Go Back   Airline Pilot Central Forums - Find your next job as a Pilot > >
Part 135 Part 135 commercial operators
 

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 09-12-2017, 06:15 AM   #1551
On Reserve
 
Joined APC: Jun 2017
Posts: 21
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by N993T View Post
I apologize in advance if this rambles, but I'm going to try to separate the truth from some of the half-truths and falsehoods being spread here.

First a question, because I don't know the answer. How many Part 135 EAS carriers out there are paying 100% of employee benefits? I'm guessing that now the Boutique doesn't, nobody does. If I'm wrong, let me know.

So it is true that Boutique notified the company via email that benefits are being reduced. The numbers in the previous posts are correct. It can certainly be argued that more notice would have been nice-I wouldn't dispute that.

What followed were several comments, sent to the ENTIRE COMPANY, that ranged from well thought out to flat out inappropriate. Most, if not all, came from pilots, BTW. The cuts affect the entire company, not just us.

The response from the CEO was not a nasty gram. It was a hastily written, poorly worded apology and explanation of why this had to be done (there is no requirement to agree with him). The quote in a previous thread about resignation is correct but completely out of context here. I have read it and re-read it. I wasn't offended.

What is not mentioned here at all is that it was followed up with an email from the #2 saying that comments were welcome, but please make them privately, not to the entire company. No mention of that here. This is a reasonable request, people.

There is no question in my mind that this is the first chink in the armor of what until now seemed to be a rock solid company. But it isn't nearly as big a deal as is being portrayed here. I'm sure there will be some people leaving over this, but if they can't yet go to a regional they will likely find that the grass isn't any greener wherever they land.

There are no guarantees in life. Will Boutique still be here in 6 months? A year? I don't know. But they are trying to run a business and they made what I am sure was a difficult business decision. They had to know that there would be backlash.

Responding like children doesn't make things better.
Exactly this.
Snowflyer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2017, 07:51 AM   #1552
Line Holder
 
Joined APC: Mar 2015
Posts: 76
Default

I think with the reduction in benefits, Boutique no longer stands out among other 135 operations. CASS and 100% coverage were the two biggest things it had going for it. You can fly a PC12 for TW or planesense and make the same money or more (plus per diem and hotels) without the abuse of CDO's, 0.2 repo flights, and crew houses with mouse crap on the bed and centipedes roaming around. All jobs have their issues and I know for a fact those other two have their own problems. Who knows what management's endgame is, but why not charge for oversized bags to offset some cost? ****ing off all the people that make the place run probably won't end well. For the most part I enjoyed my time at BA, but it seems I got out at the right time.
Jecain7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2017, 08:08 AM   #1553
Line Holder
 
Joined APC: Apr 2016
Position: PC12, Captain
Posts: 32
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jecain7 View Post
I think with the reduction in benefits, Boutique no longer stands out among other 135 operations.
While I stand by my previous post, I don't dispute this at all...
N993T is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2017, 08:20 AM   #1554
On Reserve
 
Joined APC: May 2017
Posts: 17
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by N993T View Post
-snip-
When a CEO replies all and says he wants resignations over negative commentary, I consider it a nasty-gram. But let's not split hairs over nomenclature. We could also argue over the implications of such an email chain until we're blue in the face. "Hey guys, no other 135 offers such benefits. So why would you expect them?" Yeah, that's how a decent 135 becomes a scumbag 135. Benefits are usually the first to go. But maybe I "took the email out of context" lol

Not sure who responded like a child. I'm assuming you meant the CEO? Or the pilots that said inappropriate things via email? Either is inexcusable.

Defend the CEOs response all you want, normal employees won't stand for that crap. It's a morale killer. Not to mention way more expensive premiums. I won't rehash the other things you apparently can't substantiate here. Like slower hiring, routes not being renewed. Etc.

Last edited by TSAwithBagpipes; 09-12-2017 at 08:34 AM.
TSAwithBagpipes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2017, 01:03 PM   #1555
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Mar 2016
Posts: 365
Default

Just heard the news about them stopping pilot hiring and reducing benefits. I saw a screen shot of the email sent out.

What a joke. Get your time and get out.
hawk21 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2017, 01:06 PM   #1556
Line Holder
 
Joined APC: Apr 2016
Position: PC12, Captain
Posts: 32
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TSAwithBagpipes View Post
When a CEO replies all and says he wants resignations over negative commentary, I consider it a nasty-gram. But let's not split hairs over nomenclature. We could also argue over the implications of such an email chain until we're blue in the face. "Hey guys, no other 135 offers such benefits. So why would you expect them?" Yeah, that's how a decent 135 becomes a scumbag 135. Benefits are usually the first to go. But maybe I "took the email out of context" lol

Not sure who responded like a child. I'm assuming you meant the CEO? Or the pilots that said inappropriate things via email? Either is inexcusable.

Defend the CEOs response all you want, normal employees won't stand for that crap. It's a morale killer. Not to mention way more expensive premiums. I won't rehash the other things you apparently can't substantiate here. Like slower hiring, routes not being renewed. Etc.
Tempted though I am, I won't get drawn into a ****ing match and will simply agree to disagree as to the whether or not this move was necessary, CEO's intent, who is acting like a child, or whether or not I'm a normal employee. I agree that benefits are first to go and I believe that I actually addressed that in my previous post. This is most definitely a backward step for the company and is exacerbated by the fact that virtually all of our pilots are under contract and cannot simply resign without paying a stiff penalty. But if the alternative is shutting the company down....

I will take the bait on loss of routes and hiring, though. I'm not sure why you bring this up when I didn't. I wasn't avoiding the issues...they weren't relevant to my post.

I don't really have any insight into loss of routes. This could be an incomplete list as I'm doing it off of the top of my head, but in the last year we've added CNY, VEL, MSS, and PDT. We are now (apparently) losing CNY and VEL, but that's actually a net gain of 2 EAS cities.

I have no information about our bidding process and whether or not we are overbidding for routes that we might otherwise get. We might be. I do know that some of these communities think that they are too good for a mere Pilatus or even King Air. There is nothing we can do about that. I have a hunch that routes will come and go. That's life in EAS. We can't fill a Pilatus to CNY...I have no idea how Skywest thinks they're going to fill a CRJ.

As far as hiring slowing down, we have 50% more pilots now than we did a year ago. DEN is full if not overstaffed. The PHX pilots I talk to aren't flying much. I don't know about other bases. We can't keep hiring for the sake of hiring. There need to be openings. People will always be leaving and we will always need to hire.

I don't have blinders on, I guess I'm just not as pessimistic as most. I'll restate something I said in my previous post: I don't know if Boutique will be here in a year. I wouldn't have said that a week ago.
N993T is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2017, 01:24 PM   #1557
On Reserve
 
Joined APC: May 2017
Posts: 17
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by N993T View Post
-Tempted though I am, I won't get drawn into a ****ing match

-I don't have blinders on
Not a ****ing match. It's a discussion on a forum. The APC Forums. No one argued rather benefit cuts were necessary, but rather or not it's a red flag or simply leaning cost down.

Good, because your post sure came off as very... diplomatic.

At any rate, sorry to hear about your new more expensive insurance benefits. By my guess premiums will be around >$200 a month for similar coverage as before for employees.
TSAwithBagpipes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2017, 03:09 PM   #1558
Line Holder
 
Joined APC: Feb 2017
Posts: 66
Default

I'm single with no dependents, so the cuts don't do much for me personally. ~$75 a month adds up, but it's not the end of the world.

People with spouses and dependents, though, it's a pretty big blow. Of course the insurance is still fine, but as said earlier, that was a big factor for a lot of people who chose to join the team. I can only imagine how tough it would be to have a significant increase in premiums while being stuck under a contract.
Toddzilla is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2017, 07:31 AM   #1559
Line Holder
 
Joined APC: Jul 2014
Position: UFO Commander
Posts: 52
Default

Wow this has Seaport written all over it. Seaports CEO sent out an email very similar to this when pilots started to complain about maintenance issues. Next bills stopped getting paid. Then routes got cut. Etc etc....

Same crap, long duty days, chit for brains dispatch, questionable FAR applications, demands from management to override PIC authority, cutting benefits, bad hiring practices, cutting routes, broken promises.....

I give BTQ no more than 2 years at the most. It's like they are following a script from the Seaport movie.
Av8tr1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2017, 01:56 PM   #1560
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Mar 2016
Posts: 365
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Av8tr1 View Post
Wow this has Seaport written all over it. Seaports CEO sent out an email very similar to this when pilots started to complain about maintenance issues. Next bills stopped getting paid. Then routes got cut. Etc etc....

Same crap, long duty days, chit for brains dispatch, questionable FAR applications, demands from management to override PIC authority, cutting benefits, bad hiring practices, cutting routes, broken promises.....

I give BTQ no more than 2 years at the most. It's like they are following a script from the Seaport movie.
Yup. I "saw the writing on the wall" and got out asap. Can't put too much faith into these EAS carriers.
hawk21 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
 
 

 
Reply
 



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Related Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Subcontract Airlines (Part 121 "Regional") winglet Regional 48 05-16-2016 01:38 AM
Direct Air files for bankruptcy trent890 Charter 17 04-15-2012 06:39 AM
UAL Pilot Hiring Update 07/30/2007 Lbell911 Major 29 07-31-2007 05:02 PM
Pinnacle buys Colgan? HIREME Regional 61 01-24-2007 07:34 PM


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:10 AM.


vBulletin® v3.9.3.3, Copyright ©2000-2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.1
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging v3.3.0 (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright 2000 - 2017 Internet Brands, Inc.