Denny Crane

Beg to differ. A judge can easily look at that 20% ALV reduction and convert it to a payout in his/her mind and say "well you outside of BK you pilots were getting paid X amount (judge doesn't care WHY). Now if that's what you were getting paid prior to BK, how much you gonna give now?"

It could very easily be a starting point, especially when it is up to one person.....

Denny

Denny Crane

Hey! You're making progress!. What Ron Allen said and what he would have done are most probably two different things. Obviously we will never know.

Until the Company gets serious about these other ways to save money, I'm against giving them ALV reductions. It's as simple as that.

I've enjoyed going back and forth and thanks for keeping it civil!!! But neither one of us is going to change the others mind about this so........until next time!!!

Denny

TED74

Indeed. My hunch is the average credit in a normal April might be 85 hours or so. With a large chunk at a 72 hour minimum RG, that's already a 15% reduction in income with zero contractual gives. That's nothing to sneeze at.

gloopy

The 60M/day burn rate (which for some reason was 50M/day prior to additional savings realized but I digress) is based off of a snapshot of the lowest revenue mark in history. Obviously that will go up, a lot, and soon. You don't seem to understand that "a lot" and "soon" can apply to a broad range of numbers. If revenue doubled, would you call that a large increase? What if it tripled? Of course, because it will be a large increase. If the doubling of revenue happened in the next quarter or so, would you call that quickly? That clearly and easily fulfills any fair use of the word. But it will all still be woefully insufficient for quite some time. You know this, yet continue to obfuscate for some unknown reason, with the only motivation I can deduct through your persistence on this being your heavy weighting of 20 hours of pay for the next coming months. While admirable in a game of smallball, that's literally nothing compared to the value of preserving a company for our seniority list on the other side of this when cash remaining is critical.

Yet you keep falling back to the all hope is lost daily burn rate of the temporary low point as proof nothing should be done until and unless we have access to some grand plan of mathematical proof of guaranteed ROI for such an investment, which we will never get except through hindsight on the other side of all this in the first place.

Of course revenue has not returned already. I obviously did not claim it did. I have said it has not. Doing nothing while we bleed EB's stated burn rate to preserve our ALV is a stupid plan that only nets us, at best, the ALV differential. The reality of a legacy liquidating over this is a very real threat. If that happens, it will happen to the one that runs out of money first. All airlines have a deadly burn rate right now. Yet until they don't, you are prioritizing 20 hours of ALV in the interim, it seems, because you view it as a hedge of personal savings in case we do liquidate.

So, yet again (and again) I do not think the revenue problem will be "fixed" short term. I never said that. Massive revenue increase means double or triple today's levels, but that is still critically low. You don't seem to understand the meaning of words. Likewise, you don't understand the meaning of "rapidly" in conjunction with "massive" because even if both things happen (in the strictest sense of the words) we could still see 70 or 80% reduction in revenue from previous levels in the near term months. But every dollar saved under that scenario would buy us much more time than the current 90% (or greater) reduction we're seeing now. Yet you don't think its a prudent plan to address the burn rate at today's levels. And we've already seen the myth of the free, "guaranteed" payroll "grants" til 10-01-2020 start to crumble rapidly.

So you are positing that things are far more dire than you're claiming I am saying, yet you apparently think that proves inaction on our part is an even better stratedgy for some reason. The only possible reason for that massive logical disparity would be that you are prioritizing the 20ish hours a month that's being discussed in the interim as being a bird in the hand worth more than the risk/reward of a solvent company on the other side of this since that isn't guaranteed with outstanding variables. Yet its that very risk the very inaction as you currently advocate progressively increases.

And I'm not advocating retroactive action. Its bizzare for you to imply as much. I'm also in agreement with you (I guess, although it appears you value the 20 hours a month right now so much you will disagree with anything and everything to maintain it) that April is ancient history, and May and probably June are too until and unless the company gets over its prime directive fetish about an FA union and agrees to SIL savings already agreed to in conuction with an industry standard and widely used early out program of some kind. If they won't move on any of that, especially for anti union "optics" then they are intentionally steering the ship towards the iceberg and there's nothing we can do anyway under that scenario.

In any case, the lower we get our burn rate, and the sooner we get it lower, the greater our chances of survival become. Pointing to today's burn rate and near zero revenue environment as evidence that we should do nothing is very short sighted thinking because the longer we delay the worse and more critical it gets. Revenue will return and percentage wise it will be massive and rapid compared to today's levels (double or triple in months or quarters easily satisfies the use of those terms) but still very slow (many years) to return to previous levels. You advocate that until that's already happened, the best stratedgy is to continue a rapidly critical burn rate with no action. I disagree.

FL370esq

Maybe the extra $10M/day accounts for the stock buy-back loans entering repayment after their "90-days same as cash" promo expired. 😁

gloopy

LOL at this point that wouldn't even surprise me.

gloopy

Likewise. And I think we're agreeing on at least much more than you're giving me credit for at the moment. Anyway glad you're back (or will be very soon).