A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Piloting
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

NetJets Layoff



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old July 4th 06, 10:16 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Jay Honeck
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,573
Default NetJets Layoff

depending what was in the contract they signed... I'm sure a few lawyers
will be interested in these "voluntary resignations"..

that means they can't collect un employment benefits


These folks will all get unemployment benefits, whether they are
eligible or not.

Remember: The bureacrats who run our government aren't interested in
fixing problems. On the contrary, they depend on more and more people
needing their help, in order to thrive. They therefore have an
unstoppable will (and, sadly, unchecked ability) to bring more people
into their care -- and this provides them with absolute job security.

I've seen the system in action (in Iowa and Wisconsin), and it is a
farce. If it weren't so sad, it would be laughable.

And we ALL pay for it, in the long run.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

  #22  
Old July 4th 06, 10:39 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
john smith
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,446
Default NetJets Layoff

In article . net,
"Tom Conner" wrote:

"Andrew Sarangan" wrote in message
oups.com...
I read somewhere that NetJets lost $143M in 2005.


I always felt that offering fractional ownership of a plane for business
purposes was not a sustainable business model. Corporate private flying is
primarily ego driven (must have plane - makes me look important), not
business driven. For most companies it is an unnecessary expense, so they
will eventually drop it. The next aviation business failure appears to be
the idea that very light jets can be used as business transportation between
small airports. Maybe, maybe not. The next few years will tell.


In some cases, perhaps. But in most cases, business is done face to
face. Corporate/private aviation is the only way to assure privacy and
timely contact. Airlines and their schedules are too unreliable.
Corporate executives that have the authority to make deals happen are
too valuable, highly compensated and their time is too valuable to have
them sitting around an airline gate where they can be recognized,
waiting for a plane that may or may not arrive and depart on time.
I worked for NetJets 12 years ago as a dispatcher. I saw where jets went
and who was onboard. I knew who was going, but not who they were
meeting. It was only after a deal was reported in the WSJ that I learned
who the target in a merger/acquisition was.
  #23  
Old July 4th 06, 11:38 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Jose[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,632
Default NetJets Layoff

I worked for NetJets 12 years ago as a dispatcher. I saw where jets went
and who was onboard. I knew who was going, but not who they were
meeting. It was only after a deal was reported in the WSJ that I learned
who the target in a merger/acquisition was.


Dispatchers didn't talk to each other?

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.
  #24  
Old July 5th 06, 12:03 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
john smith
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,446
Default NetJets Layoff

I worked for NetJets 12 years ago as a dispatcher. I saw where jets went
and who was onboard. I knew who was going, but not who they were
meeting. It was only after a deal was reported in the WSJ that I learned
who the target in a merger/acquisition was.


Dispatchers didn't talk to each other?


?
  #25  
Old July 5th 06, 01:03 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Jose[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,632
Default NetJets Layoff

Dispatchers didn't talk to each other?

?


If you know who's going where from your airport, and the (NetJet)
dispatchers from the other airports know who's going where from their
respective airports, much could be inferred by putting the info together.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.
  #26  
Old July 5th 06, 02:56 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Kyle Boatright
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 578
Default NetJets Layoff


"Martin Hotze" wrote in message
...
"Casey Wilson" N2310D @ gmail.com wrote:

The only thing I see
that might have been unethical was the horsesh... feathers about signing
a
voluntary termination note. That released the employer from any
obligation
for paying unemployment benefits. While it may have been unethical, it
was
NOT illegal.


not knowing the US system: what would have been the outcome if he refused
to sign the letter? He would have been fired with the same outcome (but
with unemployment benefits).


Many (most?) states in the US allow professional employees to be terminated
without cause and without recourse by the employee. However, the employee
can still make the claim that he/she was improperly terminated (age,
religion, sex, etc.) and can sue the ex-employer. Even if the employee
loses in court, there can still be substantial legal expenses for the
employer, and there is always the chance that the ex-employee will win in
court.

So, many pragmatic employers offer a "golden handshake". I.E. if you'll go
away quietly, we'll compensate you financially. This usually involves
signing a document which releases the ex-employer of any legal liability for
terminating the employee. Once the document is signed, the ex-employee gets
a check, a series of checks, extended benefits, etc.

KB

#m
--
NTSB Accident Report:
THE PILOT IN COMMAND'S IMPROPER INFLIGHT DECISION TO DIVERT HER ATTENTION
TO
OTHER ACTIVITIES NOT RELATED TO THE CONDUCT OF THE FLIGHT.
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001212X18632&key=1



  #27  
Old July 5th 06, 03:04 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Kyle Boatright
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 578
Default NetJets Layoff


"Tom Conner" wrote in message
news

"Andrew Sarangan" wrote in message
oups.com...
I read somewhere that NetJets lost $143M in 2005.


I always felt that offering fractional ownership of a plane for business
purposes was not a sustainable business model. Corporate private flying
is
primarily ego driven (must have plane - makes me look important), not
business driven. For most companies it is an unnecessary expense, so they
will eventually drop it. The next aviation business failure appears to be
the idea that very light jets can be used as business transportation
between
small airports. Maybe, maybe not. The next few years will tell.



I agree. My employer purchased a G-IV some years back. If the CEO wasn't
aboard, the airplane wasn't going anywhere. The most frequent flights for
the aircraft were 300 mile hops to various high end golf courses and
resorts. The CEO got serious kicks out of having the biggest jet on the
field, wherever he flew. I think he eventually realized that people were
giggling behind his back at the (mis)use of such a capable aircraft, so it
was sold...

I remember going on a trip to the UK once upon a time when there were about
8 of us going to the same destination. One of our 3 senior VP's, our
corporate lawyer, a couple of other higher-ups, and several engineers and
managers. At that time, we were about 1 year into the G-IV and I realized
that we'd never use the airplane for its intended purpose when the 8 of us
all flew commercial.







  #28  
Old July 5th 06, 04:24 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
john smith
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,446
Default NetJets Layoff

In article ,
Jose wrote:

Dispatchers didn't talk to each other?


?


If you know who's going where from your airport, and the (NetJet)
dispatchers from the other airports know who's going where from their
respective airports, much could be inferred by putting the info together.


That's not the way the system is set up.
All NetJet pilots in North America talk to NetJet dispatchers in the
North American operations center.
Nowadays, the dispatchers are grouped by aircraft type/fleet (Citation
X's, Falcon 2000's, Citation Excel's, etc.).
Back when I did it, NetJets had less than 100 aircraft (Citation IIS's,
Citation III's, Hawker 1000's). The day and night shifts were each
staffed by three dispatchers and a supervisor. Graveyard shift had only
one dispatcher.
We all had access to any aircraft's information.
The crew used to contact operations via telephone for a release and
trip/pax information prior to departure and again upon landing with
flight numbers . Now they communicate via Blackberry's.
There are separate operations centers for Europe and the Middle East.
  #29  
Old July 5th 06, 04:29 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Jose[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,632
Default NetJets Layoff

We all had access to any aircraft's information.

A gold mine. Nobody put two and two together?

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.
  #30  
Old July 5th 06, 11:50 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Peter Clark
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 538
Default NetJets Layoff

On Tue, 4 Jul 2006 21:56:11 -0400, "Kyle Boatright"
wrote:


"Martin Hotze" wrote in message
...
"Casey Wilson" N2310D @ gmail.com wrote:

The only thing I see
that might have been unethical was the horsesh... feathers about signing
a
voluntary termination note. That released the employer from any
obligation
for paying unemployment benefits. While it may have been unethical, it
was
NOT illegal.


not knowing the US system: what would have been the outcome if he refused
to sign the letter? He would have been fired with the same outcome (but
with unemployment benefits).


Many (most?) states in the US allow professional employees to be terminated
without cause and without recourse by the employee. However, the employee
can still make the claim that he/she was improperly terminated (age,
religion, sex, etc.) and can sue the ex-employer. Even if the employee
loses in court, there can still be substantial legal expenses for the
employer, and there is always the chance that the ex-employee will win in
court.


I don't think that's necessarily what they're talking about here. If
presented correctly, this is a case of "We don't want you any more, so
sign this document which states that you resign, clean out your desk
and leave", not "your services are no longer required, thanks, go
home". Since the employee didn't resign at all but were released by
the company, is it legal for the company to make them sign
documentation stating that the employee initiated the severance, and
why would they create a paper trail in which it would appear the
employee quit rather than the employer initiating a staff reduction or
reorganization in the first place?
 




Thread Tools
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

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
resume flying after 25 year layoff David Banahan Instrument Flight Rules 10 September 21st 04 06:18 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:41 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.