Originally Posted by hummingbear

Not really- I have little doubt the company planned to furlough. Where we’re not seeing eye to eye is that yes, the LOA would cost the company more than doomsday furloughs, but much less than keeping the airline staffed for growth under the UPA. The primary goal of the LOA was never keeping the airline staffed for growth- that’s how we sold it to the company. The primary goal was preventing furloughs by reducing payroll costs. The company could have staffed for growth without an LOA, it just would have cost too much. The LOA was our way of saying “Rather than reducing costs through furloughs, here is an alternate way to cut those costs.”

So yes, it was very much about reducing cost.


Again, people want to counter the argument they wish I had made instead of what I actually said. I never claimed the LOA didn’t allow us to move back more quickly, I said that benefit was insignificant in comparison with the impact of federal bailout money. I believe that. The government has been paying our way through practically this entire pandemic, and the impact of that can almost not be overstated.

Take away the LOA for one minute. We’re building up to 60% block hours in June. That frees up a lot of manpower for requal training, etc without impacting the operation. Would it be enough to hit the same 2022 staffing goals we’re targeting now? Perhaps not, but it could be a lot closer than some are painting it. My belief is absent the LOA but with CARES funding still in place, we would still be behaving similarly- if not to scale- as we are now. Probably would have done some furloughing in NOV, then promptly brought everyone back when CARES was reinstated (in DEC) & begun realigning manpower for the rebound from there.

Now take away CARES funding. We’re talking about BILLIONS in free money & govt loans that would otherwise be cash UAL would have to burn to increase staffing while we’re at 50% block hours. That’s IN ADDITION TO what they’re already losing just keeping the operation running. Would the airline really try to justify that kind of gamble with their last remaining cash in a still anemic economy to their shareholders? I don’t see it. I think they would be behaving far more conservatively, even with the LOA in place.

(A bit of a tangent, but if they were hiring under the LOA absent CARES, just imagine the nightmare of bringing on new hires while the entire pilot group is making reduced monthly credit- many as low as 50%! That is the breeding grounds for a toxic labor group- “are you an LOA hire?”- for years to come!)

Understand I’m not trying to bash the LOA in the context of this conversation. I’m only weighing its real-world significance in comparison with govt CARES funding. And if we’re talking about intellectual dishonesty, I just don't think you can waive off billions in government aid for nearly a year now as if it’s not having a major impact on corporate decision making. How could it not?!