Cares 3.0 — Airline Aid?
03-13-2021, 11:22 AM
#32
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2012
Posts: 670
Originally Posted by ACEssXfer
That’s the thing though. “What makes the aviation industry so special”(and also why pilots are benefitting) has been explained over and over and over and then over again. Then 2 months later someone else posts the same outrage that pilots are getting paid and a bunch of other posters jump all over it “yea!!!! Greedy pilots!!!!!” It’s tiring and ignorant.
As far as humility goes: We’ll see. I don’t see it happening. The airline culture is poisoned right now and has been for years due to many factors.
As far as humility goes: We’ll see. I don’t see it happening. The airline culture is poisoned right now and has been for years due to many factors.
Further, hopefully this puts to rest the complaining over the ME3. Can't really use the government subsidy argument over the ME3 when you were bailed out three times.
03-14-2021, 04:19 AM
#35
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2020
Posts: 419
Originally Posted by rickair7777
Understandable. Maybe they should have required the airlines to pay only 70% of baseline wages to those not working. Most people should be able to keep their house with that much. But again, politics and optics.
03-14-2021, 04:41 PM
#38
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2006
Position: MD11 FO
Posts: 1,109
Originally Posted by rickair7777
Our profession didn't "go" in the dirt, it was "put" in the dirt.
But either way, the fed had to save the industry. The part about the workers getting full pay to sit home was just a political side-effect. And the pols in question couldn't practically take care of all the low-end workers, and justify cutting loose several of the best paid union groups in the country.
But either way, the fed had to save the industry. The part about the workers getting full pay to sit home was just a political side-effect. And the pols in question couldn't practically take care of all the low-end workers, and justify cutting loose several of the best paid union groups in the country.
Why would you think the industry would go bankrupt if they were required to furlough to an appropriate level commensurate with the demand...for 18 months? And likely longer as no one believes we will be to pre-pandemic levels by this September - it'll probably be several years beyond that. So it sounds like you're fine with bailout out the industry at 100% pay up until the industry recovers? Just answer that question please.
03-15-2021, 09:50 PM
#39
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2013
Position: No Hats No Jackets No PAX
Posts: 1,505
Originally Posted by Wingedbeast
The way I see it is that I'm just getting back the tax money I've been paying all these years.
Rock on!*Just to be straight up, I want the American people to be subsidized during this debacle vs all the extraneous BS within “Rescue Bill.” Trillions and Trillions are not needed if it were for the American Tax payer specifically. Not even half a trillion will ever be felt by the small business sector and other mainstay industries.
03-17-2021, 10:29 AM
#40
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2017
Posts: 1,030
Originally Posted by Tuck
Are you kidding me? What were the government regulations that required people not to fly? They didn't want to fly because they were and continue to be scared to do so. And the industry didn't help things at all. Fly on any international carrier and they at least do a temp check and ask you questions about recent symptoms - not on US carriers though - it's merely printed on your ticket and zero temp checks. Stay at home orders? Clearly that's not an issue as airlines continue to fly...with passengers. Yes, the international side took a hit and some of that is regulatory but any time you have to prop up an entire industry to remain at 100% of their pre-pandemic load for some 18 months - that's a clear problem and should be recognized.
Why would you think the industry would go bankrupt if they were required to furlough to an appropriate level commensurate with the demand...for 18 months? And likely longer as no one believes we will be to pre-pandemic levels by this September - it'll probably be several years beyond that. So it sounds like you're fine with bailout out the industry at 100% pay up until the industry recovers? Just answer that question please.
Why would you think the industry would go bankrupt if they were required to furlough to an appropriate level commensurate with the demand...for 18 months? And likely longer as no one believes we will be to pre-pandemic levels by this September - it'll probably be several years beyond that. So it sounds like you're fine with bailout out the industry at 100% pay up until the industry recovers? Just answer that question please.
The first bailout was entirely warranted, they thought it would blow over by October. And as it’s been said despite thinking people are at home being paid 200k to do nothing, it’s a small percentage. The vast majority of those being laid off are not making that much money, it would have been terrible through no fault of their own. I think the saving grace is that the industry is considered essential to those in power. The second bailout was probably a combination of the first notion as well to keep the confidence going in the country regarding path to normalcy. Last thing people want to see is tens of thousands of workers being laid off, that’s not a very good look for the economy. The third bailout I guess considers that there really is light at the end of the tunnel, why lay off only to rehire again.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
