Goingupinverted

What six figure income? As a family of 5 getting downgraded to the right seat at a regional is not an optimal situation. Shoot. I don’t even make 6 figures as a captain. But if you feel so noble maybe send me the part of your paycheck that you don’t think should get bailed out? As far as I’m concerned, I am an “average citizen” when it comes to taxes.

Chuck D

Not only that. I fully get that a bailout is a lifeline that would save jobs and isn’t in any way expected or guaranteed.

That said, dramatically spooling down the countries largest carriers in unison could result in a hell of a long time to spool back up, which would to some extent hamper the broader economic recovery, kill off the ability for the majors to supplement troop movement (a service we provide that we prooobbbably don’t want to outsource), kill off tons of domestic connectivity not to mention international connections. Economic and political costs to consider.

So, yeah there are jobs at stake here just like in any industry and we may or may not get a lifeline extension. There are just some costs beyond just connecting beach goers to coastal towns to consider.

Goingupinverted

X2
Exactly this.

Hedley

I’m well aware that as pilots that we are the smaller labor group affected by this, and the vast majority of airline employees don’t make near what we do. That is why I put pilots in parenthesis. My point was that politicians could have a tough sell forcing the taxpayers to subsidize airline payroll when far more people outside of aviation are suffering as a result of the virus and not getting federal aid. The media won’t show the majority of airline employees who don’t make much money, the headline will mention those making big bucks to be kept in reserve for the eventual recovery. The airline infrastructure isn’t going to collapse if we all shrink dramatically. It will adjust. There will always be some lead/lag, but it will adapt to the market.

pangolin

Because it's national infrastructure. It's not JUST pilots either. Much lower paid workers are included. Pilots WILL be needed. Airlines WILL be needed on the back side of this. Not acting to protect what 4 months ago was an "essential infrastructure" is not a great position to be in. In addition - the restriction to continue service will expire. MANY more than just 30 cities from AA will lose service.

duvie

Interesting sentiment Hedley. It has me thinking.

If you make a thought experiment out of this, imagine there was no post office and fedex and ups were our primary means of sending things. Given that for an industry where the barriers of entry are high (given both regulatory hurdles and cost of building a national/international Infrastructure) and the service is essential for a functional economy, a bailout is sort of necessary.

if airlines could be created quickly out of thin air, I think the capitalistic tendency would be to allow them to fail, however that isn’t realistically the case. It is of course possible, but takes deep pockets and years to develop infrastructure. I don’t think the government wants to take the chance that we have a functional air transport system three years from now

I agree with the ethical consideration/hypocrisy that if you tally up all the workers in the service industry affected, they are far larger than even all the airline employees put together, Which is why I think that although it is a nice narrative for the public, realistically the motive is somewhere else

my $.02

Hedley

UPS and FedEx sprang up out of nothing and went up against a federally subsidized postal service and won. Years later, Amazon rises up amid fierce competition from very well run, well established, global shipping companies. I am willing to let airlines rise and fall, including the one that pays my wages. I also believe that demand will return and we will be off and running until the next disaster, I just don’t think that the taxpayer is responsible for floating us through the dark times. The airlines have secured large lines of credit to ensure survival, but they would rather have the taxpayer cover our expenses than to have to pay that money back with interest. I’m not against keeping around as many bodies as we can, I’m just against forcing the taxpayer to pay for it.

TFAYD

we are far from any particular airline being national infrastructure. More than one can go away without much impact on the system.

once you are down to single provider - like a utility along the lines of PG&E or ConEd it’s a different argument but then you will have to deal with all sorts of other regulation. I don’t think that would be a desirable outcome.

ReadOnly7

Based on your comments, the emphasis should be on cutting costs while still keeping the most bodies on property to cover the essential stuff. Therefore, I suggest we furlough from the top. Cut the highest paid and least productive. After all, that’s what “the market” would do. 🙄

Obviously my statement isn’t serious....but your statements reek of “too senior to be affected.”

Market forces didn’t kill our demand. Government mandates did. If the public just decided not to fly all by themselves, I might agree with you......but that’s not what happened. The public IS afraid to fly, but they’re also not willing to fly to places that are closed. That’s not a market force. I understand that you’re concerned that your large salary and 401k might not have the buying power it did before this all happened......but I’m more concerned about having ZERO buying power because of a furlough that shouldn’t have ever needed to happen. If taxes go up and the dollar gets a bit weaker, but more livelihoods remain viable.....I will sleep just fine with that.

* interesting side note.....the more time goes by, the more apparent it is that there’s nothing “UNITED” about “The United States of America”, nor “United Airlines.” The country is divided by politics and ideology, and the company seems to be divided based on experience. This company is full of battle-scarred senior people who don’t GAF about anybody junior (or senior) to them.....and it’s absolutely causing the rest of us to feel the same way.

**if your username is a Mel Brooks reference.....that’s one of the best movies ever.

duvie

Good points, but the cargo guys were able to build over the course of many years, all while the existing delivery apparatus continued to fulfill need. If you have buddies at UPS or FedEx, you might’ve heard them complaining about how Amazon is able to cherry pick the highest yield cargo routes… Kind of exactly what FedEx and UPS did to the Postal Service.

my point is, if a virgin America type had to start again from scratch and was tasked with becoming an instrument of our economy, IE the one of the biggest (and cost competitive) international carriers in the world, I seriously doubt they’d approach the big 3’s network synergy and safety with growth that fast.

To paint a very broad brush: Democrats and the president like the optics of saving jobs, republicans probably like the idea of a more seamless Transportation industry recovery