Very insightful and in-depth interview from the Dallas Morning News with Gary Kelly. Considering that Southwest is likely the best positioned airline to survive this (other than Allegiant, which is a different customer base and strategy), it seems very dire.
This was posted on the SWAPA board almost as soon as it came out, I am really surprised it hasn’t been talked about here.

https://www.dallasnews.com/business/air ... -continue/

Key points:
28% of Southwest employees took early retirement or voluntary leave, but they are still heavily over staffed for current flying.

Only around 100 critical staff, out of 5,000 employees, currently working in the Palace every day.

Adding cities and routes is a relatively low cost incremental opportunity, since personnel and aircraft are readily available. As long as they can cover the costs of operating a trip, that trip Is contributing cash to the Company.

Does not see traffic improving anytime soon. Expected to be down around 30% at this point, it is down twice that.

“ I wouldn’t be surprised to see business travel languish for a decade before it gets back to 2019 levels.“.

At some future point, distancing on airplanes will have end. They are doing the “Right Thing” for now though, Customer Satisfaction levels are at record high.

Very optimistic about Southwest vs. Competition. They have to match WN’s fares and policies now, but cannot match WN’s lower costs structure.


On SWAPA, there is lots of complaint about some pilots booking 150-170 hours, (Obviously Red Pay) while others are sitting at home on less than minimum pay.
(Note: If they would look at the Open Time emails from scheduling more often, they could be making that, too!)

While not completely bleak, it is certainly not a rosy picture he is painting for the future of Southwest, even less so for the others.

Little by little, people at all levels are beginning to recognize (and are now more willing to admit, both privately and publicly) that current and anticipated revenues are still far less than what will be required to support existing cost structures and to service projected debt load. Something more will need to give. And it's not going to be pretty.

Beyond that, I believe that the gears are today already turning around the longer-term need for a new round of reorganizations and consolidations within the airline industry.

FlyingElvii wrote:

On SWAPA, there is lots of complaint about some pilots booking 150-170 hours, (Obviously Red Pay) while others are sitting at home on less than minimum pay.
(Note: If they would look at the Open Time emails from scheduling more often, they could be making that, too!)

This last paragraph is nowhere in the article and is full of misinformation.

"On SWAPA"? On SWAPA's what? The forum? I see no hint of "lots of complaint(s)". There was a discussion at some point that a few are making high pay - followed immediately by the very real observation that they are really having to hustle (and forego everything else in life) to make it happen. Good on them if that's what they chose.

We have no "Red Pay". I assume you mean Premium time.

Nobody is "sitting at home making less than minimum" - unless they voluntarily chose to take Exto (Extended time off).

There is no such thing as "Open Time Emails".

How is there any open time with that many pilots? Horrendous job by scheduling?

barney captain wrote:

FlyingElvii wrote:

On SWAPA, there is lots of complaint about some pilots booking 150-170 hours, (Obviously Red Pay) while others are sitting at home on less than minimum pay.
(Note: If they would look at the Open Time emails from scheduling more often, they could be making that, too!)

This last paragraph is nowhere in the article and is full of misinformation.

"On SWAPA"? On SWAPA's what? The forum? I see no hint of "lots of complaint(s)". There was a discussion at some point that a few are making high pay - followed immediately by the very real observation that they are really having to hustle (and forego everything else in life) to make it happen. Good on them if that's what they chose.

We have no "Red Pay". I assume you mean Premium time.

Nobody is "sitting at home making less than minimum" - unless they voluntarily chose to take Exto (Extended time off).

There is no such thing as "Open Time Emails".

Everyone has a different name for it, and yes, the last paragraph is mine.

32andBelow wrote:

How is there any open time with that many pilots? Horrendous job by scheduling?

Because;

1) 25% took permanent or temporary leave.

2) During normal times, we have a flood of open time - especially during the summer. Now its a trickle but it still exists.

3) Last minute uncovered flying (which there always will be) gets put out for bid before being assigned to a reserve.

32andBelow wrote:

How is there any open time with that many pilots? Horrendous job by scheduling?

Call offs, drops, deadheads, Training, delays, fatigue.... there are any number of reasons someone could be booking that many hours.
Sometimes you can cover it Open Time or reserve, sometimes you can’t.

If not, you get on the phones to find someone who can cover, even if you have to offer a premium to do it on short notice. With DH’s and overnights, that number can get significant.

He is correct this can't go on........ Southwest is in one of the better positions too imho. WN needs to slim it's schedule that's for sure with summer over. The 3 legacy carriers I see as being in the worst shape here, this is ubsustainable for them especially. All those expensive wide body planes sitting parked

slcdeltarumd11 wrote:

He is correct this can't go on........ Southwest is in one of the better positions too imho. WN needs to slim it's schedule that's for sure with summer over. The 3 legacy carriers I see as being in the worst shape here, this is ubsustainable for them especially. All those expensive wide body planes sitting parked

Just from the public information I have seen, the two “Majors” best positioned to survive the longest are Southwest, and Skywest. (I exclude Allegiant and Spirit because they are a different business model) Both are sitting on mountains of cash, with likely access to more.

FlyingElvii wrote:

32andBelow wrote:

How is there any open time with that many pilots? Horrendous job by scheduling?

Call offs, drops, deadheads, Training, delays, fatigue.... there are any number of reasons someone could be booking that many hours.
Sometimes you can cover it Open Time or reserve, sometimes you can’t.

If not, you get on the phones to find someone who can cover, even if you have to offer a premium to do it on short notice. With DH’s and overnights, that number can get significant.

You’d think you’d have a ton in reserve or long call reserve if no one is working.

DL747400 wrote:

Little by little, people at all levels are beginning to recognize (and are now more willing to admit, both privately and publicly) that current and anticipated revenues are still far less than what will be required to support existing cost structures and to service projected debt load. Something more will need to give. And it's not going to be pretty.

Beyond that, I believe that the gears are today already turning around the longer-term need for a new round of reorganizations and consolidations within the airline industry.

I don’t think consolidation is the answer, this time.
The Majors will have to shrink to survive long term, traffic will not be getting back to it was for years, especially biz traffic. There will be almost no large public events until this is over, and critical/high dollar business traffic is finding other ways to travel, (GA), if they just.

32andBelow wrote:

FlyingElvii wrote:

32andBelow wrote:

How is there any open time with that many pilots? Horrendous job by scheduling?

Call offs, drops, deadheads, Training, delays, fatigue.... there are any number of reasons someone could be booking that many hours.
Sometimes you can cover it Open Time or reserve, sometimes you can’t.

If not, you get on the phones to find someone who can cover, even if you have to offer a premium to do it on short notice. With DH’s and overnights, that number can get significant.

You’d think you’d have a ton in reserve or long call reserve if no one is working.

You’d think, but it doesn’t really work out that way.
Hot and stormy days, fatigue calls mount up quickly, not even including delays. It’s tough getting bounced around in a hot tin can for hours, sometimes, it gets to the best of them. Your reserve crew got bounced, or didn’t make the gate of the deadhead connection, so now you are scrambling to cover a morning departure with an outstation call off while you can still get someone there, etc.

If you live in base, close to the airport, you can pretty much count on getting a lot of calls from scheduling asking for last minute help.
Covering a late outbound, or a last minute commute to cover a RON, etc.

FlyingElvii wrote:

slcdeltarumd11 wrote:

He is correct this can't go on........ Southwest is in one of the better positions too imho. WN needs to slim it's schedule that's for sure with summer over. The 3 legacy carriers I see as being in the worst shape here, this is ubsustainable for them especially. All those expensive wide body planes sitting parked

Just from the public information I have seen, the two “Majors” best positioned to survive the longest are Southwest, and Skywest. (I exclude Allegiant and Spirit because they are a different business model) Both are sitting on mountains of cash, with likely access to more.

We may see some more Chapter 11s, but all the majors will survive.

The US is simply too big to let the only viable mode of cross country transport fail. They'll dump debt and get more government money.

Well there you have it on Miami and Palm Springs, it's basically finding more areas to hit on leisure dartboard.

"If things don’t improve, this just can’t continue. We can’t lose the kind of cash we lost in the second quarter, for quarter upon quarter upon quarter. We’d be out of business. A lot depends on how the revenue environment improves. That’s front and center of why we are announcing Miami and Palm Springs because it will help chip away at that revenue deficiency."

32andBelow wrote:

FlyingElvii wrote:

32andBelow wrote:

How is there any open time with that many pilots? Horrendous job by scheduling?

Call offs, drops, deadheads, Training, delays, fatigue.... there are any number of reasons someone could be booking that many hours.
Sometimes you can cover it Open Time or reserve, sometimes you can’t.

If not, you get on the phones to find someone who can cover, even if you have to offer a premium to do it on short notice. With DH’s and overnights, that number can get significant.

You’d think you’d have a ton in reserve or long call reserve if no one is working.

Many of the staffing shortages at all carriers -
A - are due to individuals taking time off (unpaid, in this case); thousands took voluntary unpaid leaves and are now unavailable to be called in when a trip opens up due to someone else calling off
B - are decreasing; long-term voluntary leaves were quite in vogue over the summer, but are now expiring as employees return to work; industry-wide, we should see less of a staffing issue going forward.

It's important to remember that all things are not mutually exclusive. Eventually, people will return to flying even if it does result in increased spread of COVID-19. The fact that the extreme majority of all humans have not seen or been impacted by the virus, combined with our general myopia, is a sure sign that we'll eventually be unable to convince ourselves that the thing is real enough to continue avoiding. Humans just aren't very good at seeing the big picture or the long term. So, we'll start flying - even if it kills us (or someone else).

I'm not sure what options the future really holds.

1) Covid-19 dies down to an acceptable level in the next year, airlines can lift restrictions on seats, and fares stay about the same; although they may have to eliminate 1/3 - 1/2+ of the flights (lay off staff).

2) Covid-19 does not die down. Aircraft has to keep 1 seat open on a side, requiring air fares to increase about 50%; elimination of 1/3-1/2+ of flights (lay off staff).

I just don't see 2-5 year plan that does not include laying off staff and reducing aircraft & flight counts. Of course, in some cases airlines can substitute noticeably smaller aircraft for certain flights; but, not Southwest.

Right now I think Southwest knows these options... and are just waiting for others to fold first (and have the cash to wait).

Have a great day,

"distancing on airplanes will have to end" Maybe. Since the flu kills people, how does society return to airplanes, schools, theaters, and stadiums with shoulder to shoulder for hours at a time? I hope things do return, but from a logic perspective, either this is an over reaction, or things were very cavalier and unsafe before.

32andBelow wrote:

FlyingElvii wrote:

32andBelow wrote:

How is there any open time with that many pilots? Horrendous job by scheduling?

Call offs, drops, deadheads, Training, delays, fatigue.... there are any number of reasons someone could be booking that many hours.
Sometimes you can cover it Open Time or reserve, sometimes you can’t.

If not, you get on the phones to find someone who can cover, even if you have to offer a premium to do it on short notice. With DH’s and overnights, that number can get significant.

You’d think you’d have a ton in reserve or long call reserve if no one is working.

It’s open for bid by line holders BEFORE it goes to reserves, that’s the contract. If lineholdersbid the flights, even or especially at premium pay, the reserves don’t fly it.

I wonder if a merger with JetBlue, Alaska, or F9 could help WN? They could get rid of a competitor and then close down some stations. I def. see some more mergers occurring in this decade.

Honestly southwest, Spirit, JetBlue, Skywest can weather this storm without the government stepping in. Anyone else I have no idea, really depends on how long this goes on for. No one knows when demand will be back. Does anyone see long haul international back anytime soon? Even with a vaccine everyone I talk too now wants to wait a year or two to to see if it's "safe".

At some point the government will need to decide if delta, AA and UA are too big too fail. The widebody fleet and long haul is burning cash. If this goes on for too long they will need federal money to survive, just a question of how long they survive burning cash. This is so unprecedented for this industry. Old metrics don't matter

UNDTanner wrote:

I wonder if a merger with JetBlue, Alaska, or F9 could help WN? They could get rid of a competitor and then close down some stations. I def. see some more mergers occurring in this decade.

Oh God. No one needs to merge right now. Merging won't help anyone survive.

They are all operating at a loss. Competition isn't hurting anyone right now, there are just too few flyers and too many parked planes they are paying for and are aging but can't generate cash.

Mergers are the worst possible idea right now. They are so complex too , no airline can take that on.

The truth is the entire travel and entertainment industry has been decimated. While airlines have been able to continue flying, even on a limited basis, a large portion of the entertainment industry still remains shuttered. There are billions of Dollars that flow through that industry, which in turn feeds the travel industry. I have been affected by it all. Regardless, we cannot continue with the mass lockdowns, stay at home orders and expect the nation to survive long. Keep the ones most affected by the virus at home let the rest of us go about our business.

laxmia wrote:

Miamiairport wrote:

He is right. At some point the country and it's leaders need to have common sense and realize that mask wearing, social distancing, closed offices, partial occupancy, etc.will do far more damage than COVID does. And this goes well beyond the airline industry. I see it in the technology sector. Understandably companies do want to invest in technology upgrades if business is soft and they can't get teams together in a room.

A vaccine may or may not be forthcoming but physicians are coming better at treating the virus. The virus impacts older Americans much more harshly. A good chunk of these people are retired, they don't need to work for a paycheck.

Airlines can't make a go of it if they are filling 50% of their planes solely with money losing fares. Should the taxpayer be on the hook to keep them (and many other industries) in business and people employed? Sadly this madness shows no sense of abating.

Mask wearing is doing more damage than COVID? Really?
Perhaps it's time to check out some sources other than Fox News. There is consensus amongst scientists that mask wearing is a helpful approach to limit spread when isolation/significant distancing isn't possible. And, even if there wasn't scientific support on the benefits (there is), masks also have a placebo effect that may help travelers feel safer and more willing to travel. Either way, it is a win-win.

They are just trying to provide evidence on why the rest of the world should keep the bans on American travelers going.

Here’s Textron’s answer to Gary,

https://twitter.com/textronaviation/sta ... 48130?s=21

Southwest Airlines had such a rigid business model - a minimum number of flights per day, no red-eye flying, no seasonal stations, no flying beyond the continental U.S., etc. The FL acquisition helped them become somewhat more flexible, but it's interesting that the latest turn of events may really have woken them up to the importance of seizing opportunities that didn't fit their traditional business model of service.

Assuming the upcoming forays into HDN, MIA and PSP are successful, I should think ACK, ANC, ASE (assuming the expansion is completed and 737s are then able to fly there), BTV, BZN, COS, DRO, EGE, FAT, FCA, FAI, JAC, JNU, MTJ, MVY, MYR, SAV, SBA, SRQ, STS, STT, SUN, VPS and a return to EYW, perhaps also BKG deserve serious consideration. All of those are extremely popular destinations that should be able to support some form of WN service, if only seasonally. If WN can make places like ECP and ITO work, I don't see why any of those other markets wouldn't!

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Here’s Textron’s answer to Gary,

https://twitter.com/textronaviation/sta ... 48130?s=21

Answer? They operate in completely separate markets. Basically no overlap whatsoever so no competition so not really an answer (and equally WN does not provide any answer for any Textron market customer).

Not that I wouldn't love to use Textron's solution for all my travel needs.

Tugg

There are too many people making concrete solutions when the truth is none of us know.

This all boils down to a vaccine and treatment. We do NOT know how the public will react if/when it is widely distributed. People may try to be more reclusive for fear of the virus and that will be worse for the airlines or things may recover faster than any of us think.

We dont know. Talking about it like we know how this is going to play out (whether its an airline CEO or anyone else) is ridiculous.

laxmia wrote:

Miamiairport wrote:

He is right. At some point the country and it's leaders need to have common sense and realize that mask wearing, social distancing, closed offices, partial occupancy, etc.will do far more damage than COVID does. And this goes well beyond the airline industry. I see it in the technology sector. Understandably companies do want to invest in technology upgrades if business is soft and they can't get teams together in a room.

A vaccine may or may not be forthcoming but physicians are coming better at treating the virus. The virus impacts older Americans much more harshly. A good chunk of these people are retired, they don't need to work for a paycheck.

Airlines can't make a go of it if they are filling 50% of their planes solely with money losing fares. Should the taxpayer be on the hook to keep them (and many other industries) in business and people employed? Sadly this madness shows no sense of abating.

Mask wearing is doing more damage than COVID? Really?
Perhaps it's time to check out some sources other than Fox News. There is consensus amongst scientists that mask wearing is a helpful approach to limit spread when isolation/significant distancing isn't possible. And, even if there wasn't scientific support on the benefits (there is), masks also have a placebo effect that may help travelers feel safer and more willing to travel. Either way, it is a win-win.

It's not doing damage, but there are things about the virus which IMHO are backwards double standards that aren't really solving the problem. For instance mask wearing enforcement while standing at a bar ordering drinks and then taking it off when sitting in a large group setting and eating is just so weird and bizarre. Do we know *why* they only keep places open that serve food? If the airlines are cutting back on meal service, why are restaurants are still serving it? (and other bars that serve strictly just drinks are closed?) And also in TX and SoCal I've noticed places that are open make you order food to get drinks or they will get a fine or shut down by the state health inspection board. I feel like bars that serve just alcohol would be safer in these times with regards to germ control than dive bars that serve food, allow smoking, and have outdoor patio seating. Those are all the places at least in my neighborhood that are still allowed to be open. And hell, there are even some weird conspiracy theories out there that whiskey and excessive drinking actually keeps off the virus.

Honestly, as much as I like outdoor seating I don't think enough studies have been done to show how "social distancing" is effective in public. It just seems like a ploy shoved down throats by the media in some ways. I'm more of a believer that it comes down to genes, age, and blood type and not so much how far you stand away from a person ordering a drink at a bar & wearing a mask.

Mergers need to happen. The airlines cant sustain themselves with them undercutting each other with 15 dollar fares non stop.

Tugger wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Here’s Textron’s answer to Gary,

https://twitter.com/textronaviation/sta ... 48130?s=21

Answer? They operate in completely separate markets. Basically no overlap whatsoever so no competition so not really an answer (and equally WN does not provide any answer for any Textron market customer).

Not that I wouldn't love to use Textron's solution for all my travel needs.

Tugg

God, does everyone here take every post literally? Irony, wry humor are truly lost arts.

How's that crow taste? They were all gung-ho and going to operate a bigger schedule than anyone else...not lay anyone off because they were so confident in their plan. No sympathy here.

FlyingElvii wrote:

Waterbomber2 wrote:

Antarius wrote:

We may see some more Chapter 11s, but all the majors will survive.

The US is simply too big to let the only viable mode of cross country transport fail. They'll dump debt and get more government money.

I'm not sure that all the majors will survive. It will depend on how long and how drastic the measures taken by leadership will be.
Too big to fail can be saved by government in a manageable crisis, but in this case even governments aren't too big to fail, if it drags on for years.

Can you imagine one more year of this?
Forget one year, most airlines won't survive this winter, Chapter 11 or no Chapter 11, Fed or no Fed.
The Fed must be careful too, if they keep screaming inflation, they're going to end up with treasury yields rising very fast, and then losing reserve currency status will be the least of their concerns.

The majors have to retrench, they know this. Kelley just seems to be one of the loudest voices right now.

History shows us that whenever the market leading airlines shrink, someone with ego and money tries to step in to fill the gap. In most of the last two decades, that hasn’t really happened due to multiple factors, like aircraft availability, the pilot shortage, and very aggressive majors willing to defend market share Against new entrants at any cost.

They can no longer afford to do that. And, we now have a pool of very cheap aircraft, and cheap unemployed pilots again.
Where there is opportunity, there is always someone willing to step up, in the capitalist system. It won’t be any different In a year, than it was following any other downturn.

Yup, Good point...many were kicking SW butt before the China virus and they will again. Kelly is vocal and the other airlines know his position... keep showing your hand.. The only big advantage SW has overall is training cost. 1 plane....no movement.... It certainly Isn’t Labor cost as they are 100% union and pay is about equal to the other legacy carriers. By definition, sw is a legacy carrier and it’s indisputable.

Until this virus is gone, two years later we can look back and determine who had the best plan. Until then, Popcorn.....


Cheers

CobaltScar wrote:

Mergers need to happen. The airlines cant sustain themselves with them undercutting each other with 15 dollar fares non stop.

Mergers would be a disaster right now.

Frontier and spirit do that on purpose. Frontier literally had a 90% off and 100% off sale also. They want you on the plane so they can sell baggage, seat reservations, more space seats they make money on those people.

The problem here is the airlines have way too many planes (fixed cost) and there are not enough people who want or need to fly. Jacking up airfares would only significantly crash the lower numbers even further. Raising prices would not at all help the airlines overall problems. They need more demand which isn't coming anytime soon. Parked planes are burning money , raising airfares so less people travel would just accelerate their burn rates.

Miamiairport wrote:

You live in your Utopian world in which government makes everything great.

European governments have a broader social contract than many, perhaps most, other countries in the world. Consequently the economic impact on individuals in society as a whole is mitigated and there's a lot less desperation in people to get back to "normal" at all costs, the emphasis is on preserving health and life above material concerns. This isn't a Utopian "socialist thing". There's only one socialist government in the EU, in Portugal. The other countries are, like the US, "hybrid economies" where the trans-Atlantic difference is in how broadly the social contract operates. What this means for EU citizens is, even if they are living payday-to-payday, that the circumstances created by Covid-19 are less damaging to them personally that they would be in countries where there is a far more threadbare social safety net. We willingly pay insurance to support this so that it can get us through times pretty much like the one we're in now!

The virus is also mutating. The version that hit Italy was more deadly than that of the original outbreak and there are now signs that a new strain is affecting people in lower age groups - which is almost certainly due to younger people caring less about exposure to Covid-19. This is because the virus (any virus) will evolve quickly when it arrives in an environment where it can thrive. So if a larger number of younger people are exposing themselves to the virus they are in effect allowing themselves to be "used" to create a new culture of Covid-19. In a similar way to bacteria, which can be strengthened as a whole by people not completing courses of antibiotics (creating "superbugs" because only the strongest bacteria survive to make the next batch) viruses allowed to run free in a population of youger people with stronger immune responses is in effect laying us open to an even stronger strain of Covid-19 appearing in the course of time. The successful virus cells will stay around longer, reproduce more and gradually become the dominant strain.

The best approach is always to deprive the virus of places in which it can evolve into something worse, and the measures some people deride, masks, proper hygeine, distancing or isolation where possible, are the workable means we have to control the spread and control the evolution of this coronavirus.

It's also important to bear in mind that Covid-19 not only kills people but damages those that survive exposure (usually problems like lung scarring that can lead to breathing difficulties for a long time, and may well create problems/disabilities in later life).

The hospital where my wife works (UK), in a C-19 ICU for about 50% of the time, is seeing the second spike starting right now. After 3 weeks with no C-19 patients they are now almost back to the April peak, the difference this time is that the patients are typically 20 years younger than the previous lot.

Just food for thought.

TL;DR - the "at risk" group is apparently expanding as the virus adapts to younger hosts.

Kelly is right; something has to change. I agree with lightsaber; the economy has to reopen. If we torpedo everyone's livelihood, the economic effects have the potential to become inter-generational i.e last much longer and affect more people than it would if everyone just got the virus. There was another post earlier that mentioned how dangerous it was to risk a significant portion of the population to help the airline industry. I would say that the airline industry (and by proxy the aircraft manufacturing industry and several others i.e energy) constitutes the livelihood for an equally significant portion of the population. Government money only goes so far; people who can't work can't pay taxes.

Someone mentioned a vaccine earlier; I've found this interesting since the beginning if this crisis because various news outlets have been spreading rumors that it's possible to get the virus twice. I can't comment on this as my field of expertise lies elsewhere, but if it's true, then it seems like waiting on a vaccine is a waste of time- why bother if you can still get it after being vaccinated?

Honestly, it seems like trying to "stop the spread" is a product of modern hubris- this is the first pandemic in history that we've had anywhere near the technological prowess necessary to attempt to keep the economy going remotely (online meetings, classes, food ordering, you get the idea). The feeling I can't shake is that we're only prolonging the crisis by trying to stop the spread- every other plague came and went as the population was quickly infected. This one we're trying to stall, and it doesn't seem to be going well. The scariest scenario I can think of is that we're still where we are today 5-10 years from now, still waiting on a vaccine or cure. Just how long is the world willing to wear masks and avoid human contact? If it continues indefinitely, the world will be a lot less enjoyable of a place to live. It certainly will be an awful place to raise the next generation, if they have to live in fear.

laxmia wrote:

Miamiairport wrote:

He is right. At some point the country and it's leaders need to have common sense and realize that mask wearing, social distancing, closed offices, partial occupancy, etc.will do far more damage than COVID does. And this goes well beyond the airline industry. I see it in the technology sector. Understandably companies do want to invest in technology upgrades if business is soft and they can't get teams together in a room.

A vaccine may or may not be forthcoming but physicians are coming better at treating the virus. The virus impacts older Americans much more harshly. A good chunk of these people are retired, they don't need to work for a paycheck.

Airlines can't make a go of it if they are filling 50% of their planes solely with money losing fares. Should the taxpayer be on the hook to keep them (and many other industries) in business and people employed? Sadly this madness shows no sense of abating.

Mask wearing is doing more damage than COVID? Really?
Perhaps it's time to check out some sources other than Fox News. There is consensus amongst scientists that mask wearing is a helpful approach to limit spread when isolation/significant distancing isn't possible. And, even if there wasn't scientific support on the benefits (there is), masks also have a placebo effect that may help travelers feel safer and more willing to travel. Either way, it is a win-win.

Doesn’t mask wearing deter a lot of potential travelers? Why be on the Muzzle of Oppression bandwagon?

This is a crisis of confidence more than anything else. It isn’t about governments telling people they are safe, but rather people deciding they are safe to travel. And given how long this has gone on many people have changed long-term habits in terms of how they operate their businesses.

TMccrury wrote:

The truth is the entire travel and entertainment industry has been decimated. While airlines have been able to continue flying, even on a limited basis, a large portion of the entertainment industry still remains shuttered. There are billions of Dollars that flow through that industry, which in turn feeds the travel industry. I have been affected by it all. Regardless, we cannot continue with the mass lockdowns, stay at home orders and expect the nation to survive long. Keep the ones most affected by the virus at home let the rest of us go about our business.

WHAT????
You mean entertainment and sports is non-essential??

How are people supposed to live without circuses?

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Here’s Textron’s answer to Gary,

https://twitter.com/textronaviation/sta ... 48130?s=21

Yep...
Been saying for MONTHS that this is where the high yielding traveler is heading, for the next several years at least.
And there is PLENTY of anecdotal to back that up.

Those who can afford not to, are not getting back into a tin can cattle car anytime soon. It just isn't worth the risk.

Cubsrule wrote:

FlyingElvii wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Here’s Textron’s answer to Gary,

https://twitter.com/textronaviation/sta ... 48130?s=21

Yep...
Been saying for MONTHS that this is where the high yielding traveler is heading, for the next several years at least.
And there is PLENTY of anecdotal to back that up.

Those who can afford not to, are not getting back into a tin can cattle car anytime soon. It just isn't worth the risk.

Realistically, even if this true, it’s a very small segment of the traveling public. Most of my office is back flying now, and the majority of us have flown on WN (and mostly not on bargain basement fares). There’s just too much to do that requires travel. And I don’t know of a single friend or colleague who is traveling whose mode/carrier choices have changed much.

I have some exposure to 135 operations.
They are looking for aircraft to add, and hiring, although as the weeks pass, they can afford to be more selective. The two local companies I know of both say they can sell every block hour they can put on the line right now, for almost a year out or more. NetJets has said as much as well, publicly. And just as in the late 90’s- early 200’s, you have a whole new group of people finding out about 135, realizing the cost, especially as a group, isn’t much more than full fare C or J on a major.

Is it an option for the masses? No... But for the high yield customers that actually pay the bills for the majors, it is becoming a very real option.
(Ps- I have noticed daily pay rates for a type-rated CJ FO for a single trip contract has fallen from $750-900 a day pre-Covid, to $250-400 now. That will get worse as time passes, and more pilots find themselves sitting.

FlyingElvii wrote:

Cubsrule wrote:

FlyingElvii wrote:

Yep...
Been saying for MONTHS that this is where the high yielding traveler is heading, for the next several years at least.
And there is PLENTY of anecdotal to back that up.

Those who can afford not to, are not getting back into a tin can cattle car anytime soon. It just isn't worth the risk.

Realistically, even if this true, it’s a very small segment of the traveling public. Most of my office is back flying now, and the majority of us have flown on WN (and mostly not on bargain basement fares). There’s just too much to do that requires travel. And I don’t know of a single friend or colleague who is traveling whose mode/carrier choices have changed much.

I have some exposure to 135 operations.
They are looking for aircraft to add, and hiring, although as the weeks pass, they can afford to be more selective. The two local companies I know of both say they can sell every block hour they can put on the line right now, for almost a year out or more. NetJets has said as much as well, publicly. And just as in the late 90’s- early 200’s, you have a whole new group of people finding out about 135, realizing the cost, especially as a group, isn’t much more than full fare C or J on a major.

Is it an option for the masses? No... But for the high yield customers that actually pay the bills for the majors, it is becoming a very real option.
(Ps- I have noticed daily pay rates for a type-rated CJ FO for a single trip contract has fallen from $750-900 a day pre-Covid, to $250-400 now. That will get worse as time passes, and more pilots find themselves sitting.

Walmart bought a business jet fleet as to put up an audit team, it was cheaper than last minute commercial and 4x the team productivity.

Losing high yield customers will hurt. Some fraction will come back, some won't.

I can only imagine how bad the contracts will become.

Lightsaber

Stickpusher wrote:

Miamiairport wrote:

You live in your Utopian world in which government makes everything great.

European governments have a broader social contract than many, perhaps most, other countries in the world. Consequently the economic impact on individuals in society as a whole is mitigated and there's a lot less desperation in people to get back to "normal" at all costs, the emphasis is on preserving health and life above material concerns. This isn't a Utopian "socialist thing". There's only one socialist government in the EU, in Portugal. The other countries are, like the US, "hybrid economies" where the trans-Atlantic difference is in how broadly the social contract operates. What this means for EU citizens is, even if they are living payday-to-payday, that the circumstances created by Covid-19 are less damaging to them personally that they would be in countries where there is a far more threadbare social safety net. We willingly pay insurance to support this so that it can get us through times pretty much like the one we're in now!

The virus is also mutating. The version that hit Italy was more deadly than that of the original outbreak and there are now signs that a new strain is affecting people in lower age groups - which is almost certainly due to younger people caring less about exposure to Covid-19. This is because the virus (any virus) will evolve quickly when it arrives in an environment where it can thrive. So if a larger number of younger people are exposing themselves to the virus they are in effect allowing themselves to be "used" to create a new culture of Covid-19. In a similar way to bacteria, which can be strengthened as a whole by people not completing courses of antibiotics (creating "superbugs" because only the strongest bacteria survive to make the next batch) viruses allowed to run free in a population of youger people with stronger immune responses is in effect laying us open to an even stronger strain of Covid-19 appearing in the course of time. The successful virus cells will stay around longer, reproduce more and gradually become the dominant strain.

The best approach is always to deprive the virus of places in which it can evolve into something worse, and the measures some people deride, masks, proper hygeine, distancing or isolation where possible, are the workable means we have to control the spread and control the evolution of this coronavirus.

It's also important to bear in mind that Covid-19 not only kills people but damages those that survive exposure (usually problems like lung scarring that can lead to breathing difficulties for a long time, and may well create problems/disabilities in later life).

The hospital where my wife works (UK), in a C-19 ICU for about 50% of the time, is seeing the second spike starting right now. After 3 weeks with no C-19 patients they are now almost back to the April peak, the difference this time is that the patients are typically 20 years younger than the previous lot.

Just food for thought.

TL;DR - the "at risk" group is apparently expanding as the virus adapts to younger hosts.

Great post, well articulated, very informative and balanced.

lightsaber wrote:

FlyingElvii wrote:

Cubsrule wrote:

Realistically, even if this true, it’s a very small segment of the traveling public. Most of my office is back flying now, and the majority of us have flown on WN (and mostly not on bargain basement fares). There’s just too much to do that requires travel. And I don’t know of a single friend or colleague who is traveling whose mode/carrier choices have changed much.

I have some exposure to 135 operations.
They are looking for aircraft to add, and hiring, although as the weeks pass, they can afford to be more selective. The two local companies I know of both say they can sell every block hour they can put on the line right now, for almost a year out or more. NetJets has said as much as well, publicly. And just as in the late 90’s- early 200’s, you have a whole new group of people finding out about 135, realizing the cost, especially as a group, isn’t much more than full fare C or J on a major.

Is it an option for the masses? No... But for the high yield customers that actually pay the bills for the majors, it is becoming a very real option.
(Ps- I have noticed daily pay rates for a type-rated CJ FO for a single trip contract has fallen from $750-900 a day pre-Covid, to $250-400 now. That will get worse as time passes, and more pilots find themselves sitting.

Walmart bought a business jet fleet as to put up an audit team, it was cheaper than last minute commercial and 4x the team productivity.

Losing high yield customers will hurt. Some fraction will come back, some won't.

I can only imagine how bad the contracts will become.

Lightsaber

You can easily see how this works. Leave Bentonville early morning, drop some folks in Cedar Rapids, back in the air in ten minutes to Milwaukee, finally dropping the last off at Green Bay. Reverse the trip at 3-4pm, and back in KVBT by 7 or 8pm. Everyone makes their meetings at HQ the next morning.

Menard's runs a mini-airline of sorts, using an EMB145 and 135 that run back and forth to their cities from the Eau Claire Headquarters, making as many as 4 or 5 stops dropping people off, then returning back the same routing in the evening, picking everyone up. I imagine the time and cost savings are substantial. And we will see more of that. Frankly, that used to be the norm for big US Companies, until manufacturing started going to Mexico and China.

Ford ran the Shuttle Airline, Chrysler had Pentastar, and GM had the GM shuttle, all were multiple airplanes going multiple places, in kind of a hub/spoke schedule.

Miamiairport wrote:

He is right. At some point the country and it's leaders need to have common sense and realize that mask wearing, social distancing, closed offices, partial occupancy, etc.will do far more damage than COVID does. And this goes well beyond the airline industry. I see it in the technology sector. Understandably companies do want to invest in technology upgrades if business is soft and they can't get teams together in a room.

A vaccine may or may not be forthcoming but physicians are coming better at treating the virus. The virus impacts older Americans much more harshly. A good chunk of these people are retired, they don't need to work for a paycheck.

Airlines can't make a go of it if they are filling 50% of their planes solely with money losing fares. Should the taxpayer be on the hook to keep them (and many other industries) in business and people employed? Sadly this madness shows no sense of abating.

It is a shame I can upvote on airliners net because you deserve an upvote

“ I wouldn’t be surprised to see business travel languish for a decade before it gets back to 2019 levels.“.

He's right. It's going to be very sluggish for the next 18-24 months and take several years for things to come close to hitting 2019 levels. A lot of airlines trying to establish new long haul routes in the next 6-12 months may be in for a world of hurt.

laxmia wrote:

Miamiairport wrote:

He is right. At some point the country and it's leaders need to have common sense and realize that mask wearing, social distancing, closed offices, partial occupancy, etc.will do far more damage than COVID does. And this goes well beyond the airline industry. I see it in the technology sector. Understandably companies do want to invest in technology upgrades if business is soft and they can't get teams together in a room.

A vaccine may or may not be forthcoming but physicians are coming better at treating the virus. The virus impacts older Americans much more harshly. A good chunk of these people are retired, they don't need to work for a paycheck.

Airlines can't make a go of it if they are filling 50% of their planes solely with money losing fares. Should the taxpayer be on the hook to keep them (and many other industries) in business and people employed? Sadly this madness shows no sense of abating.

Mask wearing is doing more damage than COVID? Really?
Perhaps it's time to check out some sources other than Fox News. There is consensus amongst scientists that mask wearing is a helpful approach to limit spread when isolation/significant distancing isn't possible. And, even if there wasn't scientific support on the benefits (there is), masks also have a placebo effect that may help travelers feel safer and more willing to travel. Either way, it is a win-win.

Per CDC data, it is suggested that Coronavirus has fallen below the threshold of a pandemic in the United States. In my home state, we even had a single number of cases reported one day this week, probably all asymptomatic. One of the sources I get information from (who is neither Fox or conservative) stated today that the mortality has dropped to something like 0.002% in the U.S..

While I am making no attempt to downplay its severity, and it was severe, I, as a cabin crewmember, am looking forward to the day when I dont have to enforce mask wearing and return to a environment where passengers and crew can fully enjoy flight again, without the persistent fear of this virus. Thats assuming I still have a job by that time, and that is not certain. I hope it ends soon. I suffer from C19 fatigue and am ready for normality again.

It's nice to see WN pulling through.

There is no evidence Covid is seasonal, like the flu. That actually bodes well long term because it is becoming clear that 3-4% total tested positive in a region is enough to bring Covid to flu like levels on an annualized basis.

DenverTed wrote:

"distancing on airplanes will have to end" Maybe. Since the flu kills people, how does society return to airplanes, schools, theaters, and stadiums with shoulder to shoulder for hours at a time? I hope things do return, but from a logic perspective, either this is an over reaction, or things were very cavalier and unsafe before.

Bingo. Though you call it “cavalier” history calls it acceptance. We in the USA seem to be willing to accept 30-80k flu deaths per year WITH a vaccine. That’s 80-215 deaths per day, though flu is seasonal so it’s 100-350 during the high season.

It’s only in recent decades where people expect to live forever. The less people deal with untimely death, the more people fear it.

But people do adapt. And especially the young will simply not hide from life. This is why case growth is so high among the young. And as more and more young people catch Covid without consequences, the disease as anything worse than another type if “flu” (where we accept 30-80k deaths yearly) will end quicker.

Don’t agree that a total lockdown is the answer. Also given people’s resistance to even the existing measures of distancing and face covering, I suspect that a total lockdown could only be enforced by martial law.

I do believe that the existing measures plus a vaccine are the solution if people will follow them. Sadly, too many people think that they can cheat this thing with some sort of special exemption.

Also agree that Flu jabs are needed before winter hits.