Second payroll stimulus for airlines
08-05-2020, 05:32 PM
#51
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,401
Originally Posted by Downtime
I actually disagree. 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.
08-05-2020, 06:03 PM
#52
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2016
Posts: 2,465
Originally Posted by rickair7777
The Senate would disagree. They already did their good deed for the year, that's where the pushback will be.
08-05-2020, 07:51 PM
#53
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,401
Originally Posted by highfarfast
There was a post or two somewhere else on APC linking to a news release from today that said 16 Senate Republicans supported more airline funding. Assuming the Senate Dems also support it, that would be enough.
08-05-2020, 07:57 PM
#54
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2017
Posts: 658
Originally Posted by rickair7777
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).
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).
08-06-2020, 12:31 PM
#55
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2017
Posts: 963
Originally Posted by Soxfan1
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)
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
