DwightSchrute

True. Just hoping for the best for my bro’s and sis’s (including myself). Less furloughs are mo’ betta. None are best.

Hedley

Loans, regardless of if they are high interest or low, usually have strings attached and have to be paid back. They just delay the bleeding. A grant is a taxpayer gift that gives a company more cash to continue burning, but a loan isn’t. We are going to be cutting more than just labor. I can’t imagine that the government would give grants to prop up the airlines at the current level when all of the “experts” predict that a full recovery is years away. They may prop us up at some other level such as 60, 70, or 80% though so that the industry is carrying enough excess to be able to recover without further help. I expect routes to be dropped, the 756 fleet to be retired, etc. What little leisure travel is there will be historically drying up after Labor Day, leaving us some freight only trips and practically nonexistent business travel market (our core market). Unless the government wants to fully fund the airlines, I don’t see many options when practically no revenue is coming in the door.

Hedley

I’d ask that question to all of the vocal critics, this stinks, but what real choices do they have. The necessary cuts are huge and there isn’t enough left to spread thin if they wanted to. Those with their neck in the noose have reason to fear, but what are the real options, not hypothetical what if’s? How history is experienced has a big affect on one’s perception. Those who lived the history will have a different perception than those who have read about it from a safe distance. Those who were already at a legacy and personally experienced 9/11, the recession, furloughs compounded by the retirement age change, and mergers will have a different outlook than those who started at a regional 10 years ago, quickly moved up the ranks, and then got hired at a legacy during the biggest boom in history. Of course, those who got to ride out the lost decade at a regional, never got picked up at a better company, and now find themselves out of work, will also have a much different perspective.

DashTrash

What choices? Please elaborate!!!

crflyer

You know, the ones where the company will throw $millions away for unneeded pilots to do nothing because that’s what misguided anger wants.

*Not trying to be condescending. Seriously don’t get why people expect companies that are hemorrhaging money to not do whatever they can to slow the bleeding.

PA Slammer

Scott Kirby has made it abundantly clear that “he” will do whatever it takes to make sure United survives. That is what managers do. They manage assets.

We need a leader, not a manager.

Some of you are fine being managed as if you were simply an asset. I think it’s terrible.

If my wife and I “managed” our family like this, then we would sacrifice their safety and well being to keep the things we’ve acquired. Instead we choose to do what’s necessary to keep our family together. If that meant we needed to sell the house, work two jobs, etc... then that is what we would do.

Sell assets, take union suggestions. Show the people that United will do whatever it takes to ensure the safety and well being of it’s people over “ensuring United’s survival”. Maybe then we would have a culture of “people” that would do what it takes... not a manager.

Hedley

Your family isn’t a business and shouldn’t be treated as such, United is a business and should.

PA Slammer

And that’s where we disagree.

DashTrash

A CEO is both, by job description!!! Why would he sell assets for a very temporary situation? I am probably going to get furloughed and I want a Company to come back to. No company that I can think of would do as you are proposing. That’s the equivalent to throwing the baby out with the bath water. Not a sound business decision!!!

PA Slammer

Even if you use a few more exclamation points, it won’t help either of us to agree.

Can I suggest, we simply disagree and move on?