NetJets Tentative Agreement - thoughts?
 

Here's the official TA - https://s3.amazonaws.com/njasap-soli...89/TA24_RG.pdf

What's your vote? What are your thoughts?

Some of the graphs are very skewed and misleading...

Easy enough. NO!

As an outsider looking at applying to NetJets in the next year or two, could someone talk about why the pilot group seems to be so against this TA without going on a complete tangent on the union? Yes, I understand that the pilot group is looking for a lot more here to be fairly compensated with respect to their 121 counterparts and that the union hasn't been doing a very good job of that. But with a 23% increase in pay and other compensatory increases, especially when the current contract isn't up until 2029 and this TA isn't even required, why vote against it? It seems like the raise isn't big enough to stop people from leaving so the argument that 'if we vote no they will have to come back with a better one' doesn't make sense if you don't think this will solve the issues anyways. Forgive my ignorance, I'm new and just trying to learn.

point of clarification: NetJets pilots are the union. One in the same. But yes, the union (pilots) didn’t make enough noise to get a better agreement. Better turnout at pickets, more unity, that sort of stuff.

Because NetJets pilot expectations are out of line with reality. They thought the company was going to hand them airline pay and working conditions because they "deserve it" and are "worth it" and they "work hard," none of which have anything to do with real world bargaining. Now those same people think they can just vote no and that will "send a message," and that will get it done. It won't. That will only ensure they are much poorer going forward while they wait for the company to come back to the table and recognize how deserving they are.

It's a good TA. It may not be anybody's wish list, but TA's rarely are. It's understandable after seeing what happened at the majors that expectations would be super high, but we haven't seen that story play all the way out yet, and NetJets is not a major airline.

Still don't care...

You have the NJA pilot group pretty nailed. There is no leverage and there is no legal requirement to provide a CBA so if the pilots vote no, it doesn't send any message that moves the needle for management. Especially with airlines slowing down hiring in 2024. Simply wanting it isn't enough, for years and years the group says they deserve it, yet time and time again the results fall far short of expectation and yet there is this undying and unwavering blind support for the unions efforts. All the pilots will say that it is a no vote, and it will pass with a mid 70's yes vote.

This graph is a perfect illustration of what the union does to try and sell a bucket of crap to the pilot group. They use NJA 14-year CA pay to compare to some random and grossly incorrect airline rates to skew it to make it look like they are in line with the airlines. The sad part is, so many NJA pilots are agnostic to the industry and what is going on, that they will believe it.

https://freeimage.host/i/JM0tlbphttps://iili.io/JM0tlbp.md.pnghttps://freeimage.host/i/JM0tlbp]https://iili.io/JM0tlbp.md.png[/url[/url]]
image]https://freeimage.host/]image upload[/url]

The pilot group is probably not against the TA, it will likely pass (says me).

In the last 10-years, NJASAP union dues have gone to destroy the ability for the pilot group to bargain collectively. In the last 10-years, NJASAP union dues have gone to promote marketing so the union leadership becomes increasingly untouchable.

It's not a 23% increase. There is no retro pay/bonus, future profit sharing (?). The document provided and graphs are extremely manipulative, but this is the story with NJASAP for the last 10-years or more. It is the best environment for pilots, and NJA pilots can't use any leverage. They have been voluntarily castrated.

NJA was a comparable job to majors/LCCs...now something that in some aspects is worse than a FAR 121 regional.

The pilot group refuses to do the work to make things better and clean up their union, so the good people leave...and the decline continues unabated.

How disgustingly toxic. The pilots wear their lanyards, talk smack, picket, and the union in the background destroys the membership.

So, why vote against it? Because you are a professional pilot, that's why...otherwise...it's more than a decade of suckers getting taken to the cleaners.

You want to learn? Compare the behavior of the Delta, United, FedEx, SWA pilot groups vs. NJA.

The document prepared by NJASAP (linked above), would never be published by a ALPA MEC. Ever. And if ALPA ever tried it, the union leadership would be removed faster than you could say "Pedro".

The pilots have NJA have showed their true colors the last 10 years. Please AJ, can I have another? Pedro will help you hit me harder. It's like watching an anxious Chihuahua stand it's ground.

NJA should be the best job in the industry...but damn, a lot of bad apples...and the apples have been rotting for a long time now.

I think the union leadership could have done a better job- too many pickets, jumping the gun with the first billboard, embarrassing videos, and letting the group splinter between newer and longer time members before making an effort to unite the group. That said, if we need new leadership, someone needs to put their hat in the ring soon and provide a solid case as to how they will do better. The one who has claimed they will run refuses to answer questions on how he would do it better and that is the last thing we need in a leader. I don't believe the current group is just in their positions because they love the power. They work way harder than the regular pilots and put in crazy hours. They would all make much more simply working the same amount of days on the line without all the headaches of running the union. I'm not opposed to a change, but it will need to be individuals or a group that has a convincing case. So far, even former leaders who may throw their hat in the ring have said nothing more than stop letting the group splinter. We will need much more than that to make a change. I would love to hear some actual fresh ideas and raise up a better union, but while everyone loves to critique, I am not seeing anyone better with these real ideas coming through to challenge.

questions
 

I am curious as I can't find answers on the below:

1) What's consider small cabin vs class 5?
2) Expense option 2 and 3, does that means Per Diem AND crew meal/allowance. $4.01 + Meals/or $130 Reimbursement per day for CONUS? Or is it one or the other. I'm juse used to Per diem
3) Pay table shows YOS calculation and how to read it- Do you just go down the year effective date and how many years you've been with the company to determine your pay for that year would be?

1) Class 5 = Global 7500/8000
Large Cabin = 650, Global 5000/5500/6000/6500
Small Cabin = Everything else

2) Option 2 appears to be per diem only and no crew meals. Option 3 is receipts (charge to company card) with the option to also order crew meals.

3) Correct. You have to look at the effective date column that will be in effect for the YOS you are looking at. For example - if on DOR you are in year 4 you'd look at the 5/1/24 column, YOS 4 row. For next year you'd look at the 5/1/25 column, YOS 5 row.

How long does it take to hold CA in Class 5 at NJA?

The most junior PIC that held the 7500 through an open bid so far (NOT a supplemental duty pilot) is a November 1996 hire.

So it would be more relevant to compare that rate to WB CA rates.

I have a close friend that is a 1996 NWA/Delta hire. He just finished A-350 school after almost 10 years on the 757/767. He'll make $500,000 this year without even trying hard. 🤷🏼‍♂️

stating that the proposed compensation will be within 4.6% of 121 pay in 2029 makes the unreasonable assumption that 121 properties will not have their own pay raise by then.

The only leverage they have is getting their house in order and walking off the job as a group. NetJets caters to the very wealthy few, not the populace. It might make it to the 5 o’clock news but not the Presidents desk.

You’re right though they basically have no leverage. I can’t figure out why anyone would want to work at this slave shop anyways. What a dump.

While I doubt the difference will only be 4.6% by 2029, I dont believe it will be due to a new round of 121 contracts. It took 121 about 4 years on average after their last round of contracts became ammendable to get what they have now. I don't know how they will be any faster the next time. I hope 121 gets new contracts much quicker since it raises the bar everywhere, but I don't know why anyone would believe it likely.

No leverage equals no offer from the company. Not enough leverage for 121 parity. Still enough leverage after only a little over a year with no contract due to add somewhere between 200 and 300 million a year to the pilot groups pay. I'm not arguing against the fact that it is a lot of work for not enough money, but there was leverage.

It won't be anywhere close to 4.6% pay in 2029. The comparison charts in NJASAPs own teaser documents in the TA are grossly misleading and incorrect lol.

I agree those charts are misleading. I don't know how to really compare apples to apples between 121 and NetJets since the pay schemes are so different. When you add up average FDP, holiday pay, OT, and longevity bonuses, you are looking at close to 100K for many captains, but nothing is guaranteed and impossible to say they will hold. I also believe the charts are showing min guarantee for the airlines and don't factor in any likely premium pay and there is no way they are showing the massive difference when you include company match vs DC. All I can say for sure is that netjets pilots will make more than they do now.

They also show a 16 year NJA CA as the comparison to basically airline new hire CA rates lol.

If it is showing 16 years, it is really messed up because they compacted the large cabin and category 5 scales to 14 years to make 14 years the top across the board. I do recall seeing the rates for 8&6 as higher than 72 in a few places as another total mistake in the charts. I can't blame the leadership for putting lipstick on the pig, but they could have at least proofread the package.

Corporate guy here just window shopping.....I've skimmed through the TA, but wondering if someone could shed some real world numbers. If this passes what would the average FO make working the 7/7 after adding FDP, etc.? What are upgrade times these days?

I'm currently makng $180k. Trying to figure out how long it would take to break even if i made the jump sticking to the 7/7. Mainly interested in netjets for the basing options, insurance, and set schedule.

You will likely make at least 150K your first year on the new contract if it passes and of you drop down to the 7&7 as soon as you can, unless you get stuck on the XLS or Sovereign or unless you get stuck waiting 6 months for IOE. As far as how long to get to 180K on the 7&7, probably your 3rd or 4th year as an SIC or maybe by year your 3rd year if upgrades continue as they currently are. The money doesn't go up as quickly as at the airlines with the pay scales here.

Too many variables there to give you any numbers. Biggest variable being the fleet that you are assigned to, you have zero control over that. It is not senority based or even ss# based, it is random. Thus, you might get stuck in an older fleet (680 or XL), hell i'm hearing that even the 350 new hires aren't flying as much as they used to. then you have the long wait times for ioe, some waiting for as long as 6 months. thus all these combined it is hard to get you a number. however, you won't be making 180k on a 7n7 schedule as an FO until maybe year 3, and thats with the potentially new contract pay rates. as they say YMMV

my advice would be stay where you are at and upgrade there to get a higher salary

Those numbers are complete BS.

You make your base pay. EVERYTHING else is fluff money and there is ZERO way to forecast it. (Except holidays if you are on the 8/6 or 7/7 schedule and they are known in advance).

However, if you take a 121 MIN GUARANTEE and compare it to the 7/7, using delta numbers you come up with a difference of about $27,000 in favor of Delta. Then subtract Delta's health insurance prices (since yours is "free") and you get a difference of about $2500 in favor of Delta.

Those comparisons are MIN GUARANTEE compared to our 7/7.......nothing more.

It's impossible to compute FDP. People will give you estimates and what they did last year but if you want something to hang your hat on, just use the base pay numbers.

Good Luck.... (these numbers are using the new TA numbers)

I used the word "likely" and gave some qualifiers like getting stuck on the XLS or sovereign and getting stuck taking forever to get to IOE. Those numbers are not "BS". The poster had a question so I gave him likely numbers because they are likely. Likely is not guaranteed. Using base pay numbers has never been anywhere near the likely outcome here. Even before FDP, the average pilot was likely to make 10% or more in soft money. The numbers I gave were not the company's pie in the sky that they conveniently don't mention they base on the 72 day schedule, 10+ extended days, and miraculous investment returns on their 401K. Short of a major recession or other giant economic event, almost nobody at the airlines makes min guarantee and nobody makes only the base pay at NetJets. Basically everyone made at least some FDP, OT, and holiday pay in 2020 and 2021 prior to revenge travel that summer. I fully admit it is impossible to know any future numbers for sure, but it is possible to forecast a likely relatively short-term outcome for the majority of pilots hired in the near future.

They use year 14 PIC rates at NJA and compare them to undisclosed YOS mainline rates at min guarantee. Literally top of the scale PIC rates at NJA compared to airline rates they don't want to add context to, because if they did, it would be laughable. First of all, this chart was created this year because it is an IBI24 resource guide, and they include data from 2022 which is 100% irrelevant. Then they take random airline numbers out of thin air to compare them to the highest pay rate NJA PICs on the 7&7. For 2024 the airline rate they use is 310 an hour. A year one narrowbody PIC at American makes 331 an hour right now. The rates used for DAL, UAL and AAL are old and incorrect. I am racking my brain trying to figure out whether NJASAP is just simply ignorant of the industry or if this is them willfully misleading the pilot group. Hell, I make 10 dollars less right now as a year 8 narrowbody PIC, than the TOP of the airline scale for 2029 that NJASAP used.

It couldn't be more factually inaccurate if they tried...

Count me as one that is constantly confused why you feel the need to continue to return here to disparage the efforts of this pilot group. I usually try to ignore your posts, but this one needed a response because you keep making this statement even though I am not sure why it matters to you.

For full disclosure, I am not impressed with the number of errors that were released in the various 2024TA documents. For sure some of the charts could have had better clarification as well.

First with the pay comparision chart, while it should have been put on the chart (see my previous statement), if you take a second to analyze the chart the numbers presents are obviously in thousands, not hourly rate. This is indicated on a previous chart, but not this one for some reason. So the 2024 Major Airline number of $310 is showing $310,000. You can double check this by referencing the year 14 NJA proposed payscales. The year 14 small cabin PIC 7/7 is $237,655, shown as $238 on the pay comparision chart.

If you were actually here and received the various communications throughout the bargaining process, you would also have some more background on how they came to some of these comparisions. It is outlined with more clarification in a previous document, but it is also referenced pay comparision chart notes. From a previous document which was prepared by our economist consultants: "Average narrowbody pay rate derived from top of scale pay rates, adjusted for escalation clauses, multiplied by 12 months and the applicable minimum monthly guarantees at each carrier to produce an annualized salary. The “narrowbody pilot market” annual salary shown here is an unweighted average of the resulting annualized pay rates at Alaska, American, Delta, JetBlue, United, and Southwest." I presume they used the exact same method for updated numbers on this chart. While I have not done all the math to verify the numbers, however since you brought up American:

Looks like the current 2024 Year 12 narrowbody Captain pay at American is $360.85. At a 73 hour guarantee, I get $316,104.60 for the year. In addition, looks like Delta is right around $279,000 at minimum guarantee for a year 12 narrow body Captain (full disclosure not sure if the rate I found is exactly current with potential snap ups). Just using those two reference points, the $310,000 blended rate in the pay comparision document looks right in the ballpark for an average year 12 narrowbody Captain's minimum guarantee.

While we can debate the comparision of airline minimum guarantee vs NJA base salary, or why we are not comparing year 12 to year 12 vs top of scale to top of scale, your statement that this chart "couldn't be more factually inaccurate" appears off base.

IMO they are willfully misleading the pilot group..... that way, if it passes they look amazing and if it doesn't they can say, "i told you so".....

that way, if the pilot group still isn't happy (which they wont), they can say, "i told you so" and if the pilots are happy, they will say, "look at all of the good we did....vote me back in".

It's such a game.

Sorry, wasn't throwing a spear directly at you. I was just trying to point out what BS numbers NJASAP published and how you really can't project what you can make.

Agree, probably 10% over min guarantee, but at the end of the day......you are only guaranteed MIN GUARANTEE or base.

I used those numbers as an entering argument and then think about basing, schedule, QOL, etc, etc to help make the OP's decision.

This is a retread of a post I made a year ago in a different thread. I updated the post with the proposed numbers from 2024TA. If the TA does not pass, these numbers will be invalid. In addition, since the time of the original post the company has stopped providing quarterly updates to average flight times in the fleets. These numbers are from over a year ago, and there was only one additional update after that (if my memory serves me correctly). The updated numbers were fairly similiar. Anecdotal evidence from the XLS/Sovereign fleets seem to indicate that average flight times have decreased in those fleets. Not too sure about the other fleets. Finally, the IOE wait times have gone way out in several of the fleets. The Phenom has had folks waiting 6 months before starting IOE. There could be quite a bit of variance on first year pay just due to IOE wait time depending on fleet.

Updated info in italics.

---

2024TA Year 1 Base Wages are as follows -
7/7 & CC60 - $90,543
8/6 - $105,029
CC52 - $86,015 (And yes, new hires have been successful in bidding this schedule depending on fleet)
CC72 - $110,462
CC76 - $117,706

Based on the most recent data from the Union on fleet averages - The lowest new hire fleet is averaging 2.88 hours per day. The highest new hire fleet is averaging 3.65 hours per day. The average for all the new hire fleets is 3.26 hours per day.

*This is where it gets a little subjective in how to apply these data points* This is my recommendation for estimating first year pay (disclaimer: it may only be worth what you paid for it) -

I would expect 4 (potentially longer) months on the training pay schedule (CC72). I think that is a fair average at this point (this might even be on the low side). Some may be way longer, some may be shorter. After that you can choose your desired schedule (from a list of available options) until the next bid. Starting the first bid after completion of IOE, you bid like everyone else. When calculating hour many tours you will be able to earn FDP, I would suggest planning on only the tours after the completion of the training schedule to give you a safer answer. So for example on the 7/7, I would recommend only planning on 16 tours or 112 days (26 yearly tours - 8 missed tours while on the CC76 - 1 tour vacation - 1 tour recurrent). The CC schedules make this part more complicated. For days available to earn FDP, I would take total days worked in two bid periods minus 14 days (vacation and recurrent). So for the CC76, I would recommend estimating 138 days (152 days for two bid periods of the CC76 - 7 days for vacation - 7 days for recurrent). Since the CC schedules tour lengths are not set, it is not as easy to determine how many tours you will work. But, I think it is fair to estimate an average of 3 tours per month, or 22 tours your first year (24 tours for 8 months - 1 tour vacation - 1 tour recurrent).

Base pay = (CC72 Base x .34) + (Desired Schedule x .66)
FDP = ((Days available to earn FDP x fleet average per day) - (Tours worked x 10)) x 200

Example for 7/7 and the lowest FDP fleet
(110462 x .34) + (90543 x .66)
37557.08 + 59758.38
Base pay = $97,315.46

((112 x 2.88) - (16 x 10)) x 200
(322.56 - 160) x 200
FDP = $32,512

Total Year 1 = $129,827.46

Example for CC76 and highest FDP fleet
(110462 x .34) + (117706 x .66)
37557.08 + 77685.96
Base pay = $115,243.04

((138 x 3.65) - (22 x 10)) x 200
(503.7 - 220) x 200
FDP = $56,740

Total Year 1 = $171,983.04

All of this to say, I think a reasonable year one range would be between $129,827 to $171,983 if the 2024TA passes (delays in IOE can quickly reduce your earning potential). You can plug and play with the various schedules and FDP values to match your expected situation. Common knowledge is to plan only on your guaranteed base pay. For which you can still use these calculations to figure out base pay dependent on schedule choice, just ignore the FDP portion. However, if you are trying to determine what you might expect with FDP, I would suggest planning on getting assigned to the lowest FDP fleet.

Before everyone jumps on "well but what about" - Yes, some people make more than this and some people make less. As I said before, there will be outliers and those who are above or below these averages. That's the nature of the game here/averages, some things you just have no control over. Yes, if it takes longer to begin IOE that will reduce the number of tours available to make FDP, thus reducing total year 1 compensation. On the flip side, you will stay on the CC72 pay longer, which could raise your base pay if you intend on picking a lesser schedule after IOE. Yes, I did not factor in overnight, NFAD, holiday, after midnights, extended days, etc. These would all add to total year one compensation, but these are even more elusive to tie down good data backed average for how much you are going to get. Yes, you do not take home 100% of the FDP pay, 1/3 of your FDP will go straight to your 401k. That will be deducted before it ever hits your bank account in addition to all your other taxes/deductions. Yes, these fleet averages change, and the next round of data we may see a decrease. All you can do is make as educated decision as you can with the data available. Remember these fleet averages are over a year old at this point. Yes, Netjets compensation is hard to understand. 18 months here and I'm still learning how some of the soft money is calculated. I'd love to see it simplified in future contracts and less dependent on luck. Finally, no, I am not saying you are guaranteed to break $100,00 in your first year. However, if 2024TA passes it is much more likely that breaking $100,000 your first year is very likely.

[MENTION=79246]hdgbug[/MENTION] very reasonable and justified estimation. Also, with some more incentives availble for TR CA, the IOE times MIGHT reduce a little bit if the TA is adapted.

It passes with a yes vote from me and 73 percent is my guess.

Would have been less but now the plates are starting to stop.

For anybody considering NJ, this is good advice for when you put the pencil to paper. And if you do choose NJ, bribe whoever you to bribe to NOT get put in the XLS. 9.3 FDP for the entire tour ain't gonna get you a new truck.

If we are going to subtract medical insurance, we should keep it fair and add bonuses to the airline salary to keep it fair. For a 14 year CA at Delta that is probably around 50k...

Yup....and that would be awesome except you aren't hired as a 14 year CA at Delta.

This is the same issue with the unions publications on this TA. They seem to use 14 years as a benchmark for their advertisements however it takes 14 years to get to that level.

Im just saying, use the starting point....and go with min guarantee and things that are guaranteed to you as either a new hire (or a magical 14 year new hire).

Run with what you know and you wont be disappointed.

IMO, there is something to be said with having a schedule set for a year and no commuting vs 3 on 3 off, 3 on 3 off, 4 on 3 off and commuting on your days off.

Good luck!

You aren't hired as a 14 year CA at NetJets either, yet that was the basis of measurement.