Originally Posted by Denny Crane

Yes that's a lot of money but when it's scaled into the operation, it's not as much as one would think. As I said, according to managements own figures, it's about two days of operating costs.....

Originally Posted by Denny Crane

Of course that is assuming no more bailouts or the US Gubmint stepping in an nationalizing the industry.

Originally Posted by DenverPilot8

...it could give the company more time. Which is really what they need to get thru this. More time for demand to come back. Not offering any SILs or early retirements is just asinine.

Originally Posted by gloopy

Your math may be correct but your underlying assumption is not IMO.

The POV that it makes no difference because "its only X days worth of solvency" is wildly flawed.

Sure, if today's levels of revenue, burn and liquidity remaining persist for 6, 12, etc more months then you are 100% correct. ALV concessions just lower our savings for our impending short term liquidation that is 100% certain this year or maybe early next year.

But that is on the extreme tip od the ranges of possibiiities and IMO in no way likely. Likewise on the other extreme end of that range is the rapid full "V shaped recovery" scenario. That is also radically unlikely. Both of those scenarios would mean ALV reduction is just giving money away for nothing. Wall St vs Main St, blah blah blah.

Its the very large middle range of possibilities, including IMO the realistic range of what's likely, whereby revenue and pax come back but at less than the levels needed to avoid Ch 11 or even Ch 7. That's where "full ALV til the last day" gets counterproductive for the vast majority of the pilot group really quick. If you don't think 100M a month (using your numbers) within the broad range of possibiliities then I would disagree. If, OTOH, you are basing your view on your time remaining and your personal situation that's fine. One pilot one vote. Like it or not we (DALPA, not the country) are a "democracy" but I think that view will be in the tiny minority because few are in the range to be willing to gamble their all their pay (and seniority) over 20-30 hours pay a month for a while.

Reduced ALV/GAR will be a "conversation" we will have to have and likely at least vote on IMO. We'll see. It should come with medium and long term upsides as well. That's why we have a MEC and a NC. The fatalistic view of "full ALV til the last day" because nothing we can do will ever matter because we're headed to liquidation anyway, or, its all fake news and we'll rebound anyway is a very poor stratedgy for well over 90% of the list.

Originally Posted by Denny Crane

If the revenue environment changes I will be more inclined to think as you do.

Originally Posted by Denny Crane

I don’t disagree with your premise that revenue could come back to make your ideas about lowering ALV more viable. Currently we are NOT in that position. If the revenue environment changes I will be more inclined to think as you do. At this point in time, with revenue the way it is, lowering ALV is a literal drop in the bucket. Let’s wind the clock and see what happens at the end of May... This is NOT a no time emergency.

Denny

Originally Posted by Denny Crane

I don’t disagree with your premise that revenue could come back to make your ideas about lowering ALV more viable. Currently we are NOT in that position. If the revenue environment changes I will be more inclined to think as you do. At this point in time, with revenue the way it is, lowering ALV is a literal drop in the bucket. Let’s wind the clock and see what happens at the end of May... This is NOT a no time emergency.

Denny

Originally Posted by FL370esq

I am surprised I haven't read anything about TLV relief. Has any costing been done on that? Seems that some categories are running artificially high ALVs to comply with TLV requirements.