Too Lower ALV or Not? - Page 15 - Airline Pilot Central Forums

#141

Tailhookah , 04-13-2020 02:57 PM

Gets Weekends Off

Quote:

Originally Posted by Denny Crane

I'm against it AT THIS POINT. Let us wait until the end of May and see what the landscape looks like then.... This is not a helmet fire scenario.

As has been pointed out by others.........why must we jump directly to an ALV reduction when there are other avenues of cost savings like SILs and early retirements? If the Company is hellbent on cost cutting.......Answer me that.

Denny

As stated many times before we’ve already given an ALV reduction in that 80-90% of all fleets are on reserve. That’s a huge savings already.

#142

gloopy , 04-13-2020 03:24 PM

Gets Weekends Off

Quote:

Originally Posted by Denny Crane

What do you mean “fake” statistic?

Its a fake statistic because everyone knows today's revenue environment won't last forever.

I'm beginning to think you're not understanding this. So let's wait until this incredibly dire situation gets even more dire so we can see the long term forever revenue plan, and then and only then address the issue.

That sounds like an awesome plan.

#143

Tailhookah , 04-13-2020 03:27 PM

Gets Weekends Off

Quote:

Originally Posted by gloopy

Not this again. Ugh. OK for the millionth time, that fake statistic is based off a static snapshot of today's near zero revenue enviroment. Revenue will increase a lot from today's levels fairly soon. But a lot will most likely not mean enough to ride this out even with to the bone furloughs. If DL survives with us "winding the clock" to get our full ALV till the last day, it will emerge a much smaller, very top heavy airline that gets shredded by competitors at every level, including by many not even in existance yet. Ironically that alone could be the catalyst for a future Ch 11 on top of it all, because there is no long term path to a devistated network of highest paid top scale labor and planes under previous terms. So that stratedgy increases the likelyhood of BK even in a recovery environment.

No one knows the exact numbers. No one will know the exact numbers, which will be in a state of wild flux for most likely years. Sharpshooting our response retroactively through the 20/20 lens of hindsight is a very poor stratedgy. We'll be knee deep in mud getting outflanked by every legacy, LCC, ULCC and pump and dump start up under the sun. But we'll have that sweet ALV we saved up though, so there's that.

When they asked for that it was for immediate relief because this is the biggest crisis the industry has ever seen by a mile. Even in board room or MEC war gaming scenarios I doubt there was any serious thought of anything ever happening to this degree. The fake welfare check til 10-01-2020 is not earmarked for us and it isn't in accounts in our names anymore than social security is. There is no "lockbox" and while its very smug for the company to say all of that money is for any expense it has, that's true and there's not a dang thing congress (or a CH 11 or 7 court) can or will do about it. "But the law says!" LOL yeah right. But your honor, we totally deserve more blood from the stone because it was promised to us! Duly noted, case dismissed.

Forever? Of course not. And while its important to never underestimate the poor planning and decision making of airline management (in general) even the worst of them Shirley know that their future survival will be in even more doubt if they are caught chained in the start gates because they furloughed to the level necessary to stay solvent in the short term and then get creamed in the recovery by everyone else while they sit there with a small high cost top scale work force.

That is only true if revenue stats at the near zero levels of today. While possible, that is IMO extremely unlikely. The cost of ALV reductions between now and then isn't even to the right of the decimal point in career earnings for 95%+ of the list. You base that sentiment on the fake news "only a few days of liquidity therefore it doesn't matter" POV. "Winding the clock" really means let the patient bleed out even faster while we determine if there's any blood on the way because if not then why waste it on a dying patient. Revenue will come up a lot from today's levels, but most likely, within all reason, will still be critically low for quite a while. That means the "3 or 4 days" will rapidly become much more than that.

What projected numbers? There are none because there can't be any (except random guesses). Do you think the company is bluffing and sees either impending liquidation or a sudden head fake near full recovery, and but for their secret information they are withholding we would see it too?

Easily weeks. Likely months. Once again, yet again, not at zero revenue levels. But well within the zone of a "re-opened" economy with massive (yet at the same time woefully insufficient) revenue levels coming back, which is the absolute fat part of the zone of reasonable possibilities.

That request was made eons ago compared to how fast this is devolving. We went from being shocked at China then Europe travel bans to talking about staying shut down for many months or more in the span of a few weeks. The company asked for 2 months because 2 months is a start and we will likely need much more than that.

OK I'll start over. Again.

Massive revenue gains will come. Soon too.

At the same time, massive won't be enough. We are at close to thermonuclear war levels of revenue right now. Down 90% because almost everything is directly or indirectly shut down by law or consequence.

We could see revenue double or triple in short order. That easily satisfies any standard use of the words "massive revenue gains" by a mile. Yet even after said massive gains, the levels of revenue will be woefully insufficient for not only our present overhead but our very survival in almost any reasonable scenario between Mad Max Communist revolution zero revenue return and a rapid V shape recovery right back to 5-6 figure profit sharing checks.

We need time and we need it soon.

You're making my point. There is a huge middle ground of reasonable and likely scenarios of how this plays out, and zero revenue liquidation or a V shape return to greatness aren't likely at all. Its the middle ground that we will need a solid plan for and we (the company or the union) don't have one.

If by right now you mean today, or the April bid month even, then I agree. Even for May and June I would need to see a solid plan from the company that backburners their FA union fetish and takes advantage of SIL's and presents a solid plan for early outs. And in no case, absolutely no case including liquidation, am I in favor of one sided gives for nothing in return.

The time isn't today, but it Shirley isn't October. So far I'm seeing nothing from either side but posturing while the patient agressively bleeds out on the table.

This will most likely be a far, far worse than 9-11 event for the industry for well past October, so yes. I also think there will be some furloughs and downgrades. IMO the best stratedgy is to buy as much time as possible while working less but not for less. That will result in fewer furloughs, fewer downgrades, and a faster return on the other side. When weighing all of that, the risk of several months of lower ALV's in exchange for more days off (for lineholders and reserves or no deal) along with contractual upsides and counterbalances is worth the risk because I think the most ikely scenarios of revenue/demand return are well within the extremes of liquidation or a head fake return to greatness. And even if we can't outrun the bear, we can't be the slowest hiker in the pack either.

We can “what if” this til the cows fly home... bottom line is anything we give will not get us any sympathy later in BK court or the # of furloughs taken. Zero.

#144

gloopy , 04-13-2020 03:28 PM

Gets Weekends Off

Quote:

Originally Posted by Denny Crane

Do you really think $200 million over the course of 2 months is gonna mean the difference between surviving and Chapter 7? Not. Gonna. Make. A. Difference.

We will need lower ALV's for a lot longer than 2 months. Just because the initial ask when the shtf was 2 months doesn't imply some non urgent grand plan based on a sunny forcast of secret numbers they're sitting on and not letting us see.

100M a month for a lot longer than 2 moonths will absolutely make a big difference in a partially restored revenue environment.

Or we can gamble and get full ALV and call their bluff and not address the issue until we have much less cash.

#145

gloopy , 04-13-2020 03:30 PM

Gets Weekends Off

Quote:

Originally Posted by Denny Crane

If you think we are headed for another BK, then why the heck do you want to start off renegotiating our contract in another BK from a lower stand point?

Lower ALV's won't impact our starting point one bit if we return to BK. No judge will impose, and no company will ever demand, lower ALV's on a permanant basis. If we restructure again they'll push for the highest productivity allowed by law.

#146

gloopy , 04-13-2020 03:35 PM

Gets Weekends Off

Quote:

Originally Posted by Denny Crane

Do you think Delta is in a worse position to weather this storm than AA or UAL and that they will somehow recover faster and better than us? Come on. Be realistic.

We had the best balance sheet up until around 2016 and then went all in on debt and burning cashflow. I objected to it more than almost anyone then. Now we see them seemingly caring about nothing other than an FA union and future stock burnbacks with petty moves like cancelling SIL's for "optics" so they can indulge a non union FA group that likes to indulge their sentimentalities that they should get whatever pilots get instead of other unionized FA groups. A legacy could, very easily, not make it out of the other side of this.

#147

gloopy , 04-13-2020 03:44 PM

Gets Weekends Off

Quote:

Originally Posted by Denny Crane

I do think revenue will come back.......just not as much as you expect as soon as you expect. I don’t see revenue returning in any significant amount until possibly June, more possibly July.

I will just say if you think the company wants a reduced ALV beyond Oct 1 or now if we don’t take the Grant money, you need to rethink that..

Again, I disagree that revenue will come back as fast as you think.....but if it does than our problem is solved and we don’t need to give anything!

I'm not saying a return to near profitability by May. Of course not. If they lifted the lockdowns a week or two from not that wouldn't be enough to stop the plunge to great depression levels of GDP shrinkage and UI growth numbers and that's not even including the aftershocks. This is bad, but not all legacies will go away. Likely only the one that burns through its cash the worst.

When I say "soon" and "massive increases" I mean months from now and 2-3 times today's reveues. Even 5-10 times today's revenues are criticaly low levels. But we're not stuck on today's levels for the rest of the summer. If we are we're gone. I'll gladly roll the dice on a paultry 20 hour ALV reduction til then to buy time and try and preserve our seniority list because our place on it is worth far, far more unless you're retiring this year (or on the very bottom and don't think anything matters either way) in which case I understand your POV but for most of us our careers here are worth way more than normal ALV's in the biggest cash burn emergency this industry has ever seen.

That said, the company has to lead on this and so far they are not. The recent town hall was at least a bit of a walkback in the tone towards us but they've got to let this FA union thing go and actually run the airline.

#148

gloopy , 04-13-2020 03:52 PM

Gets Weekends Off

Quote:

Originally Posted by Denny Crane

If the Company is soooooo needy why has it refused to negotiate early outs and implement SILs? With a crisis as bad as you think it is, why is lowering the ALV the only avenue management wants to pursue?

Because they're target fixated and rolled the dice with "optics" after petty FA pushback because their prime directive hardwiring for a long time has been to avoid a FA union. I'm not sure if they actually thought we'd get in line for unpaid leaves by the thousands, or if they just wanted to indulge their sentimentalities. As silly as that sounds, didn't Ron Allen say he'd "take a strike" before he gave us the jumpseat because of FA (and other groups) jealousy?

I absolutely agree they need to go hard on SIL's for at least a month at the 55 hour level and then lower for quite a while. And an agressive early out especially considering international will likely be slower to recover. We can't do it alone. If they don't take it seriously enough to risk a FA union (that every competitor already has) to save the company then there's nothing we can do.

#149

gloopy , 04-13-2020 04:08 PM

Gets Weekends Off

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tailhookah

We can “what if” this til the cows fly home... bottom line is anything we give will not get us any sympathy later in BK court or the # of furloughs taken. Zero.

Lower ALV's have nothing to do with BK courts. If it gets to that point the company will want the highest ALV they can get. That's assuiming there even is an ALV in whatever they impose. The company will push for full on FAR/optimizer levels of productivity. They will also most likely furlough to the bone in that scenario anyway.

As long as we can stay out of BK, lower ALV's will prevent some furloughs and allow us to recapture flying faster as things rebound. Bankruptcy now isn't just a guaranteed Ch 11 "haircut", it could easily be full on Ch 7 liquidation for whichever airline whizzes through their cash the soonest.

#150

Denny Crane , 04-13-2020 04:22 PM

Gets Weekends Off

Quote:

Originally Posted by gloopy

I really do not know what you don't get. If we are not burning thru $60 million a day then you tell me......what are we burning thru a day? If you know better than EB, please enlighten us all. Has our revenue returned already? Pretty sure we both know the answer to that...

Right back atchya. I think I understand it way better than you do. We have time to assess. We do not need to do anything yesterday. I got no clue why you think we do....

I'm more worried about the short-term revenue problem..........as in how long it's going to last. I think it's gonna last longer than you think and the short term giveback of a reduced ALV isn't gonna make a lick of difference in the long run. Company is NOT going to want reduced ALV's after it starts furloughing.

Denny