Originally Posted by WineCountryUA (Post 32350278)

Saw this report from Reuters, United Airlines to cut 30% of management in October, preparing pilot changes too: company memos

Originally Posted by EWR764 (Post 32349795)

If the zero-demand/zero-revenue environment is still the case in October, we are looking at a collapse of the global economy and most assuredly the end of the line for most airlines...

Originally Posted by Weatherboy (Post 32350171)

That is true with all of the stimulus programs: a one-time $1,200 payment, the $600/week extra PUA for a few months, super limited/restricted PPP, and the nearly nonexistent EIDL and it's ghost-sibling, the EIDL advance. The American government cannot afford to keep band-aiding these massive wounds indefinitely. And they surely can't prop up United or any airline until the goalpost of having a cure/vaccine is hit ...if it's even possible. And this disaster is not just with the travel industry: it is wide and deep across most. ... there's only so many levers you can pull when the economy is effectively shut down indefinitely.

Originally Posted by gmt4 (Post 32349248)

How long until others announce the same thing? DL, AA, B6, WN, F9, NK? UA can't be alone in the pain.

Originally Posted by EuropeanPete (Post 32349771)

Am I the only person to find the use of the term "separation" here cringeworthy? Why this continual obsession with mis-using longish words in corporate speak in the US nowadays?

Originally Posted by spartacusmcfly (Post 32349148)

Originally Posted by bocastephen (Post 32349421)

Why should airlines get a different deal than any business who applied for a SBA PPP forgivable loan who are required to maintain their payroll? And now people will be let go with only basic unemployment insurance payments unless they leave on their own now and forfeit access to higher unemployment payments?

Originally Posted by Antonio8069 (Post 32349825)

Vol separations may make sense for UA.. They last went into bankruptcy in 2002, when their pension plan was replaced with a savings plan. That helps explain why I see so many FA's working who are over age 65. Withour a pension, the main incentive to continue workig is/was the travel benefits. The value of this benefit has been significantly reduced, so why not separate?

Originally Posted by mduell (Post 32350604)

​​​​The pension wasn't wiped out, but it was transferred to the PBGC, but that was two decades ago.

Originally Posted by Antonio8069 (Post 32350636)

With respect, you are obfuscating my point.........airline crew work for a pension & travel benefits. When UA went bankrupt, they lost their DB pension plan. Yes, it was two decades ago, but so what?? They are today being asked to voluntarily separate. I live on my pension and I did not lose it as a result of a bankruptcy.

Originally Posted by jsloan (Post 32349217)

Laying off a large number of people would cause a rise in your unemployment insurance premiums, but to the extent, if any, that this is financially motivated, it's more likely to be about avoiding severance pay.

Originally Posted by enviroian (Post 32350563)

You mean we should use longish words like "sacked" like England does?

:rolleyes:

Originally Posted by deskover54 (Post 32349266)

I doubt it's about severance pay. wouldn't the severance between a voluntary separation and a layoff be similar? i would think the point of a voluntary separation is to first give it to the people who want it. at least that's been my experience in the 3 or so cycles i've worked on corporate downsizing. it's kind of geared towards those people who you hear say "gee, i wish i got laid off"

Originally Posted by username (Post 32349487)

I too don't understand why people would voluntarily leave if there is no severance package and no unemployment. What is the incentive?

If the hope is some will leave voluntarily to save others' jobs, my observation is that you can end up with the most capable and marketable employees leaving. That is not what a company should encourage.

Originally Posted by Gig103 (Post 32350457)

It has to be coming IMO. Boeing announced voluntary and involuntary layoffs as well. I mean, how can UA buy planes from them if they can't even make payroll? The part that gets me is that when it's all over, has the landscape of business travel changed permanently? After 6 or 8 or 12 months of virtual meetings, do they become the norm? It's a massive cost savings even though in person meetings are more efficient (and productive IMO), so businesses may not want to return to the prior system.

Originally Posted by mduell (Post 32350660)

Those who had it, kept it; UA stopped adding to it. The 65 year olds you mentioned have had the two decades I mentioned to put aside their own savings on top of whatever pension they had pre-9/11.