NetJets straight to captain?????
 

I'm thinking about applying to Netjets. I have 4000+ hours of corporate part 91, 3000 multi, 2000 turboprop, and 300 jet...all PIC. How long will it take to make captain?

Upgrades are currently 15 yrs...

Sent from my LGLS991 using Tapatalk

Could be 15 years, probably less based on how many are leaving. But don't count on less than 10 years unless something changes.

Upgrades are the worst thing at NJA right now, the good things are basing, fantastic health insurance, and having Berkshire Hathaway backing your company. The company is trying to play nice with the union, time will tell if they're sincere. We do have a great union. No one is even bothering to oppose the current Union Officers in the upcoming election.

A lot of speculation about increases in pay and quality of life issues due to recruiting problems. But our contract isn't amendable for quite a few more years. Company has not come off the 2500 hour requirement like Flops/Flex had to do. In the last 30 days we hired 7 pilots but lost 19. If you interview remember they're more concerned with customer service than how well you can fly.

Edit: I should have mentioned the main reasons for long upgrade times is a young pilot group and the fact we're staffed at around 67% Captains and 33% F/O's. Company wants 60/40 ratio.

Think of it this way, your qualifications don't matter in making captain. Your seniority does. Upgrade is currently 10-12 years, trending higher. If hired today, plan at least 10-15 years to CA financially. It was too much for me and I left recently for a heavy cargo job. Buyer beware.

maybe to the inexperienced eye....

I believe he said "untrained" to imply that he has the training to see in the future...

Keep telling yourself that enough and maybe even you'll believe it. I have the same insurance now and I pay $3,500 a year for it but I also make $125,000 more now then I did at NJA. And I'm at the seventh worst airline.

Fantastic = free.

I'm not saying NetJets is a great place to be. If you're on the south side of 50 you'd be crazy not to jump to an airline with the current pay. I say our medical is fantastic because:

a) it's free
b) no annual deductible to meet before benefits kick in (except pharmacy)
c) copay in network are $20 flat for an office visit, $100 for Urgent Care visit, $150 for ER or Hospital Admission. Your wife has a baby, it's $150 for the wife and $150 for the baby. Period.

I've done both career paths. Major airlines for 15 years, then NetJets for 14 years. I was in my late 40's when starting with NetJets (2005 time frame) and it was a good deal then. Not so much now unless you want to fly for a Fractional Operator. I especially liked not having to commute and living 15 minutes from the FBO. During my airline career I was only based at home for maybe 2 years out of 15. Being a lineholder in base was very, very, nice. Even senior reserve was pretty good.

I'm out on medical and probably not going back. I don't really want to anyway, but if NJA could rein in scheduling and do something like an AM/PM schedule option I wouldn't mind returning. I'm a night owl and have landed the jet as late as 0430 and been fine doing that. Early mornings not so fine thou.

Other than the early shows I really liked NetJets over the airlines. After 14 years it was still very rare NOT to see a new airport on a tour. Airlines were like the Groundhog Day movie. I got to fly into a lot of very interesting places, some very challenging places too. Several times I've RON'd at unattended airports, once even having to dig rocks out of a ditch to use for chocks. And there's also the sometimes interesting pax we carry. I'm a news junkie and once flew a major network anchor who spent a few minutes talking to me. That was very cool, a bigger deal for me than the sports and entertainment people I flew.

By the time things got pretty good at the major airlines it was too late for me to be changing jobs. If someone likes the kind of flying Fractionals do and don't mind the lower pay vs. airlines then it's still a good deal.

What's the latest with respect to NetJet's legislative effort to have the Age 65 Rule apply to them?

While I can understand their interest in a younger pilot group (I'm 64, definitely 'old'), if they achieved their purported goal, wouldn't they face a severe and immediate pilot shortage?

Why do some insist the healthcare is free at NJ? I can assure you the compensation is less acros the board due to the zero cost health care. Great for the pilot with 10 kids. Probably not the best deal for the young pilot that doesn't get sick.

Nothing is for free.

With any luck, a mandatory retirement age will pass this year.

Looks like that may be off the legislative agenda....

Good post. This should be stated more often.

It is 100% not free. Not only is it not free, but healthcare costs at the airlines isn't all that expensive. In hind sight I think the group gave up a lot to keep it like it is. Having no monthly healthcare costs is cool, but much more emphasis is placed on the value of it than needs to be and that is for sure.

Good point. There could be more intrinsic value in a dc to the 401k and Bfund. I'd take that and a higher salary over "free" Health ins. A family plan at the airlines, is what..maybe 5k/year?

Mine is 3264 a year for me and my family. I would consider it pretty good healthcare too.

It's not in the bill yet, could be added by a "Manager's Amendment". It'll be at least mid-summer before we know anything. If passed it's supposed to have a 1 year wind-down so we don't dump 250+ pilots overnight. Even with a year, it's going to be short handed. They haven't had many large classes. April only has had one class of 7 so far.

My personal opinion is it won't happen. NetJets support for ATC privatization was the real payment for age 65. And that's been pulled from consideration. But the $400K spend on lobbying might work.

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-n...loor-next-week


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well they moved faster than the NJASAP Legislative Affairs Volunteer thought they would. If this passes affected NJA Pilots, even the "A-Teamers" will have some serious morale problems. I also suspect there will be a sharp increase in Medical LOA's since the company is still on the hook for 3 years of benefits.

Here's the text of the article:

FAA Bill Poised To Reach Floor Next Week | Business Aviation News: Aviation International News

by Kerry Lynch
Apr 19, 2018 - 5:16 PM
House leaders are planning to bring the revised five-year FAA reauthorization bill to the floor next week. On April 13, House Transportation and Infrastructure (T&I) Republican and Democrat leaders jointly unveiled the new version of the bill, H.R. 4, the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018, that addresses a host of aviation issues but does not include the controversial air traffic control reform measure that had been the stumbling block to progress on previous FAA reauthorization bill.

H.R.4, which is packaged with the Disaster Recovery Reform Act, had been opened for proposed amendments on the Rules Committee through Thursday. As of midday Thursday more than 40 had been filed and a manager’s amendment was anticipated.


The Rules Committee said it plans to meet next week to outline the parameters for a floor vote. Full House consideration could come shortly after that: the T&I Committee is expecting that floor vote next week. Lawmakers have indicated a desire to move the bill quickly to prevent it from getting bogged down with non-germane controversial amendments that could come up during an election year.

Included in the proposed amendments is another attempt to pave the way for flight-sharing arrangements, as well as a provision that would bar the FAA from imposing fees for ATC services provided at airshows. Another amendment would call on the implementation of the recommendations from the FAA’s Rotorcraft Occupant Protection Working Group to require all newly manufactured helicopters to meet certain standards to improve helicopter fuel system crash resistance within 18 months. The manager’s amendment further is expected to include an amendment establishing an age 65 limitation for certain Part 135 and fractional operations. That amendment, however, is anticipated to be worded in such a way that the only operator affected would be NetJets.

NBAA president and CEO Ed Bolen welcomed the bill as introduced. “The fact that it’s a bipartisan bill increases its chances for passage, and the fact that it’s a long-term bill should give us an opportunity to focus all our efforts on maintaining, and even accelerating, our continuing work to make the Next Generation aviation system a reality,” he said.

But a provision in the bill calling for a research program on single-pilot cargo operations has created some concern for pilot groups. “The desire by some in the industry to pursue single-piloted or autonomously piloted cargo aircraft seriously places the American public and the flight crews of these aircraft in a tenuous position,” said a statement of the cargo pilots of Air Line Pilots Association International, the Independent Pilots Association, and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters Airline Division.

AARP has come out against the NJA age 65 bill. This is huge because AARP has a lot of influence on Capital Hill.

I'll post their letter below:

April 19, 2018

The Honorable Bill Shuster, Chair
The Honorable Peter DeFazio, Ranking Member House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee 2251 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Chairman Shuster and Ranking Member DeFazio:

On behalf of our 38 million members and all Americans age 50 and older, AARP is writing to express our opposition to any proposals that would impose a mandatory retirement age on general aviation and commercial charter pilots (FAR Parts 91K and 135). AARP has long opposed mandatory retirement; using an arbitrary age as a proxy for competence is wrong in any occupation, and it is wrong for pilots. Pilots should be judged on the basis of their individual ability, flying skills, and their health, not on stereotypes or mistaken assumptions about their fitness based on age.

The pilots affected are already subject to twice-yearly medical certifications and “check ride”tests of fitness and competency to fly. AARP supports requirements for testing and exams that are designed to measure the job-related characteristics needed to do the job. If different or additional types of tests are needed, the focus should be on determining that. But age should not be used as a shortcut to devising more meaningful and accurate means of measuring qualifications. Aging affects different pilots differently, and the greater experience that comes with more years of flying can neutralize some effects of aging.

The proposal to impose a mandatory retirement age on charter and general aviation pilots is not about safety. Otherwise, it would not have a coverage threshold of 100,000 flights per year, which apparently applies only to one company. That safety is not the driving motivation for this proposal is also revealed by the fact that time-share charter jet companies often use back-up charter companies for high-demand times such as around Thanksgiving or during the recent solar eclipse; these smaller companies, which would remain exempt from the proposed age-65 retirement requirement, themselves often use older pilots.

The shortage of pilots facing carriers – a circumstance due in no small part due to the impending mandatory retirements of boomer-generation pilots – has some experts proposing that the mandatory retirement age for pilots be increased, including forcommercial airlines: “There appears to have been little if any impact on airline safety since ... [the increase in retirement age to 65 from 60] was implemented. Raising this age to 70,perhaps in increments, should now be considered.” A few years ago, Japan increased the retirement age for their domestic commercial pilots from 65 to 67.4 In sum, a proposal to impose a compulsory retirement age on pilots who currently are not subject to one is a proposal headed in exactly the wrong direction.

On behalf of an aging workforce, AARP urges the House not to include a new mandatory retirement age in its FAA reauthorization bill. If an amendment is offered to do so, we urge the House to vote it down. If you have any questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact me or have your staff contact Deborah Chalfie on our Government Affairs staff at 202-434-3723.

Sincerely,

Joyce Rogers,
Senior Vice President AARP Government Affairs

Cc: The Honorable Paul Ryan, Speaker of the House
The Honorable Nancy Pelosi, Minority Leader

It will be interesting to see if it gets added. I think the bill has a good chance of passing without it, I’m not sure how much of a concentrated effort there is to turn down the bill if it does get added but I hope to see it pass. It doesn’t even remotely fix the major issues at NJA but from a safety standpoint and a movement standpoint it will help.

Yeah. Those over 65 pilots have been crashing NetJets planes everywhere!

Definitely an age issue.

Yep because crashing is the only metric to safety. Allegiant is the safest airline in US history based on that benchmark 🤦🏻*♂️

Union can probably get all/most the info about sick calls, fatigues, ASAPS, NASA forms, training failures and break down the info based on whatever metric they'd like.

The fact that we aren't seeing a data driven campaign by the union saying "see, a 70 year old pilot is just as safe, productive, and trainable as a 40 year old" tells me all I need to know.

Age-related cognitive decline is a fact of life.
The argument of "if I can hold a medical then I'm good" is garbage. Come take a medical in Oklahoma City and get back to me.

The gloves are off.

The VP of Ops issued an email today indicating NJ management supports a mandatory retirement age tied to the Part 121 age limit.

I actually agree although I’m not hip to the rule only applying to operators conducting more than 150,000 turbojet operations per year. If you hold out to the public under Part 135 or Part 91K, buh-bye at 65.

If you own a jet and don’t care that your pilot gums his food, by all means, hire a fossil.

I just spent three days on the line with the walking poster child for mandatory retirement. He couldn’t stay awake on a 90 minute flight in the middle of the day in a high density environment after a 28 hour layover in his home time zone. We won’t talk about the two night flights that sent him off to the Sandman. At 73, he lacks the intellectual honesty to know he is DONE. THAT is why we need a mandatory age.

And yes, I confronted him about it. And yes, I called FDAC about it. He’s been through it before....:eek:

AirBear...

Do you support ANY mandatory retirement age?

That may no longer be enough. If those avenues are exhausted, reporting it to the chief pilot is probably the only way to go.

Yes, I think your full Social Security Retirement Age would be a good cutoff. Around 67 for most. We all know there are AME's out there where if you're healthy enough to write the check you're healthy enough to pass. Lots of older pilots are still capable but lots are not. Those who don't know when to quit are the problem. I've read NJA has 2 pilots turning 80 this year. Not sure if that's true or not.

An alternative would be for a company to send older pilots to the company AME for a through Physical. NetJets has that ability in the contract. The Bill they're lobbying for is total BS when they say it's for safety. It's for saving money, and for creating upgrade slots so maybe the exodus of F/O's will slow.

I flew with one in his late 70's a while back, he's had an awesome career and a great guy, but def. time to retire. I think around 67 is a fair compromise. 65 is too young and 80 is too old.

From what I've heard, down to only 1 80 year old. The X driver had a stroke and collapsed after deboarding pax in HPN. Word around the crew room was that he knew something was wrong but flew anyway. Could have killed everyone on board.

Good thing younger pilots are guaranteed to never have strokes, or die in the cockpit. Makes me wonder why we even bother having two pilots. All we have to do is fire anyone over 40. Eh, 35 would be safer.

The kind of denial from Mooney is exactly why the company is pursuing a mandatory retirement age. Too many greedy old bastards continuing to fly well past their expiration date. They have ruined the privilege of no mandatory retirement for the rest of us.

Could someone please explain why some people just refuse to retire? I'm not trying to start a fight here, just genuinely interested as to what the reasons are. I always thought you were supposed to look forward to retirement as an opportunity to wind down, go on a cruise, spend time with the grandkids etc.

I can only assume it's the fear of boredom, or becoming a nobody at bridge club when you say "I used to fly jets" as opposed to "I fly jets?" Maybe they just want the most spectacular headstone in the graveyard?

I know there is a big argument about pay but in general I think it's fair to say that professional pilots are relatively well compensated compared to other professions.
Surely poor financial planning is not the main reason why the older guys refuse to hang up their headset?

70 would be a good limit, there should be some limit, but boy it’s like a civil war on the boards over this one, if the intent was to cause dissension then someone certainly succeeded.

I don't like golf.

I've been retired before. I didn't find it as fulfilling/fun as my part time (7/7) job flying a new jet around to neat places all expenses paid.

I have plenty to do on my days off. I own and maintain 2 airplanes (I like to fly), have kids/(27) grandkids all over the southeast to visit, and airline passes to go anywhere in the world, but a life without productive employment is just kind of boring self-absorption.

Everytime I go for training, I ask the sim instructors if they see any aging issues. They say they don't. If/when they do, I'll quit, but I'll probably be gone long before that becomes an issue. Some 70 year olds are old, others are not. I fly with younger guys some of whom absolutely need to fatigue before I do. My blood pressure is just as low today as the day I was hired. I always load the bags because I enjoy seeing it done right.

Ability/drive/health/vigor/fulfillment are more important than a number dreamed up by people trying to make captain at the expense of those senior to them.

Don't worry. I'm not keeping anyone from up-grading. I am a FO.

Thanks for asking the question.

There are no guarantees but the ODDS of having a stroke at an older age increase.

Science.

Are you willfully admitting that you lack a basic understanding that as age increases, health risks increase?

You try to tell guys that have had decades of "I don't care what the minimums are, I flew helicopters in the Navy I can handle it" moments in flying, to willfully retire on their own accord.

To be fair, the time to retire is a blurry subject, and it is an insidious onset. The age 65 rule came from statistical data that showed the move from 60 to 65 wouldn't post a significant risk from a health standpoint. Hell I wouldn't be shocked at all to see it go to 67 someday. The percentage of pilots that lose their medicals close to retirement is higher. United says that age 63 is the average.

Are there pilots that retire at 65 sharp as a tack, with all mental faculties and cognitive function? Hell ya there are. Does that mean that person could probably fly till 67-70? Yea maybe. But also maybe not, and that pilot may not notice the decline and not self retire. I don't care what anyone says or wants to admit, the older pilots I flew with at NJA had a higher probability of health risks, and had more trouble following SOP, making safe decisions etc. Hell some of them couldn't lift bags.

NetJets didn't solely pick to try and implement age 65 because of salary costs. For anyone to think that is fairly crazy. Training costs, healthcare costs, safety concerns, safety reporting, standards reporting etc are all metrics tracked and measured, best believe when they have to defend this decision in court, these numbers will be exposed.

The Chief Pilot KNOWS about it. The Standards captain I recently flew with KNOWS about it. Everybody in the fleet KNOWS about it. They don’t dare fire him because they know he will sue.

Are there 70 year olds at NJ that can run rings around me? Probably. But a mandatory retirement age is an unfortunate but NECESSARY mechanism to get rid of the intellectually dishonest pilots who continue to lie to themselves and others that they can still do the job. Some CAN’T.