9 Reasons Extending Airline Payroll Support Is A Bad Idea

A couple of readers have asked me for a simple summary of the reasons it’s a bad idea for the federal government to offer another round of payroll support funding. This will duplicate much of what I’ve already written, but in a manner that might be more easily shared with legislators and opinion leaders.

The federal government picked up the tab for a majority of airline payrolls during the pandemic, but that money runs out September 30. The argument initially was this would be a bridge to recovery, and it was important to keep workers attached to their airlines so they would be ready to support economic recovery once Covid-19 was over. Now we know, though, that the pandemic will have longer-lasting effects, airlines won’t need all of their employees again for several years, and they’ve already started to shrink their payrolls.

Here are 9 reasons why another round of payroll support grants – which has the public backing of much of Congress – is a bad idea for the country and even for the airlines themselves.

  1. Unnecessary. Southwest Airlines says they won’t furlough anyone this year anyway, why would we give Southwest another $3.3 billion for its payroll?

  2. Too late. Airlines have already separated with workers, with around 30% of non-union staff already gone at the largest carriers. This package is too late to preserve old employment levels, yet still would mean giving airlines money based on their old payroll amounts.

  3. Too much money. American Airlines told employees that federal grants covered about three-fourths of payroll. American was never going to lay off 75% of its workforce. We know now they’re looking at around a third, and the rest was a subsidy to their operations.

  4. Too easy to abuse Airlines scammed the program last time. Why would we do a ‘clean extension’ giving them the same terms again? The program required that nobody could be laid off or have their pay rates reduced, so airlines assigned fewer hours and imposed unpaid leaves in order increase the amount of federal money they could use to cover expenses they’d be incurring anyway. Smaller airlines even double dipped on both payroll support grants and PPP forgivable payroll support loans.

  5. Subsidy for airline investors. Since airlines have been getting more money than they’d have saved on layoffs they are actually planning, the balance is a subsidy to shareholders under the guise of helping workers. Shareholders should take a haircut on airlines before taxpayers and certainly before taxpayers have to ante up a second time.

  6. Ineffective. Airlines are going to be smaller going forward no matter what Congress does. American Airlines CEO Doug Parker gave internal remarks offering that best case his airline is 10% – 20% smaller next year if there’s a vaccine “and no one even remembers what coronavirus means” while industry trade group IATA says it’ll be 2024 before air travel fully recovers. Extending payroll to March isn’t a bridge to recovery.

  7. Simply sets up for payroll bailout #3. Since airline demand won’t fully return by the end of March offering six more months of payroll support is a false promise – if it makes sense to invest $25 billion more now, then the same arguments will just come back before this round of funding expires.

  8. Bad for the economy. Since airlines are going to be smaller, it’s better for employees to move on to somewhere else sooner where they will be productive rather than staying attached to zombie firms who have no way to fully utilize their employees. Delaying this transition, having employees sit idle and unproductive, simply delays economic recovery.

  9. Bad for the airlines. Letting airlines shrink, and even fail, is better than keeping all of them around with too much capacity hobbling the entire industry and delaying all of the airlines’ recovery. When the government picks up payroll costs, that makes adding flights much less expensive which holds down fares and makes it tougher for airlines to recover.

Mere months ago the CEOs of Delta, United, and American were publicly arguing that it’s dangerous to have the government backstopping aviation. Now, already, U.S. airlines have been partially nationalized – with the Treasury Department taking warrants in the larger carriers, not just offering unprecedented subsidies. There’s no longer any illusion that we have ‘private’ air carriers in this country. But going further down this road is counterproductive and a waste of funds.

About Gary Leff

Gary Leff is one of the foremost experts in the field of miles, points, and frequent business travel - a topic he has covered since 2002. Co-founder of frequent flyer community InsideFlyer.com, emcee of the Freddie Awards, and named one of the "World's Top Travel Experts" by Conde' Nast Traveler (2010-Present) Gary has been a guest on most major news media, profiled in several top print publications, and published broadly on the topic of consumer loyalty. More About Gary »

More articles by Gary Leff »



  1. As a Delta shareholder, I would like nothing more than for the US taxpayer (and their children and grandchildren) to bail me out again. I need a bigger BOAT!

  2. I was opposed to the bailout terms for US airlines earlier this year, and I’ve been presented no reason to support another bailout for them now.

  3. Spot on No more bailouts. Of course Congress will shovel money out anyway because Congress is one big fraud.

  4. Excellent analysis, but sadly it’s 100% guaranteed that airlines will get handouts. Trump and his U.S. Treasury (who disburses the money) are one big swamp with Congress.

    Almost all of the President’s campaign promises turned out to be lies, and corruption is now so brazen he’s even telling Microsoft he requires a bribe for the approval of a TikTok “acquisition”!

  5. In addition, they’ll use that bailout money to fight for market share at some point and end up throwing it away anyway. For example, SWA is bragging about no layoffs and expanding in certain markets..
    They now have an extra 3 billion they can use to go after Delta, AA or whoever.
    What’s the benefit to having SWA start a fare war in ATL, DAL responds, people find out they can travel on DAL for the same as SWA and get a better product and the money lost in a fare war hasn’t changed anything?
    Just using SWA as an example but it’s cash all the airlines will use to fight and compete, not just survive.
    Funny how the Republicans are becoming the party most associated with wasting taxpayer.
    money. It’s not just trump that’s crooked.

  6. As an airline retiree, I have seen airlines take advantage of both the government and the bankruptcy laws over and over, while structuring their businesses to benefit only executives. Other employees are left with little or nothing that was legally promised to them in promised pensions, etc.

  7. @ Amy, All Democrat politicians are supporting another airline bailout. You know why? Because a majority of airline employees are union workers that vote Democrat.

  8. @ Amy, all Democrat politicians support another airline bailout. You know why? Because a vast majority of airline employees are union workers that mostly vote a Democrat.

    Share the blame. Trump just can’t do this on his own.

  9. IMO, federal bailouts should be limited to providing relief/reimbursement to businesses and organizations that they incur complying with detailed, specific federal guidelines to minimize the spread of COVID-19. Something along the lines of:
    1. U.S. issues guidelines recommending use of masks, UV air filtration systems, and cleaning, etc.
    2. Companies/orgs follow guidelines and buy/pay for these masks, filtration systems, cleanings.
    3. Submit claims, including proof of purchase and use by the company for business operations.
    4. Reimbursement claims must by attested to by two senior officers and include their contact info.
    5. U.S. government processes claims within 30 days of receipt. (Prosecute fraudulent claims.)

  10. Paying pilots 10-20k a month when they are unnecessary and the airlines should be downsizing is a huge taxpayer waste. Many Senators balk at paying $600 a week but now want to pay pilots 20K a month when they should be furloughed? Sad and such a grand scale waste of taxpayers money and will saddle our grand children with insurmountable debt.

  11. I agree with @Bubba Gumpers and @Quo Vadis (who I think makes some good arguments here). And of course I also think you (Gary) have made excellent points here (again).

  12. I agree with Bubba a mere $600 a week.for folk who make $15 an hour with no benefits compared to the senators air cab drivers That’s why they are paying them they have $$ Investments in those metal things in the air not janitors / car cleaning folks with rental companies/ the poor retired folks who move all rental cars for billions of $ profits for $10 an hour and the folks who make the food and clean the airports clean the aircrafts for us the educated folk now @ our nice homes working on line not even worried about other folks we much be in heaven just like airline management & Some Senators $600 or even $450 come on people lets open our hearts for Christ sake Thanks Bubba

Comments are closed.