Airlines already violating the CARES act?

Not shocking. Corporation and it's greed always wins. The airlines always write the bill. See how this works now? :bounce:
 
Not surprising in the least. Companies will continue to push the boundaries of any agreement as long they make or save a buck. People need to realize that your bosses do not care about you. We have unions for this exact reason.

Sent from my SM-G988U1 using Tapatalk
 
I thought it was surprising that B6 essentially furloughed thousands of employees before the ink was even dry. Looks like everyone else thought that was a great idea.
 
I still find it odd how everyone is saying no furloughs EXCEPT YX. You’d think Kirby would take people to the wood chipper as quickly as possible.
 
CARES is supposed to help pay scheduled hours. This forced reduction in hours doesn't smell right. On the other hand, some airlines are using min guarantee and reserve to pay pilots less than awarded.
 
Gotta wonder if Congress would just yank the money from the airlines violating the act or at least make them give back all the money they were issued by the government.
 
While I never want to see anyone lose a job, that would be fun to watch Kirby clean up that mess from the sidelines.

Finally gets what he wants, CEO, and then drives the airline into the ground by screwing over his employees. May not have an airline left to run after that. Karma don’t F around.
 
I'm pretty sure the airlines are carefully reviewing the grant stipulations before making these changes. My understanding is, there are no pay reductions allowed, but reducing the number of hours worked is legal. I know that Delta dispatchers voted and passed a temporary hours reduction agreement with the company - I believe 25%. At any rate, I'm sure it's not fun for the affected employees that are now getting fewer hours, but things could be worse. I imagine without the grant money we would be looking at 50% or greater furloughs and imminent Chapter 11 filings.
 
Last edited:
Not sure I understand this whole "corporate greed" or airlines "making a buck" view some folks have when it comes to workforce reductions. What, are they supposed to keep everyone on the payroll without anything to do and bleed money until bankruptcy? It sucks and I feel for those who are out of a job now because of it but at the end of the day these companies are just trying to stay afloat.

Be pissed about CEO salaries, stock buybacks or excessive corporate spending but nothing could prepare the airline industry for the effects of COVID19 and the financial stress it would put on airlines.
 
Eskhobbs said:
Be pissed about CEO salaries, stock buybacks or excessive corporate spending but nothing could prepare the airline industry for the effects of COVID19 and the financial stress it would put on airlines.
Click to expand...

CEOs essentially are the airline. Corporate greed is executive greed. You think they’re doing stock by backs because it benefits us? No, it benefits people like good ol’ Dougie who took all of his salary in stock, leaving his airline with a crippling amount of debt during a crisis that his peers don’t have to deal with.
 
Eskhobbs said:
Not sure I understand this whole "corporate greed" or airlines "making a buck" view some folks have when it comes to workforce reductions. What, are they supposed to keep everyone on the payroll without anything to do and bleed money until bankruptcy? It sucks and I feel for those who are out of a job now because of it but at the end of the day these companies are just trying to stay afloat.

Be pissed about CEO salaries, stock buybacks or excessive corporate spending but nothing could prepare the airline industry for the effects of COVID19 and the financial stress it would put on airlines.
Click to expand...
All valid points, but taking billions in GRANT money for payroll assistance and then aggressively cutting pay is pretty shady. After Sept 30 it’s gangbusters until then it shouldn’t be so aggressive.
 
Scarebus said:
Mandatory 25 days off without pay is absolutely a short furlough. Although I think they labeled it unpaid “vacation”. Riiiiggght
Click to expand...

A few of the corporate departments did impose that, yes. But no frontline employees including the SOC have been involuntary furloughed. There are a lot of VTO and voluntary reduced pay programs, though.
 
Altimeter said:
All valid points, but taking billions in GRANT money for payroll assistance and then aggressively cutting pay is pretty shady. After Sept 30 it’s gangbusters until then it shouldn’t be so aggressive.
Click to expand...

Giving someone a paycheck isn't the only cost to a company when it comes to employing a person, healthcare, 401k matching, taxes, legal costs, hr, management positions, IT resources, office space and utilities all cost money to keep these people around with no work. Let's not forget the grants were based off of a period from last year, it's no secret that airlines have been hiring like crazy in the last year both for fleet expansion and the impending pilot shortage. It's a very real possibility that these grants that airlines received can't cover the payroll burden they currently have.
 
Eskhobbs said:
Giving someone a paycheck isn't the only cost to a company when it comes to employing a person, healthcare, 401k matching, legal costs, hr, management positions, IT resources, office space and utilities all cost money to keep these people around with no work. Let's not forget the grants were based off of a period from last year, it's no secret that airlines have been hiring like crazy in the last year both for fleet expansion and the impending pilot shortage. It's a very real possibility that these grants that airlines received can't cover the payroll burden they currently have.
Click to expand...

Honestly I don’t care what the cost to keep an employee is. They knew the stipulations they agreed to. If they take money that the government gives them under specific circumstances and then try to weasel their way around it then they are in the wrong and should have to face strict consequences.

Let’s not forget, the government has no $$ to give. That’s your tax dollars and my tax dollars they are handing out to try to give companies time to weather the storm. AND, those tax dollars don’t even exist yet. It’ll take generations to even possibly make a dent in the debt. Is it worth it for us all to have a chance at keeping our jerbs? I think so. But not if they are going to be shade trees and d*ck over their employees now while they have money designated for paying them.
 
CF34-3B1 said:
Honestly I don’t care what the cost to keep an employee is. They knew the stipulations they agreed to. If they take money that the government gives them under specific circumstances and then try to weasel their way around it then they are in the wrong and should have to face strict consequences.

Let’s not forget, the government has no $$ to give. That’s your tax dollars and my tax dollars they are handing out to try to give companies time to weather the storm. AND, those tax dollars don’t even exist yet. It’ll take generations to even possibly make a dent in the debt. Is it worth it for us all to have a chance at keeping our jerbs? I think so. But not if they are going to be shade trees and d*ck over their employees now while they have money designated for paying them.
Click to expand...

I'm saying there's the real possibility that they don't have the money to pay all of their employees until October, just because they received grants based off of last year doesn't mean it will cover costs for the same period this year....comon dude. Workforce reductions isn't "d*cking over employees" it's a business decision in order to keep the company afloat in the short term. You seem to forget that your employer doesn't owe you a damn thing other than a paycheck for the work you have already completed..
 
Nope I didn’t forget, my employer treats me very well and I work hard to do my part so that things can continue that way.

I get what you’re saying. BUT, they asked for help, they were given stipulations for the help, they agreed to it. If they then go against those terms they’re in the wrong. If it wasn’t enough money they should have objected to the deal to find another solution. Or maybe try to secure more funds in addition to the grants/gov loans to cover the full cost. Choosing to screw over your employees as your first option is a crappy thing to do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top