News about Netjets Europe
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,211
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NB, I agree, at this stage, its every man for himself.
What I dont understand is when you say,
'one of the departments became surplus to requirements, then I would cut that department.'
Which department(s) have become surplus to requirements, crew as a general or a specific fleet and that crew?
What I dont understand is when you say,
'one of the departments became surplus to requirements, then I would cut that department.'
Which department(s) have become surplus to requirements, crew as a general or a specific fleet and that crew?
Guest
Posts: n/a
SC. I think by 'department' NB means 'fleet'.
I don't think there's a member here who doesn't know of my scepticism of parts of NJE but that doesn't mean I'm happy to see this happening to the crew many of whom are ex-colleagues. If I were there in their position I'd be bloody angry too not least at the way recruitment continued when everyone else saw the writing on the wall.
Good luck all. Keeping my eyes and ears open around the traps.
I don't think there's a member here who doesn't know of my scepticism of parts of NJE but that doesn't mean I'm happy to see this happening to the crew many of whom are ex-colleagues. If I were there in their position I'd be bloody angry too not least at the way recruitment continued when everyone else saw the writing on the wall.
Good luck all. Keeping my eyes and ears open around the traps.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: FL450
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'Have to vouch for what Northern Boy says:
'Been looking for something on the GV since October. Absolutely nothing. Nil. Zilch. Rien. Not a sniff!
I would much rather have a Hawker 400, Citation Mustang, CJ, CL, Global, LR, anything but this bloody white elefant type rating!
'Been looking for something on the GV since October. Absolutely nothing. Nil. Zilch. Rien. Not a sniff!
I would much rather have a Hawker 400, Citation Mustang, CJ, CL, Global, LR, anything but this bloody white elefant type rating!
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: europe
Age: 53
Posts: 161
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The only reason NJE is in trouble is because of the hiring of the 258 ^pilots last year that they don t need anymore...the normal way will be to put those last pilots redundant..now NJE have a big problem, they know there is a shortage of qualified pilots ahead and if they have to hire again in a few years to the same level they did the last 3 years they better handle this thing properly if they want to found pilots in the future and keep the ones they have now ..When you advertised the safety of the job due to NJE financial support you cannot get that redundancy **** wrong or they will have to pay for the next 10 years! their reputation and image is on the front line.
LIFO or not LIFO is not the issue as in the UK law there is Jurisprudence on that subject but how to put experienced Airline Transport Pilots redundant on one side and still taking cadets with 250 h..how image damaging will it be in the industry and for the owner to whom NJE sold and still selling Safety by the highly trained and above standard Pilots they have hired...
the only way i see to handle it and protect their image is ask volontary redundancy paid for 3 to 4 years then back on line with seniority protected ( which there are actually offering ! 60% salary first year then 20% the following years with benefits ) then if not enough volontary pilots, they will then make it compulsory to the last pilots hired with the same condition.
I don t see any other way out .
LIFO or not LIFO is not the issue as in the UK law there is Jurisprudence on that subject but how to put experienced Airline Transport Pilots redundant on one side and still taking cadets with 250 h..how image damaging will it be in the industry and for the owner to whom NJE sold and still selling Safety by the highly trained and above standard Pilots they have hired...
the only way i see to handle it and protect their image is ask volontary redundancy paid for 3 to 4 years then back on line with seniority protected ( which there are actually offering ! 60% salary first year then 20% the following years with benefits ) then if not enough volontary pilots, they will then make it compulsory to the last pilots hired with the same condition.
I don t see any other way out .
Guest
Posts: n/a
I think it's common knowledge that the overcrewing was in anticipation of the loss of a lot of French pilots when the 'new, best tax deal' was imposed. Now that has spectacularly backfired will the architect of that particular farce be held accountable or will he receive another huge bonus this year? I digress.
I'm a little confused as to why NJ management started their redundancy email to staff with the warning that they foresee 'difficulties' for four years to come. I'm sure that's an exaggeration and is wholy at odds with their usual public face, like the one they were showing only five months ago when they persuaded people to resign their steady jobs and join NJE. That email is not-so-subtley worded to scare people into taking one of the options voluntarily and also hints that the working groups of pilots were in some way responsible for these options being put forward. All predicted but no less disappointing for that.
I'm a little confused as to why NJ management started their redundancy email to staff with the warning that they foresee 'difficulties' for four years to come. I'm sure that's an exaggeration and is wholy at odds with their usual public face, like the one they were showing only five months ago when they persuaded people to resign their steady jobs and join NJE. That email is not-so-subtley worded to scare people into taking one of the options voluntarily and also hints that the working groups of pilots were in some way responsible for these options being put forward. All predicted but no less disappointing for that.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Southern UK
Age: 52
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NJE Redundancy
When do you think the company will be announcing the selection criteria for compulsory redundancy? I would guess that it won't be anytime soon in order to give all pilots a chance to worry about their own position, career number, infamy etc and make the jump sooner or take one of the other secure options. I'm not sure the company management can legally not make it public, does anyone know if they HAVE to announce what the selection criteria for compulsory redundancy at the same time as asking for voluntary redundancy?
Not knowing is a pain.
Not knowing is a pain.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: UK
Age: 47
Posts: 437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
QUOTE When do you think the company will be announcing the selection criteria for compulsory redundancy? I would guess that it won't be anytime soon QUOTE
They already did. Page 1, question 2 of the FAQ e-mail sent a few days ago.
Basically LIFO.
They already did. Page 1, question 2 of the FAQ e-mail sent a few days ago.
Basically LIFO.
Last edited by buzzc152; 1st Jun 2009 at 13:59. Reason: wrong quote function
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Manchester,uk
Posts: 283
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would read that paragraph very carefully, also the original communication. They can and will do whatever they see fit as the business dictates. LIFO may apply as a guiding principle but it is not the only factor.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Middle of Europe
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The outcome of the first roadshow was that everybody in the danger zone (career number 1050-700) should go for one of the options in order to save their jobs. Otherwise there is a good possibility that they will be sacked. No good news I guess
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Manchester,uk
Posts: 283
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If enough people come forward for one of the options then no-one need be sacked. I'd rather have a reduced salary for a few years and a job to come back to than nothing at all. If I were about 7 years older ( around 107 the way I'm feeling) then I would probably shrug and take the money, the kids will be grown up by then and all debts paid, but at the moment the jobshare option looks mightily attractive.
Most companies would just have chucked 300 pilots on the dole with no choice or argument. A union would not, in my experience have helped since the reps tend to be senior people with their own agendas to protect and would happily sell their fellows down the river providing they were protected. (Cynical,? yep, been there done that and have the scars to prove it.)
This is a rotten thing to go through but at least there are options this time round rather than two weeks notice and a P45. Things will improve and in the meantime you might even find something better.
If life hands you lemons, make lemonade.
Ain't prozac great?
Most companies would just have chucked 300 pilots on the dole with no choice or argument. A union would not, in my experience have helped since the reps tend to be senior people with their own agendas to protect and would happily sell their fellows down the river providing they were protected. (Cynical,? yep, been there done that and have the scars to prove it.)
This is a rotten thing to go through but at least there are options this time round rather than two weeks notice and a P45. Things will improve and in the meantime you might even find something better.
If life hands you lemons, make lemonade.
Ain't prozac great?
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Portman Road
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was made redundant a few weeks back, and i put forward the reduced salary, but it was instantly thrown out.
The cost of keeping everyone current outweighed any saving in salary
The cost of keeping everyone current outweighed any saving in salary
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,211
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NB, I am afraid from the meeting last night RD made it quite clear that even a reduction of 30% in salary by all the crews would not make the savings required.
Why, because the training costs per person would not be saved, meaning the 30% savings from salaries would not out-weigh the training costs incurred while keeping all crews employed on a 'full time' basis.
Why, because the training costs per person would not be saved, meaning the 30% savings from salaries would not out-weigh the training costs incurred while keeping all crews employed on a 'full time' basis.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Manchester,uk
Posts: 283
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was under the impression that in the job share option, on the year off you would not incur any training,travel or per diem costs. On the year on you would but you would still only get 60% of salary. If that does not save money then why did the company agree to offer it? By the way that's a 40% reduction in pay
If they are worried about retraining costs due to shortages on fleets that they have reduced pilot numbers on in accordance with LIFO or the options offered the obvious answer is then to get rid of the pilots on the fleets that are flying the least and/or those whom they would rather be without, which is what the voluntary options were supposed to avoid.
That of course may have been the intention all along.
If they are worried about retraining costs due to shortages on fleets that they have reduced pilot numbers on in accordance with LIFO or the options offered the obvious answer is then to get rid of the pilots on the fleets that are flying the least and/or those whom they would rather be without, which is what the voluntary options were supposed to avoid.
That of course may have been the intention all along.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Manchester,uk
Posts: 283
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just read the small print again. On the OFF year, you are OFF, no recurrent or any other training will be given.
Don't want to go into any more detail on a public forum.
Don't want to go into any more detail on a public forum.