I harbor zero anger for A4A nor ALPA. ALPA’s done some impressive work. A4A got what their members wanted. If the fine print isn’t optimized for F9, well that isn’t surprising, and doesn’t seem worthy of getting excited about.

As has always been the case, we are small enough to fail. But I think F9 will survive.

Are you really essential if you can stop all of your flights? I'm not sure I'd want to make that argument.

I absolutely want to make AND win that argument. That is how we repeal the RLA. The whole reason our contract negotiations took so friggin long was because under the RLA, we are "essential."

And if we are that essential, we wouldn't have to be selling .01 cent fares on all our seats right now to get 7 people to fly to Atlanta this weekend. Frankly, putting crew at risk of catching this and spreading it further to fly those 7 vacationers is an insult and speaks volumes about how much they care about our safety.

If you were really essential you would have something and/or somebody more important than vacationers on board.. I wish you guys the best, but I don't think you have a winning argument since it runs counter to the point of the grant.

Edit: Maybe you could be like one of the majors and fly healthcare professionals to places they're needed for free? Maybe fly critical cargo to the US? Maybe operate repatriation flights for the DoS? Those are the kind of things that feed the 'essential' argument. You may not like the effect of being essential with regard to the RLA, but you apparently want the cheese now.

there is no plan to stop ALL of our flights. The big 3 could go from 10 flights a day to a city x 5 days a week down to 1 a day. The ULCC May only fly to that city 1 time a day x 5 days a week and would have to maintain that. How is that anywhere near a level playing field? Big 3 can cut down to 20% but a ULCC is forced to be at 80%! (Numbers assumed). THAT is the problem here.

I think the only thing anyone wants is a cogent plan.

It ain't gonna happen with the stable genius....

Stupidest post ever. Essential is also moving people to be with family who may be sick or dying. It's also about moving Soldiers and Sailors to and from duty stations. It's also about moving some, albeit far less than legacy, business. And a host of other reasons. If it were not true they wouldn't have run EAS B1900s between small towns and larger cities throughout the US for years.

But this isn't about being essential, it's about keeping the payroll flowing to workers. The govt grant is chiefly for that reason.

What's more, if your legacy airlines didn't operate so far out ahead of their ski's they wouldn't be in such precarious straits. They're going to need far more than a mini bailout meant to keep from furloughing, and I guess I'll be paying for it like the rest of America.

We want the cheese? Give me a break. We want to keep our pilots from furlough, in hopes this gets going again soon, just like you do.

This, and as long as airlines are not laying people off while taking the money should be the only stipulation. The market will drive anything beyond that, including cargo, medical workers, etc.

On April 5, I just counted.... 40+ flights operating with ZERO passengers on them. Including DEN-Harlingen, Texas. We are only required to do that because of the route being flown 2 months ago. So 20K worth of jet fuel, another 20k+ in other expenses are being spent instead of going toward keeping our jobs and our company viable. We are only flying that stupid route because the DOT said so. That is not being essential, that is being downright stupid.

and after typing that last paragraph, this whole thing is sounding like nationalizing the airlines. A move I am completely against.

and I must add, if you are not concerned about that now, you should be. The US government is spending an insane amount of money it doesn't have. Every dollar that doesn't support us directly should be scrutinized. Burning jet A for no reason is cause for concern.

I know what essential means...maybe that's why you could keep flying IAW the bill. All those people you mentioned need to get places more often than you apparently want to take them. BTW, how many EAS do you operate? If the grant money is paying for the majority of labor costs, what's the problem actually flying the routes? Fuel is cheap and you're paying the leases on the planes anyway right? I don't understand how the benefit of shutting down those flights outweighs risk that you might not getting the grant.

Then why are the airlines the ONLY industry with a special carve out? Like I said, I wish you all the best, but you should play by the same rules. Funny you talk about OTHER airlines in precarious straits... The airlines that were 'out ahead of their skis' were the ones that lobbied for, and achieved, this stimulus carveout.

I hope we ALL get out of this relatively unscathed and end up back in the same competitive positions we were in on Jan 1st.