The Airline Industry Got Its Bailout, but What About the Passengers?
Natural economic forces are unlikely to force passenger airlines to make decisions that benefit consumers. The airline industry has undergone significant consolidation over the last 15 years through a series of mergers and acquisitions.
April 15, 2020 at 08:18 AM
5 minute read
The Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security (CARES Act) was signed into law March 27. The $2 trillion stimulus package includes up to $50 billion in funding for U.S. passenger airlines. The aid safeguards many airline employees' paychecks through Sept. 30 and provides much needed liquidity for an industry that will be a critical to sparking an economic recovery once the coronavirus pandemic subsides. A forceful public outcry led to several restrictions in the CARES Act designed to prevent the passenger airlines from using money received under the act to boost stock prices or executive compensation.
These guardrails are a good start, but they do not go far enough. While the law requires that the airlines continue some service to remote locations, the CARES Act lacks much-needed protections for most consumers, such as guaranteeing fair pricing and reasonable flight availability when regular air travel resumes. It is up to the Department of Treasury and Department of Transportation to issue regulations that ensure passengers' needs are met.
Natural economic forces are unlikely to force passenger airlines to make decisions that benefit consumers. The airline industry has undergone significant consolidation over the last 15 years through a series of mergers and acquisitions. This consolidation has created a market dominated by the "Big Four" airlines—American Airlines, Delta Airlines, United Airlines and Southwest Airlines—which account for 80% of the domestic market.
The practical effect of consolidation is limited competition on many air routes within the United States, often with just two or three airlines competing for passengers. As a result, one airline cutting service on a specific route will, without government intervention, lead to increased prices and decreased service for passengers. The CARES Act, understandably, focuses on immediate stop-gap measures, but in the coming months the Department of Treasury and Department of Transportation must take steps to guarantee that the temporary measures do not become permanent economic advantages for the airlines.
The CARES Act provides up to $25 billion in loans and loan guarantees to U.S. passenger airlines and another $25 billion for the payment of airline employee wages, salaries and benefits. In the discussion surrounding the CARES Act, the passenger airline industry came under intense criticism for the airlines' use of record profits in recent years to implement stock buy-backs.
The new law includes several restrictions on passenger airlines that participate in the loan program or receive payroll grants provided under the CARES Act. The passenger airlines are restricted from buying back stock and paying dividends through Sept. 30, 2021. The CARES Act also places limits on executive compensation. Airline employees that make over $425,000 may not receive any pay increase until loans under the CARES Act are no longer outstanding. The act also limits executive compensation to a maximum of $3,000,000 during the same period.
The Department of Treasury and Department of Transportation are also instituting new regulations in conjunction with the CARES Act. At major airports, airlines need to purchase "slots" that allow them to fly into and out of the airports at certain times. There is a "use it or lose it" rule that requires airlines to use their allotted slots or lose them. This has led to airlines flying empty flights from point to point—just to maintain their slots. The Secretary of Transportation has issued waivers to the use it or lose it rule. In addition, the Department of Transportation is considering regulations permitting airlines to share flights. This would allow multiple airlines that typically service one route to sell seats on the same plane—imagine buying a Delta Airlines ticket, but flying on American Airlines metal.
While the restrictions on stock buybacks, dividends and executive compensation have garnered a great deal of media attention, far less focus has been placed on how the airlines will operate as regular air travel resumes and what steps will be taken to prevent the airlines from taking advantage of the regulatory accommodations to boost their profits.
The CARES Act provides the Secretary of the Treasury with the authority to require participating airlines to continue operating flights to any point the airline serviced prior to March 1, 2020. The purpose of this provision is to guarantee that airlines continue to serve less-traveled areas. This is important, but it does not protect the vast majority of airline passengers.
There are several additional actions the Department of Treasury and Department of Transportation should take to protect consumers.
First, the federal agencies should require that, as a condition of taking CARES Act funds, passenger airlines guarantee that pricing will not exceed March 1 pricing levels for a period of at least six to nine months following the closing on any CARES loan or receipt of payments to provide salary relief.
Second, the federal agencies should require participating airlines to gradually resume flight levels substantially similar to those in effect on March 1, once the imminent threat of the coronavirus subsides.
Third, the federal agencies should provide for a sensible, orderly rollback of slot waivers that will ensure that traditional slotting rules are back in place within a short time period.
These actions are necessary to ensure that consumers are not unintentionally harmed by the CARES Act and the attendant federal regulations. They will also provide a direct benefit to taxpayers in exchange for their substantial contribution to the passenger airline industry.
Scott N. Wagner is a partner in Bilzin Sumberg's litigation group and leads the firm's e-discovery practice.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllDon’t Forget the Owner’s Manual: A Guide to Proving Liability Through Manufacturers’ Warnings and Instructions
5 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1New York-Based Skadden Team Joins White & Case Group in Mexico City for Citigroup Demerger
- 2No Two Wildfires Alike: Lawyers Take Different Legal Strategies in California
- 3Poop-Themed Dog Toy OK as Parody, but Still Tarnished Jack Daniel’s Brand, Court Says
- 4Meet the New President of NY's Association of Trial Court Jurists
- 5Lawyers' Phones Are Ringing: What Should Employers Do If ICE Raids Their Business?
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250