Club Furlough
- Thread starter paincorp
- Start date
Flagship_dxer
Penske Material
Does any of this second bailout money force airlines to re-hire all the management and non-union workers that have already been let go? Can airlines still abuse the system by reducing employee hours and make the bogus claim they are not cutting pay?
Until things recover, are we going to be going through this every six months? After things recover, I would place a high bet that management will be using the bailouts as a reason to delay dispatch contract talks or to extract concessions.
Until things recover, are we going to be going through this every six months? After things recover, I would place a high bet that management will be using the bailouts as a reason to delay dispatch contract talks or to extract concessions.
Actually, by cutting hours they are technically still compliant. The CARES Act states that pay rate shall not be changed, which seems to have been an intentional change to allow what you are referring to.
flynryan692
Well-Known Member
Well if we're going to do another bailout they'd better address this part.
Flagship_dxer
Penske Material
Yes its legal but it goes against the intent of the legislation. Might as well not even include that in the legislation with such a huge loophole.
757Geek
Well-Known Member
I just had a kid and am on the chopping block and would love to continue getting money and insurance, but I also see that this whole thing can't continue ad-infinitum. The whole point of this act was to bridge the gap until we could stop the virus and demand could come back, which it obviously hasn't. If they do extend it, then this will probably be the last one since now we theoretically should have a vaccine by the end of the year (from everything that I have heard) and the flying public feel relatively at ease. Indeed, there have a been a couple of recently published articles on Fox and CNN that said the chances of you catching it on a plane are very slim so maybe we will start to see some trust and demand rise a little?
I would have no problem getting on a plane with the cleaning procedures my company is doing. I'm sure there are a lot of people that haven't flown since the pandemic began that are willing to get on a plane. But I think for a lot of people it's government restrictions, what they can/can't do at their destination, etc. I think there will be more people traveling as restrictions ease up.
manniax
Well-met in the Ka-tet
I don't know, a healthy aviation industry will help the economy when it does start to recover. I think there is a decent (although not 100%) chance there will be a vaccine produced within the next six months...possibly more than one. If that happens we may see airline demand start to increase significantly. Add this to the fact that winter is the slowest time, historically speaking, for airline travel, and I think that extending benefits for another six months might well get the industry over the worst of the downturn. It's a bit of a gamble but I think it's worth the risk. However it may be a moot point unless Congress and the White House can agree on something soon. Sharing a meme here that I created (with a meme generator)...I posted it in another forum here as well. It sums up how I feel when evidently, Congress and the White House are both amenable to a bailout but can't come to terms on a deal. I don't mean to be harder on Congress than the White House either, but they were the ones who left town so seemed more of an obvious punch line.
I agree that travel will come back to some degree, but international still won’t be, and that’s a lot of capacity that won’t be there.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not against all support, I’m against support the way it’s being proposed. Why should the CARES Act cover 75% of payroll when only ~30% of jobs are at risk, and some airlines have already laid off or furloughed? Why should airlines get money to cover jobs they’re going to keep anyways?
The initial funding was probably too much as well, but it was evolving so much more quickly back then than it is now, so it was much harder to do it right when you need it now.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Flagship_dxer
Penske Material
You bring up an excellent point. There has already been quite a bit of workforce reductions industry wide through LOAs, retirements, voluntary separations as well as non-union work hours cuts. Airlines want the same amount of money they received 6 months ago despite all the staff reductions they have all achieved through voluntary measures.
For airlines like Southwest, Jetblue and Delta that have said they might not have a need to furlough employees in large numbers you have to question their motive in supporting a second bailout. Is it really about saving jobs or is about free cash?
Hecklers2002
M.82
I still don’t get how a loan is free cash?
Last edited by a moderator:
Flagship_dxer
Penske Material
grant money is free cash.
Hecklers2002
M.82
Then stop referring to government aid as free money when there are clearly grants and loans. I kind of makes you sound ignorant and misinformed.
Flagship_dxer
Penske Material
It is free money. Its a hand out. You don't have to pay back grant money. Even loan money is forgivable by the government under the CARES act.
Hecklers2002
M.82
We can all agree that a grant is free money. No dispute there. But a loan isn’t.
Flagship_dxer
Penske Material
Not every airline took or is taking loans. Some just took the grant money. If the airlines that took loans are forgiven the debt then the portion becomes free money.
Hecklers2002
M.82
Ahhhh so we are now getting to the facts...I like that. So the ‘AIRLINES’ meaning all of them aren’t taking loans. So we can at least not claim all airlines fall into this argument. The ‘IFs’ that you talk about are called conditions (just like every loan giver has no matter who it’s coming from). Let’s see if you can recall the conditions that would make these loans ‘free money’.
Flagship_dxer
Penske Material
You realize that none are forced to take the loan the portion. They can just take the grant portion if they want free money.
Hecklers2002
M.82
Of course I do, and even those grants came with conditions. But when people pass along misinformation about the cares act as if we (you and I) have up our hard earned taxes for absolutely nothing in return, it kinda bugs me. I’d be hard pressed to say that if they were offered loans that they wouldn’t have taken it.
On a bit of a separate note; of course these airlines could have managed their years of profit better for a rainy day. But even that has its limitations. Which circles back to aid when their ‘savings’ ran out.
Flagship_dxer
Penske Material
The grant conditions, which the government did grant certain exemptions for, are not very onerous. Indeed the fact they are all asking for more money proves that the money received is worth much more than any terms or conditions. It would be like your dad giving you two weeks allowance money if you did your homework for a week. Sure, I'll take the money for those easy to accomplish terms.
You are correct in saying that airlines need to manage better for the long term. When you are receiving handouts, it is easier and less risky to obtain those than it is to make difficult business decisions. The problem is that over time the handouts can become expected and it can interfere with developing a workable plan and strategy if for some reason those handouts dried up. Sometimes, it can surprise you what someone can come up with to survive and thrive once the gravy train comes to a halt.