Originally Posted by
rickair7777
For the most part yes. An airline is not going to take $2B in grants with strings if the strings cost them $3.5B
But there's a little hope. If they get $2B but only have to spend $2.2B, they might eat the difference to keep the capacity enabled, on the off chance things turn around.
But honestly I wouldn't expect "no furloughs" this time around. The part of the public which is paying attention would be PO'ed by that, although it seems most of them aren't paying attention (none of my non-aviation friends or family were aware of the original no furlough deal).
But airline aid is still a good thing, even if you personally get some time on the beach. You'll come back sooner and to a better life if your employer can stay out of Ch.11 (or maybe just come back period if they can stay out of Ch.7).
I actually disagree if the airlines can furlough this thing is DOA. Imagine they get 25 billion and then still can close to 100k workers a month before the election. I think the no furloughs makes its more palatable. The worst bail outs are the ones where they get billions lay off a bunch of people and pocket the money. That is always seen by the public as for executive compensation whether it is or it isn’t. That said I think airlines like the idea of kicking the can down the road. It give them more liquidity and they can spoil up if demand returns after medical advances.