Connect and get the inside scoop on Airline Companies

Welcome to Airline Pilot Forums - Connect and get the inside scoop on Airline Companies

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ. Join our community today and start interacting with existing members. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free.


User Tag List

Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 11-28-2008, 09:39 AM   #51  
On Reserve
 
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Position: NJA Uboat Commander
Posts: 13
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyFastLiveSlow View Post
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you are buying flight hours per year and if you own a 1/2 share you could take 4 different airplanes at the same time to different locations--not possible if you own one airplane.
That is not correct. I have heard of special exceptions made on a one time situation but an owner can not use more aircraft at one time than the number of ownership contracts. Adding to your example, one could purchase 2 quarter shares instead of a 1/2 share. I'm told the cost is the same.
Salty Dog is offline  
Old 11-28-2008, 11:34 AM   #52  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Sep 2007
Posts: 211
Default

Or he could land in LAX at 1200Z and his partner could take off from DCA at 1201Z. Technically one aircraft at a time, but not possible with one aircraft.
MiserDD is offline  
Old 11-28-2008, 04:46 PM   #53  
Gets Weekends Off
 
jetlag7's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Dec 2005
Position: CL650
Posts: 208
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Climbto450 View Post
This thread needs to be shut down.
Why? Other than some minor "squabbling" in the first 20 or so posts (really minor) there has been some interesting and informative discussion on this thread.

Sure, the title may sound a bit inflammatory, but most of the responses have been mature and respectful.

APC Forums in my opinion still runs one of the "classier" message boards for pilots. It seems to me, the majority of participants here still behave like grown-ups. (most of the children seem to prefer to have their tantrums on other forums)
jetlag7 is offline  
Old 12-01-2008, 01:59 AM   #54  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jan 2008
Position: 320 F.O.
Posts: 1,243
Thumbs down

This thread is based on untrue statements made by an individual. Read the beginning of the thread. However, the thread has evolved into a inteligent conversation. Yet it started out of ignorance.
Climbto450 is offline  
Old 12-06-2008, 04:31 AM   #55  
Gets Weekends Off
 
WorldTraveler's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Aug 2008
Posts: 130
Default

Because of the excesses of some stupid people there is an increasing movement of a backlash against the rich. Corporate jets, excessive compensation packages, etc. It doesn't matter whether justified or not, the public and by extension, the Congress, have had enough and the gravy train days are over

As aviators we are all familiar with the advantages of private air travel. no need to re-hash it.

In the case of GM, saddling up the Gulfstream to go begging for money is very bad PR. A coach seat on Northwest would have been much more appropriate. Of course, if they had been delayed out of DTW and missed their appearance on Capitol Hill that would have raised 'nother whole set of issues.

But seriously, we all know that private aviation is a much more efficient use of one's time. That's why we all drive personal cars rather than take the city bus.

90+% of corporate flying is totally justified, it's the other 10% that is an embarrassment. You know, the one passenger taking the G5 to go golfing or for that matter one passenger on a legitimate business trip on a transcon. Arguably on a city pair like LAX-NYC, airline flying is competitive.

I have no problem with people using private jets if they save themselves time. I just want to make sure that the time they are saving is being put to good economic use and helping make the overall economy better.

Unfortunately, the public is in no mood to define nuances. there is a general "off with their heads" sentiment out there. Even with this backlash, the reality is that whether GM owns its own fleet or not, the execs will still use private jets. Either charter or NetJets or whatever. For every customer NJ loses, another GM type operation will sign on. NJ is the gold standard and barring a total shutdown of the economy, there will be wealthy people who will be able to afford it.

Last edited by WorldTraveler; 12-06-2008 at 04:37 AM.
WorldTraveler is offline  
Old 12-06-2008, 06:41 AM   #56  
Sitting on the sidelines
 
Joined APC: Aug 2007
Posts: 434
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Salty Dog View Post
That is not correct. I have heard of special exceptions made on a one time situation but an owner can not use more aircraft at one time than the number of ownership contracts. Adding to your example, one could purchase 2 quarter shares instead of a 1/2 share. I'm told the cost is the same.
I believe this IS true at Flexjet. Depending on the size of the share, owner can get multiple aircraft simultaneously. Of course, every contract is different - and I doubt they allow this option on the Sunday after Thanksgiving, for example.

But it is possible.
Navajo31 is offline  
Old 12-06-2008, 04:43 PM   #57  
Retired
 
DYNASTY HVY's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: whale wrangler
Posts: 3,453
Default

Never met a poor man yet who would give me a job ,anyone had anything contrary to that ?
Lets just suppose for a minute that a large percentage of the RICH just up a$$ed out of this country what do you think would happen then ?And does any one actually think they would stay here if things get too bad?
DYNASTY HVY is offline  
Old 12-07-2008, 08:36 PM   #58  
Banned
 
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Posts: 466
Default

It always seems that the worse things get, the better NetJets does.

Historically, this has proven true. During the last recession, we couldn't get planes and pilots fast enough.

This is a new and different type of recession. It cuts differently but the result should result in the same; more Owners for NetJets.

Flight departments are getting harder to justify... but Fractional Jet Ownership is viewed as more of an expense and can be utilized in a very efficient manner as compared to owning a hangar, paying pilots, completing maintenance, scheduling crews, etc, etc etc.

I've worked for several airlines who furloughed in the past. I've heard all the lines leading up to a furlough. NetJets has done none of this. Management has asked us to step up and deliver now more than ever.

I say, "Why not. It's what I always do anyway."

I just hope that I can get home at the end of my trip with all the airline cuts. THAT is what concerns me.
FLYLOW22 is offline  
Old 12-08-2008, 12:49 PM   #59  
Line Holder
 
Qpilot's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Mar 2007
Posts: 44
Default

Good article on the topic.

Private Jet Market Bucking Economic Head Winds
Qpilot is offline  
 
 
 

 
Post Reply
 



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes


Related Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Net Jets Contract MadDog Fractional 2 11-15-2008 07:50 AM
Only strongest will survive among Delta regional airlines resetjet Regional 2 10-21-2008 12:43 PM
Southwest Reports Net Loss Due to Fuel Hedges Past V1 Major 79 10-17-2008 08:34 PM
My Net Jets interview postponed... markjs58 Fractional 24 10-04-2008 04:54 PM
Net Jets Hiring plans/staffing ARL120384 Fractional 45 09-08-2008 11:46 AM


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:01 PM.