And so it begins...

[mbav8r]

Who didn’t see this coming, if concessions are given, it should be in the form of a LOU that can be cancelled as well as strong profit sharing language.
This being the first company that I’m aware of asking for concessions, I’m sure many will follow!

https://simpleflying.com/southwest-unions-concessions/

Southwest Airlines Asks Unions For Concessions
On Thursday, Southwest Airlines approached the unions representing its employees for concessions that could help protect its finances and its staff....

[McKinley]

Not surprising in the least...

The CEO’s / Board members/ managers should be required to disclose their salaries and benefits publicly along side the employees..Additionally, no shady stock buying..and the company should be required to fully disclose its financials if the company has received taxpayer bailout funding. The funding is there to maintain jobs not CEO/board salaries!!


Temporarily, personally, I’d take the cut so others don’t get axed.. I’d also rather have a job at reduced pay until things rebound. However, with this being said, there should be a end to the concessions. This event should not be another event to manufacture consent for CEO’s and members of government to live high on the hog while the rest of us can’t keep up with the cost of inflation.


.

[rudder]

If past is prologue .... the only answer is “see you on the other side of bankruptcy protection”.

[goingnowherefast]

A lot of the concessions I've heard about in LOUs have end dates. 30 or 60 day validity periods where everything has to go back to normal.

Don't executives generally do pretty poorly in bankrupcies? Didn't Air France pilots beat the shit out of a manager/executive during a strike about a year ago?

[dhc#]

Maybe the dutch got it right.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-heal ... ce=twitter

[Gilles Hudicourt]

Maybe the dutch got it right.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-heal ... ce=twitter

Documents filed by Air France-KLM last ... ine group.

He is giving himself a bonus for obtaining taxpayer funded government bailouts.......

[Eric Janson]

This is one area that needs to fundamentally change going forward imho.

This constant focus on share price and short term solutions to boost stock price and executive compensation instead of the long term health of the company.

Too often you see Executives come in - make a bunch of cuts to boost the stock price and their bonus - then leave before the consequences of their actions harm the company. Someone else is then left to clean up the mess.

And here we are. Very few companies have more than 6 months operating cash on hand

I don't mind if Executives make good money (if they do a good job) - but they need to be held to account by more than just the Board and the Shareholders.

[ayseven]

I think it all goes back to the "pay yourself first" nonsense. If the company makes money, everybody should make money; if there is NO money, it all goes down. That does not happen.

[McKinley]

This is one area that needs to fundamentally change going forward imho.

This constant focus on share price and short term solutions to boost stock price and executive compensation instead of the long term health of the company.

Too often you see Executives come in - make a bunch of cuts to boost the stock price and their bonus - then leave before the consequences of their actions harm the company. Someone else is then left to clean up the mess.

And here we are. Very few companies have more than 6 months operating cash on hand

I don't mind if Executives make good money (if they do a good job) - but they need to be held to account by more than just the Board and the Shareholders.

Yes! I 100% agree!

[GoinVertical]

Imagine if executives' bonuses were based on things like passenger satisfaction, OTP, fleet flexibility, and the flexibility of an airline to adapt to a changing market... instead of just profits.

Someone should come up with a scheme where executives are given bonuses based on the company's performance 5 years after they leave the position. Maybe then some would set a company up for long term success instead of setting them up to show a profit at every quarter.

[FL320]

PARIS (AP) — The French government announced a “historic” 7-billion-euro ($7.6-billion) aid package Friday to rescue Air France, whose planes have been largely grounded by virus lockdowns around the world.

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/wtop.com/eu ... ckage/amp/

What about airlines in Canada?

[goldeneagle]

What about airlines in Canada?

So far, airlines in Canada have got exactly the same as everybody else. Why should they be treated any differently ? What makes an airline so special that it would deserve more consideration as compared to say a restaurant that's in the same pickle today ? What about hotels, also in the same boat ?

If airlines really need a ton of taxpayer cash to stay afloat, then maybe they need to also consider issuing taxpayers an equivalent amount of equity in the form of shares. Payroll is covered for the most part already, if they need more, figure it out like the rest of us are going to have to do.

[mbav8r]

What about airlines in Canada?

So far, airlines in Canada have got exactly the same as everybody else. Why should they be treated any differently ? What makes an airline so special that it would deserve more consideration as compared to say a restaurant that's in the same pickle today ? What about hotels, also in the same boat ?

If airlines really need a ton of taxpayer cash to stay afloat, then maybe they need to also consider issuing taxpayers an equivalent amount of equity in the form of shares. Payroll is covered for the most part already, if they need more, figure it out like the rest of us are going to have to do.

Goldeneagle, your previous posts seemed to have some common sense but this one is ridiculously ignorant. Do you have any idea how much of the economy is tied to the airlines? I know I don’t but it’s significant to say the least!
Also, payroll is covered? Are you kidding with that? Maybe for most of the ground staff, not even close to the aircrew pay with exception to the first two years. Payroll is only covered for employees deemed surplus and only 75%, in the US, entire payroll with a caveat the the pay equals last years pay during the same time period and no layoffs, huge contrast.
You’re saying minimum wage jobs that will come back much quicker are equal to professional pay level jobs and the economic benefit that will take years to return if any airline is allowed to fail?
If my airline fails and I have to start over at 30% of what I was making, not only will the bank own my house, I will not be eating at restaurants any time soon, think about that before you consider all things equal!

[digits_]

If my airline fails and I have to start over at 30% of what I was making, not only will the bank own my house, I will not be eating at restaurants any time soon, think about that before you consider all things equal!

Pretty sure a lot of employees can make the same argument. Lots of managers, engineers, lawyers etc out there that would be/are screwed if their company goes bust.

If anything, this could indicate you/pilots are being overpaid in the current economic climate. An ugly consequence from the dangling the seniority carrot in a unionized company.

One could argue that the money the government saves by not giving you 75% of your current wage, but regular EI benefits, could be used to supplement the income of X(X) other laid of employees who then all would have enough to go to restaurants. The CEWS is a lot of money, and pilots benefit greatly from that.

Airlines have a big impact on the economy, yes, but even if airlines get saved with an unlimited supply of money, it is highly unlikely the demand will be there to put all these employees back to work. From a general public's point of view, why try to keep all those employees at work with subsidized tax payer's money?

You could put all surplus pilots on EI, piss them all off, and when this thing blows over in 2 months, you'll have plenty of pilots willing to come back to staff the 60% (? 40%?) of capacity you need. The government support is only a temporary fix. Eventually pilots will get permanently laid off, unfortunately.

I hope I'm wrong. But it doesn't look good.

[Localizer]

Point one: its 75% up to a max of $847/wk.

Point two: that's roughly $310/wk more then you'd make on unemployment benefits (which aircrew ALSO pay into)

Point three: unlike restaurants, airlines operate on a global scale, so if your competitor is being subsidized by Uncle Sam or the European Union, that's a tough sandbox for the little Canadian airlines to play in.

Point four: airlines are economic drivers .. maybe Canada should recognize that and stop taxing it like a luxury. A simple google search will fill you in on the details .. check out the ICAO report on the economic impact of airports and airlines.

Point five is along the lines of point four: the Canadian government taxes, "service fees" the shit out of the airline industry, as far as I'm concerned, they should be ready to help it and support it based on the leeching they do to it.

The reality, everyone is going to need a little help to get though this, and I think day by day everyone is getting the help they need. The government just announced it will help cover the rent for small business owners. (includes restaurants btw)

[digits_]

Point one/two: good points. I thought the difference was bigger.

Point three: from a national canadian pride point of view, you could argue that yes, the Canadian airlines should be saved. From a purely economic point of view, you could argue that other airlines would be quick to fill in the voids created by a broke Canadian Airline. It wouldn't make that much difference in employment. Gate agents, ground crew, maintenance could all still be locally employed. Pilots would probably draw the short straw though.

Point four: yes they are. They are a necessity to move goods and people around. But if the demand for transport goes down by 50%, why artifically keep more pilots employed? So they can eat at more fancy restaurants? The bailout money for the airlines could benefit other people more than making sure the pilots keep their normal wages. That was the main point I was making.

Point five: sure, seems logical and fair. On the other hand, one could argue all those fees were there to compensate for pollution and noise and all the other dirty aspects of aviation, so nothing else is really "owed" to the airlines.


I'm not arguing against bail out money for airlines by the way. Just want to point out it is not a guarantee, and arguments that claim they should be bailed out to save the economy don't hold much water IMHO. It sounds more like wishful thinking from pilots afraid of losing their job, which is of course completely understandable.

I hope the airlines and small operators get all the support they need, but I do fear not all of them will survive.

[Localizer]

Digits_

Do you mean that US carriers will fill the void of defunct Canadian carriers? Two problems with that scenario, it’s called cabotage, US carriers can’t operate between two Canadian airports (that’s a point of law). The second, Americans really couldn’t give two cents about Canadians (America first?), they’d capitalize the hell out of the situation and price gouge.

On the topic of “pollution” and “noise” .. Canadian airlines buy fuel, which is subjected to carbon tax, just like all other fuels. So again, the airlines are “paying” for their pollution. On the noise side of things .. well if you live near an airport .. there will be noise. That’s the equivalent of moving next door to a dairy farm and complaining about the smell of manure.

I understand pilots worried about losing their jobs because we work to attain a good work life balance and pay based on years of service. The reality is .. people will always want to fly, they’ll still want to visit family and friends, see the world and go on vacation. The jobs will always be there, might be a new name on the door, but pilots, they just don’t want to start over again. Also do we as a country want to start all over again? Do you think airfare will be cheaper? Doubtful, I’d lean toward the opposite.

Time will tell .. stay safe.

[digits_]

Digits_

Do you mean that US carriers will fill the void of defunct Canadian carriers? Two problems with that scenario, it’s called cabotage, US carriers can’t operate between two Canadian airports (that’s a point of law). The second, Americans really couldn’t give two cents about Canadians (America first?), they’d capitalize the hell out of the situation and price gouge.

It is illegal for now. It is likely cheaper to change the law than to bail out every airline. It wouldn't necessarily be more expensive either. If you allow multiple operators and/or countries, you would have competition that way.

but pilots, they just don’t want to start over again.

Understandable, but irrelevant from a government point of view.
Saving pilot salaries isn't a sexy cause that attracts much voters.


Maybe this could be a trigger to redesign the pay landscape in Canadian Aviation? But that is probably a more farfetched hypothesis than changing cabotage laws

[Localizer]

It is illegal for now. It is likely cheaper to change the law than to bail out every airline. It wouldn't necessarily be more expensive either. If you allow multiple operators and/or countries, you would have competition that way.

Careful .. that’s a slippery slope. That kind of logic could be used against any Canadian .. where will we end up then? We can use the auto industry as an example, jobs leave the US/Canada and head to Mexico. The result is a reduced labour cost, $20/hr down to $5/hr. Did the reduction in labour cost get passed on to the consumer? No. It was used to bolster the bottom line of the company, which results in absurd bonuses to executives.

As for your other point, I don’t think bailouts are sexy period, but when some groups get bailouts and other groups get told “they’re not sexy enough” well I take issue with that. Going back to the auto industry, they received millions in bailouts (GM), and the Canadian government forgave the “loans”, a short time later GM announces the closure of the Oshawa plant and moved the operation to Mexico. Talk about a waste of taxpayer money, Canadian airlines on the other hand, can’t really move their operations to Mexico .. so who’s the better bet if you were to bail a group out?

Salaries - Airline execs like the current pay scheme. It allows them to get cheaper labour in the beginning of employment and also loyalty down the line as you work to achieve the higher pay.

Digits_ are you a pilot working for an airline? I only ask because you seem to think every pilot is making $200K plus a year? Far from the truth.

[mbav8r]

I am also curious what digits does for a living to have such a nonchalant mentality towards pilots pay.
Digits, if my airline were to fail and I had to start over at any airline, my pay would go back to what I made in 1998, at a minimum. Back to when I paid 56,000 for my first house, a price that you can’t even get a small 1 bedroom condo for nowadays.
I still have a mortgage, much bigger than my first house, do I need it, absolutely not, in fact my wife and I were considering downsizing and taking the equity towards a much smaller mortgage since we don’t have kids at home anymore.
Guess what, my mother-in-law is moving in, moving is less of an option all of the sudden, a 70% pay cut would definitely change things for the worse. It would mean retiring by 62, current realistic plan, no longer remotely possible. It would mean my house is bank owned in foreclosure, odds of selling it for what we owe are slipping each day, it would mean my pension is gone, something I’ve worked for, for a very long time just gone.
It would mean the taxes I pay, last year alone, were above most people’s income, gone from the coffers. Between, income tax and all the taxes of what I’m able to spend from my disposable income, a significant reduction in wages removes that from the economy, so someone who’s alias implies they understand numbers, I don’t understand how you came to the conclusion this would be a good thing for the tax payer. I one of many stories like this.
How much tax revenue gone, if all airline employees take a 40-70% pay cut, after all that is what you are advocating, so while I try not to say what I’m feeling about you personally, please explain with logic how this is good for the taxpayers, not you personally.