20% less hours is vastly superior to the same hours (or days on call etc) and 20% less per hour. And its also self correcting. Your fatalistic approach to this based on past precedent could end up being correct, but again, only in a very narrow band of possible outcomes.

Cashflow and money on hand for the company is literally the (rapidly draining) lifeblood of not only the stock value or the corporation, but the very existance of our careers here, our contract and our seniority list.

I agree we should save. We should have been saving all along though. If your financial survival depends on 20% of pre-tax ALV based compensation for a few months, odds are that won't end up making much of a difference. It may or may not make a difference for the survival of the company either. That depends on where we end up in the very large range of possibilities. IMO there is a very good chance we will lose a legacy over this. Which one that is could come down to an extremely thin margin. The contextually invalid "its only 3-4 days of liquidity" nonsense from our side based on an out of focus snapshot of things as they are at the moment therefore nothing we can do means anything is just bizzare fatalistic Jacob the Liar style propaganda. That's not a valid response to the company even if they are being Baghdad Bob on their end in the opposite direction.

Every legacy won't go away because of this. And the ones that don't will recover much, much faster than the ones that either do go away or who become vastly smaller. I'm in favor of the work less but not for less approach because it makes the most sense within the broad band of possibilities we face. I think we do have a chance at survival as a company. Maybe even if we do nothing, but the chance goes up if we do. Work less not for less is the best path to that IMO. But if nothing ends up mattering, or if we chose the wrong path, or if our leaders chose to burn it all down to preserve the country club burnback culture at all costs, or if we try lower ALV's and its not enough, I can accept all of that. See you in line at the job fares on the other side then if it comes to that.

Lower reserve GAR with the same days on is an absolute non starter. Same for pay rate cuts, 401k reductions, scope relief and many other things. Those will be concessions we endure for years, contracts or even decades to get back. Hit the lights on the way out and let's grab a beer. But I also don't believe in the fatalistic approach of nothing we do matters when every day of liquidity remaining could make the difference between which legacy goes away, or which one becomes a vastly smaller, higher cost, very senior large plane regional airline relic because if we can't not only stay around but also quickly grow into the recovery on the other side of this, it won't be worth saving in the first place.

 

First we need to exhaust voluntary options. SILs, MLOA relief and early retirement. ALV reduction does nothing unless we also lower the reserve guarantee. 72 hours is the minimum reserve pay which is 7 hours more than the current minimum line value. I will never vote to reduce reserve pay for several reasons.

 

I'm against reducing reserve guarantee by a single minute unless it come with a corresponding reduction in days available, as well as numerous other upsides I've previously mentioned.

 

When I wrote my reps, I told them in my opinion that the company needed to utilize Sils, early retirements, and then move onto reducing ALV if necessary, but only after the former.

 

Using that logic, Delta’s industry-leading profit sharing, IOE/LCA trip blocking/buddy bidding, green slips, rolling thunder, etc are also “stoopid (by the company)”.

 

If things are so critical and margins so thin, why won’t the company take the 0% government loan, entertain SILs, early retirements, or other cost saving ideas?

You’re panicking.

 

Hardly panicking. But if you want to take the position that all is well and full pay no matter what because they're clearly bluffing, have at it.

I'm prepared to start over. Are you? If not, maybe you're panicking.

 

No reduction in ALVs or hourly rates or any concession until ALL industry standard voluntary options have been offered and AWARDED. After those, maybe we can talk ALV reduction with a 4.5 to 5.25/day reserve average to adjust on call days in accordance with new reserve guarantee.

Absolutely no hourly rate reductions. ALV reductions fix themselves as demand increases so will required flying.

 

Well if they agreed to those things now, at this point in time....... Why yes, yes indeed ...that would be stoopid by the company. You do understand there is a dimension called TIME.... that dimension can be fairly relevant is some discussions dontcha think?

 

Answer the question.

Why are they not taking the 0% government loan , offering SILs, offering an early retirement package, and not leaving every other stone unturned except reduced ALV’s?