Originally Posted by
hummingbear
And this is really a misrepresentation. A HUGE part of the LOA’s intent was to reduce company costs through credit reductions in exchange for furlough protection. Some ancillary stuff mixed in, too, but no- returning to capacity was not the ENTIRE POINT by a long shot.
As axl16 said, the “cost reduction” is dependent on your view of furlough likelihood. I don’t think a brand new CEO would have the leeway to not furlough in the face of 30% demand. Maybe not 3900, but without government funds, 2850 would’ve still seen us hemorrhaging cash and our survival wouldn’t have been guaranteed. When the WARN letters were sent, the vaccine wasn’t even a sure thing...
a simple counter factual is American. They didn’t have an agreement and they are still in the process of figuring out which way to go. To say that the flexibility the LOA provided doesn’t allow us to move back more quickly is simply intellectually dishonest. You might not have liked the gamble, but how can you argue the displacement cancellation alone didn’t have huge affects for pilots in the right seats going forward?