Ratified new contract on 1/10/2019. Went public on 4/1/2021. Takes that long? Well, I guess our only hope this go around is for a JCBA then (likely not happening).

 

You are totally missing the point.

Most airlines (to include Allegiant, Sun Country and a few others) made money. UA and DL made money. There's profit to be had - IF YOU KNOW HOW TO GET IT.

It is never, Ever, EVER the fault of the employee for an unprofitable business with bad business policies. The fact that Dumpster has come in and mentioned the changes proves the previous strategy was incorrect. Businesses the size of F9 can get $ anywhere - JB hasn't operated profitably for years and their pilots got a raise.

BUSINESS PROFITABILITY IS NOT A PRECURSOR TO LABOR PAY ADJUSTMENTS!!!!! If you can't afford to pay your employees what ALL the others are paying in the same market, you don't deserve to be IN that market.

I can't, for the life of me, understand why this concept either continues to be forgotten and is so difficult to understand.

 

So, we can get market pay and close our doors. At least we will have a couple nice paychecks before we are on the street.

or we can wait until all the damage that BB did is undone then worry about an industry standard contract where we can get many nice paychecks.

 

The vast majority of the industry profits were made by Delta and United. Allegiant and Sun Country have mostly stayed (for the lack of a better term) in their lane. They tend to be smaller and focus on the secondary leisure markets and not try to go up against the big 4 in the larger ones. Should LCC’s focus on markets with less competition from the big 4, or get in the ring with them and try to win? If going up against the big 4 in the larger markets, you’ll incur higher cost which must be either taken from the consumer or the balance sheet, including labor. If prices have to rise to cover the increased cost of doing business, I can see where the price gap between the LCC’s and legacies shrink and the consumer just chooses the legacy. I honestly don’t know what the answer is, and I hope you guys eventually get a great contract since a rising tide raises all ships. Unfortunately, as long as the company can staff the flying and until they can consistently return to profitability, the NMB will be sympathetic to their arguments and this will drag on.

 

You also have to remember that the legacies are only profitable because of their credit cards. Most of their airline side doesn’t make money. Therefore the budget carriers have to be actual low cost operations to have a chance, or unless by some miracle Spirit and F9 become profitable by shrinking and they merge for scale with all their profitable routes. Unless there’s legislation to limit the unlimited amount of money legacies make with their loyalty programs, like there is in Europe, it will be very tough for budget carriers.

 

F9 has $500M cash (and falling), $5B in debt (and increasing) and has not made money in straight quarters for awhile. Those are diverging numbers that are not sustainable and have put F9 in substantial financial stress. The SLB gravy train is in serious trouble if F9 is considered a financial risk to banks. The steaming pile of doo-doo that Barry left must be corrected before a contract.

The attitude of “I don’t care about F9’s financial problems. Industry standard contract NOW!!!” is one of looking at the problem with blinders on.

 

I don’t know where you are getting your numbers, but they are not right. Here is a summary of Q4 Balance sheet:


Key Balance Sheet & Financial Highlights (Q4 2025):

• Total Liquidity: $874 million.
• Net Income (Q4 2025): $53 million ($0.23 per diluted share).
• Total Assets: $6.7 billion.
• Total Liabilities: $6.3 billion.
• Total Debt: $668 million.
• Cash and Equivalents: $654 million.

Recent Performance Trends:

• Revenue (Q4 2025): $997 million.
• Operating Expenses (Q4 2025): $948 million ($721 million excluding fuel).
• Capacity (Q4 2025): Flat compared to the 2024 quarter.

 

I love the trolling - gives me an excuse... ok, here we go.

First of all, your numbers are way off (correct ones above this post).

Second, it is essentially BUSINESS 101 to take care of your employees. If you look closely at the correlation, those companies that do, profit more (hence UA/DL etc.). SWA used to but lately have had hiccups when they had labor contract problems and withheld critical safety info from their pilots. It just doesn't work long term to continually mistreat your labor. Despite that there's always new (cheaper) labor, the lack of experience and continuity plus the training costs outweigh the cost of any raise. It's VERY simple economics as pointed out by Scott Kirby - labor raises are routinely paid for by product cost raises. If you CAN'T raise the price (for fear of less patronage) than you need to change the product. And the catch 22 of it all is, you can't change the product if the employees don't change. Our product is bad customer service - are you gonna do anything differently w/o a raise (because of a new CEO memo)?

Third, if the company can't "afford" a raise right now, why weren't we offered one when they could? It is just bad timing on our part? Unlucky? Hell, if convincing your employees that you can't afford to give them a raise because the business isn't doing well worked, you would think that NO companies would show a profit at negotiation time. Yet, many do.

Keep trolling - I'll keep countering...

 

Yes, the loyalty programs are an important piece of the puzzle, but you have to remember that the reason that they are so successful is that those companies have a product that people want to spend money on more than the others. They have vast networks both domestic and international, much greater frequency, seats at all price points, WiFi/snacks/in seat entertainment, typically better customer service,……… in short, their loyalty programs are successful because they provide a product that far more people choose to be loyal to.

 

We have more problems than just the loyalty program...

WE NEED 3 class seating (instead of our now 1 eventually going to 2). We need first class, economy plus (in which the seat has 2" more of legroom and a USB plug) and our regular seats. Putting in the new seats would probably only require losing 2 rows of seats total of which the cost could be made up w/ the increased cost of the economy plus ticket. So, 320s would seat 180. This added flexibility is what the customer wants (for now). We can't sell what we don't offer.

Second, we need more than 2 configs of aircraft. With 186 and 230+ seating, we don't have a more economical option for lower yielding destinations (like Omaha, Missoula, Eagle, El Paso, etc.). We either need a regional (like Republic) or to merge w/ Avelo. Thereby, we'll be able to fly ATL to BUF 2x a day w/ a 120 seater vs once every 2 days w/ a 186 seater (that is less than 50% full). Either that, or we stop going to these smaller airports altogether. I'd lean more toward keeping the route vs. ditching it as we've already invested the time/$ for it. But, we need less bases (those that we have, we need at LEAST 5 dedicated gates minimum) and more trips. Not sure why ATL is so important but rumor has it we're poised for more gates - we'll see...

Third, gotta pay the ticket counter, gate agents, ground/baggage handlers and telephone cust service agents more. No other way around it, we need better people who will stay around longer doing these jobs. And we MUST be catered at each base. It's 2025, I flew last week w/ no catering and a plane full of people for over 3 hours.

Fourth, the loyalty program needs to MEAN something. Tons of miles to be used on F9 isn't as valuable as some people think - especially when you factor in the airline has horrible performance, no wifi, blackout dates, no lounges and limited network abilities. I would presume a Big 4 mile is probably worth about 3 F9 miles right about now. Giving away miles is only part of the solution (and will mean more as the airline gets better).