No what most people are saying is that there is a contractual means to reduce cost through SIL's where people will choose to get paid a lot less than the ALV to not have any hook with the company and the company chose not to use it do to optics with other employee groups. While simultaneously starting a discretionary program for the other work groups that could self identify has high risk and stay home thereby costing the company even more money.

 

I agree the cost reduction does not do that much.

The reason to adjust ALV is about maintaining category and status in higher paying positions, being better positioned for a coming SLI and making management have to buy higher productivity from us later.

 

Great !! Hopefully they will keep it that way .

 

We are probably "carbon negative" with our huge schedule pull-down. 😁

 

The reason people (me) are saying it’s a revenue problem and not a cost problem is because of the SCOPE/SIZE of the problem and how the Company got to the point of where it is. If the current revenue environment continues lowering the ALV by 20hrs for every one for a month saves around a $100 Million. At current published burn rates that saves 2 days or less. In other words it’s not gonna help us unless the Revenue side returns.

If revenue does NOT return, we absolutely ARE headed to another bankruptcy..........or gubmint bailout. There is no way to avoid it. In the current revenue environment we could fly for free and still end up in BK. Again, reducing monthly credit by 20 hrs system wide for a month only saves 2 days or less at current burn rates put out by EB.

Denny

 

me up! Every day I am waiting for information with a pen in my hand

 

Concessions are like putting a single steri-strip on a gushing jugular bleed...it doesn't fix the problem...the end result is the same!

 

It's a tough ask: Take one for the team and sacrifice some coin before you lose your job in 6 months anyway while trying to get your own "financial house in order."

 

If we aren't carbon negative now, we will never be......

 

Its a fake binary choice logical trap for sure.

The best lies are those that employ technical truths to frame the discussion. So yes, if revenue remains at 5% prior levels with zero recovery ever, DL will run out of money no matter what we do. Is that at all likely to happen though? Then some like to use the "once bitten" nonsense about 9-11 and the "do it once do it right" paycuts prior to BK only to get more paycuts in BK. The (hillariously asinine) assumption used there is that, but for the agreed upon paycuts prior to BK, the post BK payrates wouldn't have been as low. As if the courts randomly apply a fixed percentage to the cuts regardless of the starting point. Yet they make that system up in their head, then use it to "prove" they are right.

Its easy to indulge in absurd false dichotomy absolutes if you blanket accept the false dichotomy in the first place, because in that case of course its true.