability of capital problem. But
you
have to make the choice: allocate available capital to newer, more
reliable aircraft or more cost of labor.


BOZO's Quote: "You need dispatch, customer service, etc.etc. for whatever the total flying is. You need pilots only for what you fly. If your argument made any sense at all-- which it does not-- you would have to figure in all that as well."

And, Dear Bozo: If there are no pilots to fly whatever the total flying is, how many dispatch, customer service, etc. etc. would you need?



BOZO's Quote: "What does the below have to do with absolutely anything????

Dear Bozo: It is indicative in the analysis of labor costs and/or personnel ratios being way out of balance. It is indicative of problem areas in a company where the management of operations is unnecessarily eating up available revenues.

 

[Publishers]

Wheel

It remains totally off the wall.

Companies like the air carriers and others do refer to cost of labor. It would not be uncommon to have the pilot cost as a direct expense and refer to it as a percentage to sales, and, the others up in a G&A account. The reason for that is to clearly see the cost of generating the flight hour -- a useful tool. The % that is to overall labor is pretty much irrevelant.

In the case of Netjets, they fly a bunch of dead legs, use outside vendors, and use EJM as backup to their operation. Much of the support for the vendor flights and EJM comes under the personnel banner at Netjets. Therefore, the actual pilot cost is not reflected in your numbers but the cost of suppport is.

Now on top of that we could add all the salaries and costs related to the pilots at vendors as well as the dispatch and support personnel and see where the number came up. It still would not have much to do with anything but at least it would be a comprehensive number.

Now you can call me a Bozo, but I do this for a living. I am not arguing whether your Netjets people are over or under paid. I am saying that the statistic you presented is meaningless. If you are going to take a position fine but look up some real information that might be supporting your position. Maybe it takes more high paid people to run this than pilots. I don't know but you did not make a significant business statement.

By the way, I have been the CEO of a number of aviation and other capital equipment oriented companies, did take several of the CEO schools at Wharton, and have spent 37 years at it trying to get comforable with my expanded knowledge and experience.

 

[netjetwife]

Acknowledging that you're one of them---

Publisher, your lengthy post brings to mind the chaff dumped by fighters, in their attempt to confuse the other side. Interestingly enough, those to whom my original post was intended, did find it relevant and several related posts were made. It doesn't sound as though you fly for a living, I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong, perhaps your CEO mentality prevents you from seeing our side.

Now, as the MEC kept telling us in Denver....."Moving on".....

 

[Publishers]

of course

Of course they found it important, it made it seem like they were right and oppressed compared to others regardless of it not being a meaningful stat. For the most part, I have no trouble believing that you should have a better contract, just use facts that support it.

To get the business that Netjets does, they have to pull off a good many things over a period of years. It si like the airlines, if you want to be the low cost providor, you have to have low cost. In the case of Netjets, they want to be the relative low cost supplier. They can do that if they buy the aircraft right, have good financing, run efficiently, have good maintenance, and keep crew cost per hour under control acknowledging that they will have a good deal of dead head and vendor supplied flying.

You all wanted hard days off and schedules like airlines do. Great but it is unheard of in the corporate or charter flying world. The hard days and the bases travel alone make them behind from the get go.

I have no cross to bear here either way. I also think that I understand both sides.

 

[CatYaaak]

you can call me a Bozo, but I do this for a living. I am not arguing whether your Netjets people are over or under paid. I am saying that the statistic you presented is meaningless. If you are going to take a position fine but look up some real information that might be supporting your position. Maybe it takes more high paid people to run this than pilots. I don't know but you did not make a significant business statement.

By the way, I have been the CEO of a number of aviation and other capital equipment oriented companies, did take several of the CEO schools at Wharton, and have spent 37 years at it trying to get comforable with my expanded knowledge and experience.

Publisher, the fact that you have more years of real-world business experience than she's probably been alive is irrelevent. So is your education. You see, she married a pilot...an ex-AF pilot who once threw a chunk in her lap and now lands at Telluride on icy runway, x-windy days. She doesn't need to run a business...she doesnt need to fly. All she had to do was say "I do".

Your credentials are noted. Hers are as follows:

1)The depth at which she's wrapped-up in her husband's accomplishments. She sees them as her own. His issues are hers. His life....is hers. In her mind, she owns him so completely that she speaks in terms of "we", even though her only connection is that she's forced her way into his professional life. It's a matter of intensity....she doesn't even bother to say "the pilots will vote this TA down"...she says "We will vote this TA down!" and feels perfectly comfortable with that. It's as if she got hired herself.

2) When "they" came to work after the AF she says they were promised a big pay raise by the union, and it isn't happening. Never mind that we aren't talking about anyone suddenly getting suprised with massive pay cuts, we are talking about pie-in-the-sky union rhetoric thats been floating around for a long time. She seethes at the company now for this "betrayal", yet they are paying him (them) exactly what they said they would when he CHOSE to go work there. Now, she just feels that it isn't enough, and there must be some greedy boogy-man out there taking it all away.

3) Her fall back position/credential.....that she has kids who are suffering embarrasment at school because they are on some kind of food-stamp lunch program thingy due to these greedy bogeymen. The fact that she's come to the conclusion that she's been betrayed and fighting some sort of Corporate Evil, gives her an excuse NOT to do what most of us would do if we were indeed concerned about saving our own children's embarrasment at school due to a shortcoming of funds for the moment.....which would be to get a job that pays actual money. She is completely oblivious that when she throws this fact about her children in our face, that's what most of us are thinking.

4) Crusading via the internet and in social groups is easier, more fun, and self-aggandizing, whereas actually going out to work a mundane job for a paycheck (if even temporarily so your own kids dont get teased) is boring, anonymous, and possibly icky. Crusading allows one to remain self-important, win or lose on these Union issues....she either "fought the good fight and lost", or "was an integral part of the victory". She'll get her moments either way even though her kids may end up on Oprah one day. THis will especially be true if she gets them out picketing the airports like she suggested somewhere.

So you see Publisher, you've already lost. You're a businessman, but don't talk business matters with a crusading mom who will sacrifice her kids for "her" cause, invoking "family" when it's convenient, but heaping responsiblity on everyone but herself for their continuing condition.

 

[netjetwife]

CatYaaak, It's a good thing I own boots, because one needs them to wade thru the bullsh***t in your post/diatribe. I have repeatedly said that the NJA WAGES qualify for the reduced lunch price---our TOTAL income does not---therefore, our son is not on that lunch program. FYI, schools have computerised lunch payments and NO child, whose family needs help, is embarassed because their status is confidential. That renders a large portion of your post completely bogus.

My use of "we" is a reference to ALL NJA families that are standing up for a better contract. The obversation that husbands/fathers see their employment decisions as a couple/family vote, apply to many men in a wide variety of jobs. I know for a fact--because I asked them--that the wives in the NJW Online Support Group are also married to pilots that consider their vote to be a joint decision. That opinion is shared by the couples in our gateway; I've spoken to many of them. Recognizing that the pilots' job has a direct impact on their families does NOT mean that their wives have no life of their own. Actually, a case could be made that wives of pilots are very independant women, as they are alone half the time.

Your personal attacks do not change the fact that NJ pilots are underpaid and are in the process of improving their contract with the company. Married pilots have the complete support of their wives, and the new leadership recognizes the importance of the family perspective and has welcomed the input of those wives who wish to contribute to the cause. It has been my experience that those most critical of this input have a hidden agenda that is out of step with the majority of the pilots who are fighting to improve pay and working conditions at NJA. Those pilots believe that their victory will be helpful for others in the industry and welcome support from all who wish to express it.

 

[Indigo]

What about Netjethusbands?

His issues are hers. His life....is hers.

My impression is that many married couples think of themselves as a single unit... probably why I have never been married, LOL. Therefore I don't find Netjetwife out of line in this method of thinking.

However, I do find it a little odd that in this day and age that Netjetwife just assumes it's the husband working at Netjets with the wife supporting him at home.