Netjets latest & greatest:
10-23-2017, 10:26 AM
#2821
Banned
Joined APC: Sep 2015
Position: MD-11 FO
Posts: 493
Originally Posted by Jetlife
This isn’t just about safety in the cockpit although that is a factor.
It is as far as the FAA is concerned. Anything else and it’s discrimination. Checkride failures, increase medical costs, etc etc are NetJets problems. The FAA has no legal ground to determine who they can hire or fire past the standard limitations to be a pilot as set in the FARs. And those limitations and standards have to be applied to ALL pilots from the first solo at 16 to the 75 year old NetJets pilot... equally and fairly.
I’m sure NetJets would love to see the government change the law so the onus is off them... but the Supreme Court could see it very differently.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
10-23-2017, 10:34 AM
#2822
Banned
Joined APC: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,919
Originally Posted by G550Guy
It is as far as the FAA is concerned. Anything else and it’s discrimination. Checkride failures, increase medical costs, etc etc are NetJets problems. The FAA has no legal ground to determine who they can hire or fire past the standard limitations to be a pilot as set in the FARs. And those limitations and standards have to be applied to ALL pilots from the first solo at 16 to the 75 year old NetJets pilot... equally and fairly.
I’m sure NetJets would love to see the government change the law so the onus is off them... but the Supreme Court could see it very differently.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I’m sure NetJets would love to see the government change the law so the onus is off them... but the Supreme Court could see it very differently.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Just heard about another pilot having to go back to the XL because he couldn’t hack the Latitude. That’s a nice 50,000 dollar chunk of cash that NetJets will never get back and it has happened more than 5 times with 5 different pilots. Those are the ones I’ve heard about, and that doesn’t even factor in pilots that religiously require extra sims for their PC, those that can’t pass a LOFT etc.
10-23-2017, 05:29 PM
#2824
Banned
Joined APC: Sep 2015
Position: MD-11 FO
Posts: 493
Originally Posted by Jetlife
But the sharp decline in cognitive function and skills is a major factor in the high costs of training, and retraining these pilots.
One fatal accident attributed to pilot error with one of them being 70+ and a training record as thick as a 1979 Sears catalog... it could shut the doors on NetJets. Why? Because everyone and their brother has been preaching for years about this problem.
10-23-2017, 08:21 PM
#2825
Banned
Joined APC: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,919
Originally Posted by Rkt241
Latest email from "Talent Acquisition" asks everyone to reschedule their skype interview w/Bobo to later date.
10-23-2017, 08:24 PM
#2826
Banned
Joined APC: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,919
Originally Posted by G550Guy
Absolutely agree. I never understood why the company didn't take these pilots to the break room and say "we're sorry, you can either resign or be fired... thanks for working for us."
One fatal accident attributed to pilot error with one of them being 70+ and a training record as thick as a 1979 Sears catalog... it could shut the doors on NetJets. Why? Because everyone and their brother has been preaching for years about this problem.
One fatal accident attributed to pilot error with one of them being 70+ and a training record as thick as a 1979 Sears catalog... it could shut the doors on NetJets. Why? Because everyone and their brother has been preaching for years about this problem.
10-24-2017, 05:02 AM
#2827
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2005
Position: FE, FO, CAPT.
Posts: 200
The word I got is that the company's interest in the issue is rooted in the fact that there are presently too high a percentage of captains...not specifically an age issue. It's a money issue.
Because there is no contractual way of downgrading captains to FO, the company sees the age 65 issue as a way of getting rid of 144 (?) captains who make too much and hiring new FOs at less than half the pay. The FOs over age 65 are just collateral damage.
Because there is no contractual way of downgrading captains to FO, the company sees the age 65 issue as a way of getting rid of 144 (?) captains who make too much and hiring new FOs at less than half the pay. The FOs over age 65 are just collateral damage.
10-24-2017, 06:45 AM
#2828
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2008
Posts: 160
Originally Posted by G550Guy
Absolutely agree. I never understood why the company didn't take these pilots to the break room and say "we're sorry, you can either resign or be fired... thanks for working for us."
One fatal accident attributed to pilot error with one of them being 70+ and a training record as thick as a 1979 Sears catalog... it could shut the doors on NetJets. Why? Because everyone and their brother has been preaching for years about this problem.
One fatal accident attributed to pilot error with one of them being 70+ and a training record as thick as a 1979 Sears catalog... it could shut the doors on NetJets. Why? Because everyone and their brother has been preaching for years about this problem.
10-24-2017, 07:36 AM
#2829
Banned
Joined APC: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,919
Originally Posted by mooneymite
The word I got is that the company's interest in the issue is rooted in the fact that there are presently too high a percentage of captains...not specifically an age issue. It's a money issue.
Because there is no contractual way of downgrading captains to FO, the company sees the age 65 issue as a way of getting rid of 144 (?) captains who make too much and hiring new FOs at less than half the pay. The FOs over age 65 are just collateral damage.
Because there is no contractual way of downgrading captains to FO, the company sees the age 65 issue as a way of getting rid of 144 (?) captains who make too much and hiring new FOs at less than half the pay. The FOs over age 65 are just collateral damage.
10-24-2017, 09:42 AM
#2830
Line Holder
Joined APC: Nov 2009
Posts: 73
Originally Posted by mooneymite
The word I got is that the company's interest in the issue is rooted in the fact that there are presently too high a percentage of captains...not specifically an age issue. It's a money issue.
Because there is no contractual way of downgrading captains to FO, the company sees the age 65 issue as a way of getting rid of 144 (?) captains who make too much and hiring new FOs at less than half the pay. The FOs over age 65 are just collateral damage.
Because there is no contractual way of downgrading captains to FO, the company sees the age 65 issue as a way of getting rid of 144 (?) captains who make too much and hiring new FOs at less than half the pay. The FOs over age 65 are just collateral damage.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
