And now the grants are not grants?
 

FWIW, Todd Insler (UAL ALPA MC) just tweeted a link to this article:

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/11/flig...ut-offers.html

From the article:

The leadership teams of airlines have spent much of the weekend discussing whether or not to take the grants. “It’s starting to not be worth it,” a senior airline executive told CNBC when asked if they would accept the cash grant. “I could see airlines just laying people off because it’s cheaper.”

Not to worry, on the Facebook Forum the C-171 Legislative Chair is assuring people that ALPA has Top Men on it. Top... Men.

Someone prob took a significant short position in the airlines on Thursday afternoon.

stocks fall Monday on the news that the airlines are laying off instead of borrowing, everyone gets paid on Tuesday, by Wednesday, the full $25B in grants are issued.

oh wait...that kinda stuff only happens in Clancy novels.


but seriously, did anyone catch this part in the story:

Critics of the $50 billion airline bailout say U.S. carriers should not receive cash grants from the federal government and should instead restructure in bankruptcy or borrow billions more in order to have the liquidity needed to withstand the the rapid drop in business.


Hmmm..who would want the airlines to borrow BILLIONS more instead of getting a low interest loan from Uncle Sam?

Here is an article from March 27th. The Republicans have been saying this for quite a while.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnb...ne-relief.html

Those stock buybacks did more than just drain the airlines of cash. They ****ed off everyone in Washington DC.

You guys didn’t really think it was going to be that easy did you? Anybody remember the ATSB and how we got none of that money either?

But people still quote the $5B “bailout” which only 2 airlines were able to get money from and both paid those loans back with interest. But somehow we were “bailed out”.

I agree with the government's position. Stock buybacks are BS, and always have been. If I were king I would structure any bailout to include stock warrants equal to the number of common shares bought back in the previous 5-8 years. Those warrants would be senior to any and all other class of stock in case of Chapter 11.

Another interesting twist. After saying they would "help out" the cruise ship industry, congress punted on that because all the cruise ship companies are "flag of convenience". Not just the ship, but the whole company's structure. How many other companies, most notably tech companies like, specifically, Apple, are the same or much worse than the cruise lines? Do we, as taxpayers, want to bail out a company that operates multiple levels of international shell companies and offshore's most of their profits to Ireland? Let Ireland bail them out.

What is cheaper, a $1.5 bil loan at a low interest rate payable in 5 yrs or restructuring in Ch11 paying DIP financing, KERP's, Exit Financing and fees? The true savings in Ch11 comes out of our wallet.

So, the stock that was bought back is about worthless now....
How many shares do institutional investors and management have? That may tell the story as to what management will do. They could send us to bankruptcy on purpose, but only if they get a sweetheart deal on the back end. Otherwise, they lose their arse in a BK. Management typically looks out for management in situations like this.