deftone

So they want us to campaign to give them the right to furlough us after taking fed money for payroll?

Av8rPHX

Sounds like they don’t qualify for the bailout money because of the BK. Going to be very interesting to see how this plays out


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

KCaviator

Looks like they already deleted it?

TheNotoriousPIC

Well, this sucks. Just as it looked like a bit of light was coming through the clouds.

Ihateusernames

Can you explain that to someone looking from outside? Because of the BK? What do you mean


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Longhornmaniac8

This whole thing is being blown out of proportion.

Section 4117 of the CARES Act (text here: https://www.congress.gov/116/bills/h...16hr748enr.pdf) says:

"The Secretary may receive warrants, options, preferred stock, debt securities, notes, or other financial instruments issued by recipients of financial assistance under this subtitle which, in the sole determination of the Secretary, provide appropriate compensation to the Federal Government for the provision of the financial assistance."

Please pay attention to the word "may" in the first sentence.

The bylaws of Republic's bankruptcy prevent them from giving equity to sources not named in the bankruptcy, including the US Government. IF the US Government were to require an equity stake as collateral for the $25 billion in payroll monies, Republic would be contractually prohibited from accepting that money because we're barred from doing so by the provisions of our bankruptcy bylaws regarding equity holders.

There is nothing at this point to suggest the financial assistance WILL be contingent on certain forms of collateral, and to believe that the government would do so is to believe they'd knowingly deny job-saving money to entities from an appropriations that was designed to, wait for it, save jobs. It just has no logical foundation, which is why even the Company is optimistic that it won't have those type of strings attached.

Anyone who's going off the rails about furloughs, executive compensation, etc, doesn't understand that Section 4114 is not the issue here. It's 4117 as it specifically pertains to Republic and our unique situation relating to our 2015 bankruptcy.

This video that was published by our CAO did a really poor job of explaining what specifically was being asked, and why it was being mentioned to us. People have subsequently gone off the rails believing this has something to do with the Company not being willing to agree to the provisions of Section 4114 which describe the assurances required by the airlines to take the federal assistance. It categorically doesn't.

It's a cover their bases situation where, in the issue of transparency, we were told (again, poorly) that technically the government has the authority to impose restrictions of the assistance money that, if it were the wrong type of requirement, could prevent us from taking the money. No more, no less. There is, at present, no reason to believe they (the government) will do so, and it's, as I argued above, counter to the goal of the money which is to save jobs.

Burt123

Are you a lawyer and understand/have access to all of RP’s financial documents and provisions? The video that was put out is extremely vague like it was purposely meant to be. Nobody, not even the union knows what the actual truth is as management has a prior history of doing exactly what they’re attempting now, possibly to f@ck over the workforce AGAIN to save them money without any liabilities. There is no longer a pilot shortage, the cards are in their hands and if you’ve been here long enough you would know they could care less about keeping you employed. So this is just nothing but pure speculation. The company has chose not to be transparent and provide us with further details that could help all of the associates understand and then maybe be more motivated to help.

Longhornmaniac8

The entire premise of your point can be refuted by the fact that they posted anything. While I don't inherently disagree with your point with respect to past actions, if they were just looking to f^ck us over, they could've saved the time and effort of publishing this video and just used this loophole, should it come to pass, as justification for filing Chapter 11 again and nullifying all of their CBAs.

I get there is a segment of our pilot group who has nothing but vitriol for management, and it's, in many instances, completely justified. That said, as per usual, people are being hyper-reactionary without stopping to actually think and understand what's going on.

If management wanted to f^uck us, bringing this to our attention and asking us to take action is totally counterproductive and moves them further from that goal.

Occam's Razor applies.

mrfishy

Please, find another section in the bill that could explain the video. I'll save you the work: there isn't anything else

Flydafe

Any one thinking that the government will let a major regional airline fail is not thinking correctly. The size of the airline is important. The fleet and who the airline serves is important too. They will give the funds but might want a stake in the business. We’ll see when it comes down to it