At the time, all pilots were saved from furlough by the entire pilot group taking a 5 to15 hour reduction for two months. I didn't like it, but I was ok with it knowing that it kept pilots like yourself off the street with what would have probably been the minimum amount of notice allowed. This also kept insurance benefits available for those same pilots at the onset of a global pandemic. Our work rules and permanent monthly guarantee-other than those two months-were not touched. If I remember correctly, we weren't asked to still work the same amount of days but were credited with additional days off to cover the prorated pay reduction. The CARES act did end up passing Congress when at the time, no one in the industry could have imagined it would or what the details of the act would look like.

The reality is that you don't care about any of that. You only care about yourself and it shows by your skewed "Concessions vs Furlough analysis" that you created. Saying that your numbers are "not perfect" would be an understatement. Your groupings of pilot percentages and the pay to go with them don't even look close. Reserve lines which make up about half the lines only saw a 5 hour reduction in pay for those two months. It's glaring that in your "findings" you assume the deal can be called off after it was already made (did you forget that you have been on here screaming foul about the company reneging on the bonus deal-aka hypocrisy). What's most glaring and shows your selfishness, is that you assume that if the company gave that money back, it would not be repaid to all the pilots, but instead be used to pay the salary-but no benefits for some reason-of a small section of the furloughed pilots that you happen to belong to.

 

The CARES act was introduced in the House on January 24. Am I saying Air Wis/ALPA should have known exactly what was in it? Absolutely not. But ALPA, which represents over 60,000 pilots, probably had an idea of what would be included 7 days before it was signed into law.

What percentages would you allocate to the pay rates? If you provide some numbers I will update the analysis and repost.

Or can you tell me a better estimate of how much the pilots conceded?

Also, I did not consider that LCAs lost over 15 hours of pay. Their guarantee is typically higher. Since the union said "reduce minimum guarantee to 60" the LCAs had their pay cut by more than 15 hours. Maybe this has been resolved, but last I heard it was not.

Lastly, I did not consider all of the value from the stay at home lines. That saved the company a considerable amount of money as well.

Nowhere in here am I demanding that it be paid to furloughed pilots. All I'm saying, since others brought up the concessions, is that the dollar value could bring about 50 pilots back from furlough. It's an option. If it were possible, I would encourage ALPA to put it to a vote. There are lots of options. Would you rather recoup your concessions, pay for all furloughed pilots health insurance, bring only 50 pilots back, etc.? All of these are feasible considering the cost savings that we supplied to the company.

 

I had just reached out to him so I didn't get a response within the first few minutes. Unlike you, I chose not to come on here for answers from people that are not actually involved in the process, but rather wait for a direct answer which I did receive. From my understanding, your generalizations and assumptions are not accurate. We actually have a lawyer that works directly with our union on this and I would bet he or she knows what they are doing more than you. The company and the union have come to many agreements over the years that don't require an LOA. I'm not saying everything is perfect and that we always get the result we want, but I think it's unfair to continuously attack the guys that are actually working to help us while you try to divide us. I had a point where I needed those guys to go to bat for me with management and the threw everything at it. You aren't going to find better here.

 

You seem to have a very selective memory. At that time we were getting constant emails to push congress to support our industry. Even when the act was signed, the airlines had an application process and there wasn't a clear amount that was going to be paid out to each airline. I highly doubt the company got close to what was needed to cover keeping us all here.

We definitely gave up some pay but that was to keep pilots like you still on property at that time. I asked an LCA friend if he has a higher guarantee in his position and he laughed. With you "always accurate" knowledge of the contract, can you point out where some pilots are given a higher guarantee than the rest of us? They get an additional override when teaching but not more hours. The stay at home lines wasn't a guarantee of money to the company but an optional way for pilots to not have to come in to work and still receive some pay.

Your line in "findings" showed where you wanted it to be applied and you used inaccurate math to suit your position and as far as I know, it's not even an option anyway. We paid for something in the past and I guess I don't see where we have a right to just take it back - again this is opposite your same claim against the company about bonuses.

 

I keep reiterating that I have talked to the ALPA lawyers, reps, and committee members multiple times. Without a doubt, they know exactly who I am on this forum because I'm sharing practically word for word what they have told me. You keep saying I need to wait to get answers, but I have received answers and I'm spreading the information I received.

You keep saying I need to talk to the sources, while simultaneously accusing me of being wrong, but you are the one who has not received information from the source--not me. How can you say I'm wrong, when you have not received definitive answers?

You're saying, "JJ158, you're absolutely 100% wrong and you're some spoiled kid, but I don't know what the right answer is....."

 

So can you provide a better estimate of the $ value of concessions? Give me some updated assumptions and I'll plug them in and repost it. We absolutely don't have a right to take it back. But that's why we have a negotiating committee... to find solutions that work for both parties. And as of now, it looks like they haven't done much.

 

Tossed this together this afternoon. I've seen/hear people saying they wish they knew how much Air Wis's payroll was to compare it to the funding received under the CARES Act. I took comparable, regional airlines (just some of the first 10-K forms I could find) and created ratios that could then be used to estimate Air Wis's payroll expense. Then compared these to the funding received. If you have any suggestions that could improve it, let me know. Otherwise, I think it's in the ballpark considering the ratios for Mesa, Skywest, and Republic all gave similar numbers.

Edit: I forgot to include the source for the funding received. Its from www.viewfromthewing.com

 

Correction:
H.R. 748 was introduced in the House on January 24th of 2019 (long before Covid was an issue).

It passed the House on July 17th of 2019

On March 25th of 2020 it was amended in the Senate as the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act(CARES Act).

On March 27th of 2020 the House agreed to the amendment by voice vote, and was signed into law the same day by President Trump.

 

Here is the link to the latest 10K. It has been years since they posted one. I think they did it mainly to have ducks in a row to receive CARES 1.0. https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/d...926157d10k.htm

Your estimate isn't far off. Payroll expenses are around $62Mish per 6 months. (page 57 under "Operating Expenses")

CARES Act and the SBA loan amounts received are on page 37

As a side note discussed in another thread, AW has an odd corporate structure where AW operates under a holding company, Harbor Diversified, Inc., that originally had something to do with Harbor Therapeutics. If one reads through the structure on page 2, they state that over 99% of the operating revenue comes from the AW side. Any financial information that you are looking to find regarding AW will most likely be stated under Harbor Diversified, Inc.

 

Thanks for catching that mistake. Definitely missed the years when going through it. I guess, my point is that ALPA probably had some idea given we signed the LOA 7 days prior to the bill being passed. But I don't really fault them for still signing the LOA. However, we definitely saved the company a considerable amount of money.

Further, if you look at my most recent analysis, I would say more than 80% of their payroll was likely covered. The labor expenses include per diem, open time, critical pay, etc.. The company was not paying much of that so it is likely their payroll expense was lower than in previous years.

In short, almost all of their payroll expenses were covered by grants and loans from the government.