NetJets Hiring Process
#581
Banned
Joined APC: Sep 2018
Posts: 378
The union doesn't have to request or suggest not doing a particular schedule (and as you said, legally couldn't anyway) for it to still be perhaps morally wrong to do while there are union brothers and sisters on furlough. Nobody here said anything about the union opinion. It is just plain common sense and typically at the airlines, common practice to not pick up open time or work extra days when there are people on furlough. That said, once everyone has been offered a recall, I personally have no problem with anyone picking up as much time as they wish when furloughed pilots are still deferring recall.
Sent from my LG-H872 using Tapatalk
Sent from my LG-H872 using Tapatalk
I AM saying, there simply is no legal requirement to fly a certain schedule profile in the CBA. Never was.
We can think whatever we like about those who don’t conform to our opinions and beliefs.
In high school, this was called peer pressure which sometimes led to bullying.
I’ve been on both sides of the seniority pendulum as well during furloughs... so I get what you’re saying.
#583
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2014
Posts: 311
#584
Banned
Joined APC: Sep 2018
Posts: 378
1) You left
2) Warren (everyone’s) time is limited
3) Measures have been take years ago to assure NJA succession.
4) MOO.
#586
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2015
Posts: 166
only 1 of his 3 kids has anything to do with any business (Howard). Buffet purchased NJA not because of its profitability but because he likes the product/concept. His willingness to dump billions into NJA is THE issue going forward. For all that NJA has done over the last 5 years to become more profitable, the return/margin is low.
No one knows what the BH BOD will do.
#587
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2006
Posts: 1,024
only 1 of his 3 kids has anything to do with any business (Howard). Buffet purchased NJA not because of its profitability but because he likes the product/concept. His willingness to dump billions into NJA is THE issue going forward. For all that NJA has done over the last 5 years to become more profitable, the return/margin is low.
No one knows what the BH BOD will do.
No one knows what the BH BOD will do.
Sent from my LG-H872 using Tapatalk
#588
Speed, Power, Accuracy
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Sep 2007
Position: PIC
Posts: 1,702
only 1 of his 3 kids has anything to do with any business (Howard). Buffet purchased NJA not because of its profitability but because he likes the product/concept. His willingness to dump billions into NJA is THE issue going forward. For all that NJA has done over the last 5 years to become more profitable, the return/margin is low.
No one knows what the BH BOD will do.
No one knows what the BH BOD will do.
People often confuse Return on REVENUE with Return on INVESTED CAPITAL.
Let me ask you a question. When you give your stockbroker $1000 dollars in January, at the end of December, do you care that the stocks he bought churned X millions of dollars in revenue or that your investment at the end of the year had paid you $200 dollars in dividends? Or was sold at the end of December for $1200? In either case your Return on INVESTED CAPITAL was 20%. Which is pretty good.
The Return on REVENUE to generate that profit was probably in the single digits.
THAT is the disconnect.
The aviation business has a notoriously HORRIBLE Return on REVENUE because it is a capital intensive, highly competitive industry. Low single digit margins on REVENUE are common.
Now, compare that to Berkshire's investment in NJ. The last rough revenue numbers I saw were from 2017. The company generated a little over $200 million in "dividends" to Berkshire on revenue north of $5 billion. Pretty horrible return, right? On REVENUE, yes.
But Uncle Warren bought the place for $725 million. And earned more than $200 million on that investment in 2017. Do THAT math. That is the return on INVESTED CAPITAL. If my stockbroker gave me returns like that, I'd buy him dinner every week.
Yes, we all know that Berkshire floated NJ almost $2 billion in debt during the downturn. ALL of which has been paid back. WITH interest. And the entire $725 million initial investment has been paid back too.
I'm no company cheerleader. But the Return on INVESTED CAPITAL at NJ is just fine. The numbers are difficult to nail down because of the way Berkshire reports its subsidiaries but this place is spinning off plenty of cash.
The Return on REVENUE number is a canard floated by management to keep employee expectations low when it comes time to negotiate a new contract...and even that number has been improving the last three years.
#589
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2006
Position: C47 PIC/747-400 SIC
Posts: 2,100
I've always been fascinated by this line of thinking.
People often confuse Return on REVENUE with Return on INVESTED CAPITAL.
Let me ask you a question. When you give your stockbroker $1000 dollars in January, at the end of December, do you care that the stocks he bought churned X millions of dollars in revenue or that your investment at the end of the year had paid you $200 dollars in dividends? Or was sold at the end of December for $1200? In either case your Return on INVESTED CAPITAL was 20%. Which is pretty good.
The Return on REVENUE to generate that profit was probably in the single digits.
THAT is the disconnect.
The aviation business has a notoriously HORRIBLE Return on REVENUE because it is a capital intensive, highly competitive industry. Low single digit margins on REVENUE are common.
Now, compare that to Berkshire's investment in NJ. The last rough revenue numbers I saw were from 2017. The company generated a little over $200 million in "dividends" to Berkshire on revenue north of $5 billion. Pretty horrible return, right? On REVENUE, yes.
But Uncle Warren bought the place for $725 million. And earned more than $200 million on that investment in 2017. Do THAT math. That is the return on INVESTED CAPITAL. If my stockbroker gave me returns like that, I'd buy him dinner every week.
Yes, we all know that Berkshire floated NJ almost $2 billion in debt during the downturn. ALL of which has been paid back. WITH interest. And the entire $725 million initial investment has been paid back too.
I'm no company cheerleader. But the Return on INVESTED CAPITAL at NJ is just fine. The numbers are difficult to nail down because of the way Berkshire reports its subsidiaries but this place is spinning off plenty of cash.
The Return on REVENUE number is a canard floated by management to keep employee expectations low when it comes time to negotiate a new contract...and even that number has been improving the last three years.
People often confuse Return on REVENUE with Return on INVESTED CAPITAL.
Let me ask you a question. When you give your stockbroker $1000 dollars in January, at the end of December, do you care that the stocks he bought churned X millions of dollars in revenue or that your investment at the end of the year had paid you $200 dollars in dividends? Or was sold at the end of December for $1200? In either case your Return on INVESTED CAPITAL was 20%. Which is pretty good.
The Return on REVENUE to generate that profit was probably in the single digits.
THAT is the disconnect.
The aviation business has a notoriously HORRIBLE Return on REVENUE because it is a capital intensive, highly competitive industry. Low single digit margins on REVENUE are common.
Now, compare that to Berkshire's investment in NJ. The last rough revenue numbers I saw were from 2017. The company generated a little over $200 million in "dividends" to Berkshire on revenue north of $5 billion. Pretty horrible return, right? On REVENUE, yes.
But Uncle Warren bought the place for $725 million. And earned more than $200 million on that investment in 2017. Do THAT math. That is the return on INVESTED CAPITAL. If my stockbroker gave me returns like that, I'd buy him dinner every week.
Yes, we all know that Berkshire floated NJ almost $2 billion in debt during the downturn. ALL of which has been paid back. WITH interest. And the entire $725 million initial investment has been paid back too.
I'm no company cheerleader. But the Return on INVESTED CAPITAL at NJ is just fine. The numbers are difficult to nail down because of the way Berkshire reports its subsidiaries but this place is spinning off plenty of cash.
The Return on REVENUE number is a canard floated by management to keep employee expectations low when it comes time to negotiate a new contract...and even that number has been improving the last three years.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post