It works (for values of work) In the Northeast because population density is high and distances are small.

https://i.ibb.co/TDyRSFR/A886-C467-1...47-F7-A3-E.jpg

It doesn’t work well anywhere else because those conditions don’t exist.

https://i.ibb.co/4768Nb9/5-CA34-B09-...9-CF7557-A.jpg

I don't think you will see as many airlines take a handout this time. They need to be able to stop the bleeding and furlough excess employees on 10/1.

If it is a pure payroll grant that they don't have to pay back they might as it could potentially save them some training costs later if things dramatically improve. However I don't think any airline is interested in taking any more loans, they would rather furlough.

you think? I think mgmt would be thrilled to have the taxpayers cover their payroll for another 6 months.

see the thing is they didn’t cover 100% for 6 months last time. It was only 73% of 2019 pay over the same 6 months. Any growing company would be less than that due to more staff this year. Plus 70% of that 73% was grant, the rest is a loan. So you are only talking about April to Sept 2020 covering about 50% of total payroll (with TOWOP and other reduced line pay savings that may be higher than 50% but not even close to 100)

wasn't this already being discussed on this thread? https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/a...na-happen.html

That is my point. Has to be free money no strings attached to cover payroll. If it is anything less the airlines are going to say thanks but no thanks but we'll furlough instead. That is why all of this is highly unlikely.

Don’t shoot the messenger, just another kid in the sandbox here but the president just said he’s for more money to the airlines whether it’s a republican or democratic idea because we can’t lose our transportation system. First I’ve heard it mentioned at a PNC.

For the most part yes. An airline is not going to take $2B in grants with strings if the strings cost them $3.5B

But there's a little hope. If they get $2B but only have to spend $2.2B, they might eat the difference to keep the capacity enabled, on the off chance things turn around.

But honestly I wouldn't expect "no furloughs" this time around. The part of the public which is paying attention would be PO'ed by that, although it seems most of them aren't paying attention (none of my non-aviation friends or family were aware of the original no furlough deal).

But airline aid is still a good thing, even if you personally get some time on the beach. You'll come back sooner and to a better life if your employer can stay out of Ch.11 (or maybe just come back period if they can stay out of Ch.7).

I actually disagree if the airlines can furlough this thing is DOA. Imagine they get 25 billion and then still can close to 100k workers a month before the election. I think the no furloughs makes its more palatable. The worst bail outs are the ones where they get billions lay off a bunch of people and pocket the money. That is always seen by the public as for executive compensation whether it is or it isn’t. That said I think airlines like the idea of kicking the can down the road. It give them more liquidity and they can spoil up if demand returns after medical advances.