1721
09-18-2020 | 06:18 PM
#121
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2018
Posts: 260
Likes: 0
It’s a current call to action on ALPA for it. I think it is getting thrown under the radar because of CARES 2 but ALPA has been trying to get this bill passed.
09-18-2020 | 06:21 PM
#122
Moderator
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 7,252
Likes: 95
From: DAL 330
I wasn't around for bankruptcy. Does this "starting point" concept accurately reflect how a BK judge actually thinks and behaves? It's a commonly repeated theme... should we enter BK court, we want to do it from the highest water mark possible. But I honestly don't get it. In BK, operating costs and debts exceed revenue, so the company is attempting to restructure to get projected costs and debt obligations below projected revenue, right? Doesn't a judge just validate if a proposed (or executed) departure from the existing PWA is necessary... not that it is or isn't above or below some percentage value?
If I'm cutting my family's budget to balance cash flow, I don't honestly care what I used to spend. I need to get down to X, no matter what Y USED to be.
What am I missing? Is the consensus from last time that had the union NOT agreed to a 32% pay cut before BK, the end state 40+% cut wouldn't have been so big? Or is the desire to maximize income before it eventually falls per the BK judge's decree?
If I'm cutting my family's budget to balance cash flow, I don't honestly care what I used to spend. I need to get down to X, no matter what Y USED to be.
What am I missing? Is the consensus from last time that had the union NOT agreed to a 32% pay cut before BK, the end state 40+% cut wouldn't have been so big? Or is the desire to maximize income before it eventually falls per the BK judge's decree?
Yes to both - this is the consensus. Who knows since we can not go back and try an alternate path but that is the concensus. It is lot easier for a labor judge to reduce compensation by 10% than 40%.
There is also a school of thought that says better to fight and lose XX then give away XX - when you are trying to recapture XX. Like I said all of this is opinion but in any case we (DALPA) were played like a fiddle in BK.
Scoop
09-18-2020 | 07:34 PM
#125
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,058
Likes: 2
From: Capt
09-18-2020 | 08:06 PM
#126
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 6,971
Likes: 0
From: Kickin’ Back
I agree with most of what your posting. What I dispute is the company wants a widebody only ALV reduction. Yes they want a targeted ALV. That’s what gives them the ability to adjust flying rapidly. ALV‘S would all be low this winter. That’s the point of the whole thing.
Denny
09-19-2020 | 02:54 AM
#127
Line Holder
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 638
Likes: 3
From: A330 FO
1) re-election
2) pass a CR
3) confirm a SC justice
4) recess/vacation
5)...
6)...
7) CARES? What’s that?
09-19-2020 | 03:33 AM
#128
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 20,869
Likes: 188
I wasn't around for bankruptcy. Does this "starting point" concept accurately reflect how a BK judge actually thinks and behaves? It's a commonly repeated theme... should we enter BK court, we want to do it from the highest water mark possible. But I honestly don't get it. In BK, operating costs and debts exceed revenue, so the company is attempting to restructure to get projected costs and debt obligations below projected revenue, right? Doesn't a judge just validate if a proposed (or executed) departure from the existing PWA is necessary... not that it is or isn't above or below some percentage value?
If I'm cutting my family's budget to balance cash flow, I don't honestly care what I used to spend. I need to get down to X, no matter what Y USED to be.
What am I missing? Is the consensus from last time that had the union NOT agreed to a 32% pay cut before BK, the end state 40+% cut wouldn't have been so big? Or is the desire to maximize income before it eventually falls per the BK judge's decree?
If I'm cutting my family's budget to balance cash flow, I don't honestly care what I used to spend. I need to get down to X, no matter what Y USED to be.
What am I missing? Is the consensus from last time that had the union NOT agreed to a 32% pay cut before BK, the end state 40+% cut wouldn't have been so big? Or is the desire to maximize income before it eventually falls per the BK judge's decree?
09-19-2020 | 04:28 AM
#129
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Sep 2015
Posts: 5,529
Likes: 197
From: UNA
Yes to both - this is the consensus. Who knows since we can not go back and try an alternate path but that is the concensus. It is lot easier for a labor judge to reduce compensation by 10% than 40%.
There is also a school of thought that says better to fight and lose XX then give away XX - when you are trying to recapture XX. Like I said all of this is opinion but in any case we (DALPA) were played like a fiddle in BK.
Scoop
There is also a school of thought that says better to fight and lose XX then give away XX - when you are trying to recapture XX. Like I said all of this is opinion but in any case we (DALPA) were played like a fiddle in BK.
Scoop
09-19-2020 | 11:26 AM
#130
seeing the country...
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 4,004
Likes: 35
From: 73N A
I think the meeting at the WH last week with the airline CEOs was more of an indication that the WH wants the airlines to have money -which is good news for us - but the CARES 2 seems wrapped up more in the other issues that the House, the Senate and the WH are discussing (and can't reach an agreement on). The positive is that on Oct 1st, the election is 34 days away. It's not good optics for several airlines to collectively furlough tens of thousands of people (which live in every state) that close to an election.
