That's not what the memo said. It said we're currently overstaffed by 85%, owing to the massive cancellations, and that the grants, industry-wide (if everyone applies), would be prorated to about 60% of the 2019 baseline. Due to our growth and contractual pay increases, that 60% would actually only cover roughly 50% of payroll expenses in Q2-Q3 2020.

There was no discussion of cash reserves or anything of the sort.

Don't get me wrong, the situation is dire across the board. We're in trouble just like everyone else, but it's important to make sure information is conveyed correctly.

 

That level of furlough would only shrink us to 2012 levels. Now, go compare projected domestic US pax miles flown in 2020-21, with actual data from 2012. Then tell me that you think there'll be enough flying for more than half our current pilot group.

I wish, I hope... That I'm completely wrong about this.

 

Not to mention the extreme cost to get those pilots retrained and current again. (greater than 6 months lets say) I bet the cost of the sim sessions alone would wreak havoc on the balance sheet more than VTO/CPTO would If we all took turns.

 

We are right in the middle of this thing right now. Comparing ourselves to Italy, we should be starting down the slope on the other side in a few days seeing fewer and fewer deaths per day. You have to think with all the money the Fed and the fiscal stimulus coming down the pipe we might bounce back. I know people making more on unemployment now than they did with a full time job with the extra $600 per week in federal aid. After so many months of Covid on the news people will get bored and opinions will change. Hopeful we can find out how many people had the virus before this whole fiasco.

 

The base-lining of payroll grants to 2019 in an unintended consequence and a real gotcha for a few airlines (including AA... ).

Puts some of them in the situation that their net cash on 01 Oct would be less with grants than with mass furloughs, although somebody like AA with numerous fleets would have to declare force majeure (or BK) and furlough out of seniority to get it done in time. If you have one or two fleets, furloughs could happen more quickly and cheaply (especially if your CA's are all right-seat qualified).

Also the total grant money available may (likely) not be enough to cover all grant requests, so airlines might get a pro rata share of the amount they were technically eligible for, although congress could of course plus that up if it looked like a disaster in the making. A disaster in this context would be pending liquidation of one of the top five pax carriers (AS included only because with RAVN gone they are the life-line to communities in Alaska).

 

I have to disagree with you a bit there, the places in this country that are seeing a "flattening" or decline may very well be on the downside of the slope, however, the ignorant governors of the few states left not telling their citizens to stay home will prolong this for us all as they will be the last states to peak and will have too many cases for us to start carrying on as normal. You can't open up the economy and travel with states still seeing rises in cases.

 

Exactly, we can't quite compare with Italy, because they completely shut down the country, literally shut down.
Here each state is like a country doing whatever the F they want.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...ome-order.html

Only 5 states that don’t have stay at home orders as of Tuesday. Mostly unpopulated ones and I’m guessing it’d be harder to spread there compared to nyc anyway.

 

Word out of DC is that 90% of the grant money will go to the top six pax airlines (B6 and up).

Not sure if AA WO's will get theirs from AAG or have to fight for the scraps.

 

If sparsely populated states think they are out of the woods on this one they are in for a surprise over the next 3 weeks.