DETROIT — Automaker Stellantis plans to shutter and sell its large vehicle proving grounds in Arizona at the end of this year, CNBC has learned.

The decision is the latest cost-cutting measure by the trans-Atlantic automaker under CEO Carlos Tavares, who has been increasingly under pressure from Wall Street, dealers and the United Auto Workers union amid the company’s lagging financial performance, layoffs and overall business decisions.

The Arizona Proving Grounds covers 4,000 acres between Phoenix and Las Vegas in Yucca, Arizona. It has been used for vehicle testing and development for the automaker since then-Chrysler purchased the property for $35 million from Ford Motor in 2007.

The closure was confirmed by three people familiar with the plans who agreed to speak on the condition of anonymity because the matters are private.

Stellantis plans to use a proving grounds in Arizona owned by Toyota Motor beginning next year, according to two people familiar with the decision. Toyota opened its operations, which are costly to maintain, for other companies to use in 2021.

Stellantis confirmed the closure Friday morning, citing the company’s ongoing cost-cutting and real estate evaluations.

“Stellantis continues to look for opportunities to improve efficiency and optimize its footprint to ensure future competitiveness in today’s rapidly changing global market,” the company said in an emailed statement.

The automaker also said it is “working with the UAW to offer proving ground employees special packages or they can choose to follow their work in a transfer of operations” but that employees could be placed on an “indefinite layoff, which would entitle them to pay and benefits for two years.”

Stellantis said 41 employees currently work at the Arizona Proving Grounds, including 37 hourly workers represented by a local chapter of the UAW.

The UAW, which has been increasingly critical of Tavares and such layoffs, did not respond for comment on the planned closure.

Stellantis, like most automakers, has several proving grounds in different climates and geographies to develop and test vehicles ahead of selling them to consumers. Stellantis’ other major U.S. proving grounds facility is a 4,000-acre campus located west of Detroit in Chelsea, Michigan.

Stellantis’ complex in Arizona was one of 18 facilities the company notified the UAW it could potentially close during the union’s contract negotiations last year with Stellantis.

A majority of the other operations were parts and distribution centers that were expected to be consolidated into “mega sites,” as well as the company’s massive 500-acre campus in metro Detroit formerly used as Chrysler’s world headquarters.

The status of the other properties was not immediately clear, however, local and state politicians, including Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, have expressed concerns that Stellantis could move to shutter the former headquarters in Auburn Hills, Michigan.

Stellantis has significantly reduced the number of its U.S. employees in recent years amid Tavares’ cost-cutting measures.

Stellantis has reduced employee head count by 15.5%, or roughly 47,500 employees, between December 2019 and the end of 2023, including a 14.5% reduction in North America, according to public filings. That doesn’t include further head count reductions and layoffs this year.

The automaker had only about 11,000 U.S. salaried employees at the end of last year. That compared with 53,000 at General Motors and 28,000 at Ford.

The reductions have occurred as Stellantis has attempted to outsource many engineering efforts to lower-cost countries such as Brazil, India and Mexico, according to several people familiar with the moves.

Bloomberg News earlier this year reported that Stellantis moved to recruiting a majority of its engineering workforce in those countries, where the cost per employee amounts to roughly €50,000 ($53,000) or less per year — far less than similar positions in the U.S. and Europe.

Cancer drains individuals of their physical, emotional, and financial health. Given the impact on both patients and the people in their lives — including their employer — it’s time that CEOs take note and take action to reduce the burden of cancer.

In a study from the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, nearly half of cancer patients and survivors reported being extraordinarily burdened by medical debt. Many respondents carried a negative balance of at least $5,000 from their cancer treatment for more than one year, and 42% of people with cancer deplete their life savings within the first two years after diagnosis.

Financial hardship caused by cancer can also contribute to “financial toxicity,” wherein the cost of treatment forces individuals to make tradeoffs that impact their chances of survival. These may include non-biologic factors such as skipping or halving cancer medications to stretch their supply, or being unable to complete cancer care as planned due to the high costs of transportation to or housing near cancer treatment centers. This model isn’t sustainable, and rising costs of new, life-saving cancer therapies will impose additional financial toxicities — and an increasingly large threat to patients’ lives.

Not only does financial toxicity of cancer care affect the individual, it can also negatively impact their employer. As the providers of health insurance coverage for nearly half the country, employers and unions shoulder much of cancer’s financial burden. Today, cancer is the leading health-care cost for mid- and large-sized organizations in the U.S., and the burden is growing.

For the first time in history, more than 2 million Americans will receive a new cancer diagnosis in 2024. While increasing cancer incidence can be attributed in part to our aging population (cancer risk increases with age), we also see a disturbing national trend in which younger people are being diagnosed with 17 major cancers. These are people who would still likely be in the workforce, using employer-sponsored health insurance. As a result, employers are asking what they can do to reduce the burden of cancer on their populations — and their bottom line.

Patients, families, and employers all “win” when cancers are diagnosed at an early stage. Detecting cancer early not only improves chances of survival, it significantly lowers the cost of care. Overall, treatment costs for someone diagnosed at stage IV — when cancer has spread throughout the body — are an average of $156,000 higher than for those diagnosed at stage I, when the disease is localized. The first year of treatment for colorectal cancer, which affects over 150,000 individuals each year in the United States and is on the rise in younger populations, costs an average of $111,000 when diagnosed at stage I, with about a 90% five-year survival rate. By contrast, stage IV colorectal cancer drives average treatment costs of $256,000 in the first year, and five-year survival rates are under 20%. Evidence suggests that if individuals could only take advantage of the prevention, early detection, and cancer treatment strategies that exist today, the cancer mortality rate would decline by 30% to 50%.

These statistics are profound and strongly suggest that concerted efforts from employers and individuals to encourage cancer prevention and early detection would improve health and reduce health-care costs. Today, our best tool to achieve this is screening. Adherence to recommended screening guidelines — like those published by ACS — could save the U.S. health-care system $26 billion per year in avoided treatment costs.

Despite the importance of early detection and proven value of screening, access to preventive care remains a barrier to better outcomes. At present, a staggering 65% of eligible Americans are out-of-date with recommended cancer screenings. Covid-19 restrictions delayed or prevented 9.4 million cancer screenings in 2020 alone, likely leading to later-stage diagnoses that would have normally been caught earlier.

There are also logistical and societal barriers that contribute to financial toxicities and impact a person’s ability to get screened. People may need to take time off work or arrange childcare to attend a screening appointment. They may need to weigh potential future treatment costs against their need to pay rent. Some may not be aware they’re eligible for screening, and stigma and fear associated with cancer screening hinders some people from seeking care. Inequities according to one’s socioeconomic status — including where they live, their income, education level, access to healthcare and healthy foods, and other social determinants of health — create roadblocks to preventive care. To realize the benefits of early detection on individuals and organizations, it’s important that we develop new strategies to remove these barriers.

ACS is committed to tackling cancer, approaching the challenge of improving access to care and reducing financial toxicity from multiple angles. Similar or supportive action from U.S. employers will increase our collective impact against cancer’s burden.

Toward the goal of increasing early detection, ACS recently partnered with Color Health in a joint venture to improve access to screening and preventive care through employers and unions. By making it easier and more convenient for employees to get care — with at-home testing kits and care navigation support across their cancer journey — this program aims to increase awareness, accessibility, and affordability of cancer screening and early detection. Notably, organizations taking advantage of the ACS-Color program have witnessed a 77% increase in cancer screening adherence.

In addition to direct screening initiatives, programs like Road to Recovery and ACS Hope Lodges remove the cost burdens of transportation and lodging for cancer treatment. Other partnerships through BrightEdge, ACS’s donor-funded innovation and investment arm, provide access to a wide range of solutions that help people navigate the financial complexities of cancer across the continuum of care. One BrightEdge portfolio company, TailorMed, offers a platform to help patients find resources to cover the cost of treatment and reduce out-of-pocket expenses. Further investments aim to bring the patient voice into therapy and diagnostic development, to enable a future generation of sustainable cancer innovations that reduce patients’ financial distress.

Advocacy is also key to reducing financial toxicity. ACS’s Cancer Action Network advocates for Medicaid expansion to help currently uninsured individuals access screening and preventive care. To bring down the cost of prescription drugs, ACS CAN has also successfully advocated for “smoothing,” a policy that allows Medicare beneficiaries to spread out their prescription drug costs over the course of the year. By making payments more manageable for patients, we remove a crucial element of the cancer financial challenge.

Cancer will impact one in two women and one in three men at some point in their lifetime. By facilitating guideline-recommended screening and activating programs that make early detection affordable and accessible, employers can offset financial toxicities and improve outcomes for people across the country. When employers help their employees get screened, they bring us one step closer to ending cancer — and its costs — as we know it.

—By Karen Knudsen, CEO of the American Cancer Society. She is also a member of the CNBC CEO Council.

Boeing supplier Spirit AeroSystems will furlough some 700 workers as a strike by machinists at the plane maker enters its sixth week, a spokesman for the supplier said Friday.

More than 32,000 Boeing workers walked off the job Sept. 13 after overwhelmingly rejecting a tentative labor deal with Boeing, deepening the aircraft producer’s financial strain and handing a new challenge to CEO Kelly Ortberg, who took the reins just over two months ago.

The temporary furloughs account for about 5% of Spirit’s U.S. workforce, according to its latest annual filing.

The temporary furloughs will affect employees at Spirit’s largest facilities, in Wichita, Kansas, and account for about 5% of Spirit’s U.S. workforce, according to its latest annual filing. Meanwhile, Boeing and its machinists’ union remain at an impasse, and Spirit is considering deeper cuts.

“If the strike continues beyond November, we will have to implement layoffs and additional furloughs,” Spirit spokesman Joe Buccino told CNBC on Friday.

Ortberg, who faces investors in his first earnings call next Wednesday, last week announced a series of drastic measures meant to slash costs as the company’s losses mount, including cutting the workforce by 10%, or about 17,000 people. Boeing is also ending 767 commercial production when orders are fulfilled in 2027 and said its long-delayed 777X wide-body jet won’t debut until 2026, pushing it back yet another year.

Boeing is in the process of raising debt or equity to increase liquidity.

The roughly 700 Spirit workers affected by the 21-day furlough are assigned to the 777 and 767 programs for Boeing, for which Spirit has built up “significant inventory,” Buccino said. Spirit workers on Boeing’s bestselling 737 Max are not affected, he added. Work on all three programs, however, is stalled because of the strike.

Boeing agreed to acquire Spirit this summer, but the companies don’t expect the deal to close until mid-2025. Reuters earlier reported Spirit’s latest furloughs.

It’s been just over a month since more than 30,000 Boeing machinists walked off the job after overwhelmingly voting down a tentative contract. Costs and tensions have only risen since then.

The strike is adding to pressure on Boeing’s new CEO, Kelly Ortberg, who was brought in over the summer to solve the plane maker’s various troubles. The strike, which S&P Global Ratings estimates costs Boeing more than $1 billion a month, bookends an already difficult year that started with a near-catastrophic blowout of a 737 Max door plug and comes six years after the first of two fatal Max crashes put the storied manufacturer in constant crisis mode.

The union and company remain at an impasse, and airplane production at factories in the Seattle area and other locations has been idled, depriving Boeing of cash. Boeing last week pulled a sweetened contract offer that the union had rejected, saying it wasn’t negotiated.

Boeing officials had been upbeat to airline customers about getting to a deal in the weeks before the original vote, according to people familiar with the matter who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the conversations were private.

But that optimism didn’t pan out, as workers on Sept. 13 voted 95% against an initial tentative labor deal.

“They’ll have to increase their offer. There’s no doubt about that,” said Harry Katz, a professor who studies collective bargaining at Cornell University’s School of Industrial and Labor Relations. He said one of the union’s demands, a return to a pension plan, is unlikely, however, and estimated the strike could last two to five more weeks.

The process of ending strike has turned more fraught, with federally mediated talks breaking down midweek.

Boeing on Thursday said it filed an unfair labor practice charge with the National Labor Relations Board that accused the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers union of negotiating in bad faith and misrepresenting the plane makers’ proposals.

Late Friday, Jon Holden, president of the striking workers’ union, IAM District 751, pushed for a return to negotiations.

“CEO Ortberg has an opportunity to do things differently instead of the same old tired labor relations threats used to intimidate and crush anyone that stands up to them,” he said in a statement. “Ultimately, it will be our membership that determines whether any negotiated contract offer is accepted. They want a resolution that is negotiated and addresses their needs.”

Boeing’s unionized machinists are not receiving paychecks and lost their company-backed health insurance at the end of September. However, unlike during the last Boeing factory strike in 2008, there is more contract work in the Seattle area to help workers fill the gaps. A union message board posts job opportunities like driving for food delivery services and warehouse work.

Boeing will cut 10% of its workforce, or about 17,000 people, as the company’s losses mount and a machinist strike that has idled its aircraft factories enters its fifth week. It will also delay the launch of its new wide-body airplane.

The manufacturer will not deliver its still-uncertified 777X wide-body plane until 2026, putting it some six years behind schedule, and will stop making commercial 767 freighters in 2027 after it fulfills remaining orders, CEO Kelly Ortberg said in a staff memo Friday afternoon.

Boeing expects to report a loss of $9.97 a share in the third quarter, the company said in a surprise release Friday. It expects to report a pretax charge of $3 billion in the commercial airplane unit and $2 billion for its defense business.

In preliminary financial results, Boeing said it expects to have an operating cash outflow of $1.3 billion for the third quarter.

“Our business is in a difficult position, and it is hard to overstate the challenges we face together,” Ortberg said. “Beyond navigating our current environment, restoring our company requires tough decisions and we will have to make structural changes to ensure we can stay competitive and deliver for our customers over the long term.”

The job and cost cuts are the most dramatic moves to date from Ortberg, who is just more than two months into his tenure in the top job.

He was tasked with restoring Boeing after safety and manufacturing crises, but the labor strike has been the biggest challenge yet for Ortberg. Credit ratings agencies have warned the company is at risk of losing its investment-grade rating, and Boeing has been burning through cash in what company leaders hoped would be a turnaround year.

S&P Global Ratings said earlier this week that Boeing is losing more than $1 billion a month from the strike, which began Sept. 13 after machinists overwhelmingly voted down a tentative agreement the company reached with the union. Tensions have been rising between the manufacturer and the union, and Boeing withdrew a contract offer earlier this week.

On Thursday, Boeing said it filed an unfair labor practice charge with the National Labor Relations Board that accused the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers of negotiating in bad faith and misrepresenting the plane makers’ proposals. The union had blasted Boeing for a sweetened offer that it argued was not negotiated with the union and said workers would not vote on it.

The job cuts, which Ortberg said would occur “over the coming months,” would hit just after Boeing and its hundreds of suppliers have been scrambling to staff up in the wake of the Covid-19 pandemic, when demand cratered.

DETROIT — Stellantis is suing the United Auto Workers, escalating a monthslong battle between the trans-Atlantic automaker and American union, CNBC has learned.

In an internal message Friday to employees that was confirmed to be authentic, the company said it is suing the UAW as well as a local chapter in California that participated in a strike authorization request vote at Stellantis’ Los Angeles Parts Distribution Center.

“This lawsuit would hold both the International and the local union liable for the revenue loss and other damages resulting from lost production due to an unlawful strike,” Tobin Williams, Stellantis senior vice president of North America human resources, said in the message.

A supermajority of UAW members at Stellantis’ Los Angeles Parts Distribution Center voted to request strike authorization from the International Executive Board if the company and union can’t reconcile, the union said Friday morning.

The complaint is intended to “prevent and/or remedy a breach of contract” by the UAW, according to a copy of the lawsuit that was filed Thursday in U.S. District Court in the Central District of California.

The lawsuit argues that if the union does strike, the court “should award Stellantis monetary damages” that result from a breach of contract.

UAW President Shawn Fain addressed the lawsuit Friday in a letter to union leadership at Stellantis. He called it and other actions by the company “desperate actions from a desperate executive who has lost control.”

“Our legal team has complete confidence in our right to strike. The company’s legal threats are just that—threats intended to intimidate us, so we won’t fight back,” Fain said.

The dispute between the two sides centers on the union alleging Stellantis has not kept contractual obligations as part of a deal the two sides reached late last year. It comes after Stellantis has made several cuts to plant production, conducted worker layoffs and delayed potential investments outlined as part of the 2023 contract.

Fain has routinely said the union will strike if needed, however Stellantis has argued that would be unlawful under the contract.

The automaker has contended that there’s language in the contract that gives it leniency to change plans based on market conditions, plant performance and other factors.

The company reiterated that stance in its lawsuit and cited “Letter 311,” which includes the company’s expected investments: “The planned future investments in the letter are conditional, require Company approval, and are subject to change based on these business factor contingencies.”

The lawsuit came the same day Fain and union members held their latest rally against Stellantis in suburban Detroit.

“We’re here today for one reason. Stellantis CEO Carlos Tavares is out of control and it’s once again up to UAW members to save this company from itself,” Fain said during the event. “A strike will cripple this company. And if we have to strike, it’s Stellantis’ decision to do so because they are not honoring their commitment.”

The union and several local chapters have filed grievances against the automaker regarding contract obligations and other issues.

Stellantis, in the lawsuit, called the grievances a sham designed to “justify mid-contract strikes against Stellantis that otherwise would violate the [contract’s] no strike clause.”

President Biden and his administration are sticking to their position of not evoking the Taft-Hartley Act to force International Longshoremen’s Association dock workers back on the job at East and Gulf Coast ports where a strike is hitting day two on Wednesday, a political decision that reflects the power of unions one month out from the election. Rhetoric from Cabinet Secretaries, including Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg and Acting Labor Secretary Julie Su, has become more pointed in recent days, pointing the finger at the ports ownership and ocean carriers. But there is a big risk on the other side of the political decision-making: wage increases that are a win for workers but ultimately ripple through the economy in the form of higher prices, both domestically and around the world.

Much of the focus about the economic impact of the ports strike to date has been focused on the direct hit to the economy from the massive trade shutdown, and the ways in which supply chain congestion and delays can result in higher prices being passed along to consumers, which will become a bigger factor the longer a strike persists. But maritime and business experts are also warning about the risk of persistent wage inflation making its way into supply chain prices that the Federal Reserve has recently been successful in taming.

“The wage increase would indeed be passed on and eventually be paid by the importers,” said Lars Jenson, CEO of Vespucci Maritime, a maritime shipping consultant. “The inflationary impact would vary dramatically depending on the value of the goods inside the container,” he said, adding the impact would be even bigger impact for agricultural exporters.

The ILA’s president Harold Daggett is seeking a raise as high as $5 per hour, per year, over a six-year period in a new contract for union port workers from the United States Maritime Alliance. The USMX, which represents port ownership, last offered what it described as a nearly 50% wage increase of six years on Monday, an offer rejected by the union. The USMX reiterated that offer on Tuesday, saying in a statement that its “current offer of a nearly 50% wage increase exceeds every other recent union settlement, while addressing inflation, and recognizing the ILA’s hard work to keep the global economy running.”

But Daggett countered claims of any “significant increase,” saying in the ILA’s own Tuesday statement that the USMX “conveniently omit that many of our members are operating multi-million-dollar container-handling equipment for a mere $20 an hour. In some states, the minimum wage is already $15. … the USMX also overlooks the fact that two-thirds of our members are constantly on call, with no guaranteed employment if no ships are being worked. Our members qualify for benefits only based on the hours they worked the previous year, making them vulnerable if there’s a downturn in work.”

Daggett told CNBC on Tuesday morning that the ILA is seeking a wage increase of 61.5%.

While a significant wage hike would undoubtedly be a big win for workers and a resurgent labor movement, with the union and port ownership group at an impasse ocean carriers have begun to take steps to protect their own financial position in the near-term for as long as a strike persists. CMA CGM, one of the world’s largest ocean carrier, declared force majeure on Tuesday, a legal maneuver to free itself of contract requirements with shipping clients due to forces beyond its control, and said it “may charge any additional operational costs” associated with vessels delayed due to the strike to cargo on the water as of October 1, 2024 with a U.S. East or Gulf Coast port of discharge.

President Biden said on Tuesday that his administration will be “monitoring for any price gouging activity” that benefits foreign ocean carriers, including those on the USMX board. He also said “foreign ocean carriers have made record profits since the pandemic, when Longshoremen put themselves at risk to keep ports open.”

Based on prior port strikes, ocean carriers normally profit from soaring freight rates based on demand for other ports as well as detention and demurrage fees on containers stranded during a ports shutdown. Analysts have been warning ocean spot rates could increase by 20%-50%. UBS forecast that 20% of Maersk’s total volume would touch a U.S. port that would be impacted by the strike. Maersk is on the board of USMX. UBS estimated that if freight rates increased 30% over two quarters, a revenue tail wind of more than $1 billion would be generated.

Buttigieg said on Tuesday that the DOT is monitoring “any attempts by companies to opportunistically raise prices, including ocean shippers or others,” and called on ocean carriers to withdraw surcharges. “No one should exploit a disruption for profit,” he said in a DOT statement. He added that the Federal Maritime Commission will use expanded authority signed into law by Biden to “ensure any fees assessed are legitimate and lawful.”

But the more significant price hikes would occur after a successful deal for the ILA, according to some economists, even though the total number of workers involved in the strike, at around 50,000, is a blip in a U.S. labor market that employs well over 100 million people. It comes amid other union battles across the U.S. economy targeting aviation and automakers. “The scale of wage demands at the ports, at Boeing, and at autoworkers, make one laugh at the claims that the labor market is soft and that wage inflation is dead,” said Larry Lindsey, CEO of The Lindsey Group.

Acting Secretary Julie Su lashed out at the idea that labor wage increases would be passed onto U.S. exporters and importers.

“At the same time that we were urging them to put a fair offer on the table to avoid all the disruption, they were calculating how much of a surcharge they could charge for shipping in light of a strike,” said Secretary Su said in an interview. “I mean, it’s really an outrageous position.”

For months, logistics and business trade groups representing major industries from retail to manufacturing and agriculture have sent numerous letters to Biden and his administration urging intervention. Now, with the president sticking to his position that collective bargaining is the only means for a “fair deal” for the ILA, executives across the economy are beginning to weight the potential pricing impacts for their business models.

“It quickly renders our U.S. agriculture exports much less competitive in the global marketplace,” said Peter Friedmann, executive director of the Agriculture Transportation Coalition of any logistics rate increases his sector would see. “Our foreign customers can satisfy their food, farm, and fiber needs from other countries, which is where they will go,  as costs of moving containers through U.S. ports continue to increase.”

Acting Labor Secretary Julie Su said she is very sympathetic to the needs of the business community, but stuck to the administration’s position. “I’ve been in many conversations with them too,” she said. “I understand just how important the impact of a good resolution is. I know they understand, just as consumers and American workers understand, that foreign companies who profit from our economy and who employ American workers and have an impact on American consumers should do the right thing, and in that battle, we are always going to stand with American workers, American businesses and American consumers.”

The Federal Reserve has recently become more concerned about the labor market than inflation and his begun cutting interest rates to “recalibrate” its monetary policy in a bid to prevent a rise in layoffs and betting inflation is on its way back to 2%, which recent data supports. In the most recent nonfarm payrolls report for August, average hourly earnings increased by 0.4% on the month and 3.8% from a year ago, both higher than estimates. The September nonfarm payrolls report is due out this Friday and in the short-term, the union battle could influence the data on both wages and layoffs.

The upcoming nonfarm payrolls report is the last the Fed will receive before its next interest rate policy decision in November, and it could include downward pressures in the labor market as well, influenced both layoffs related to the strike and Hurricane Helene. The big payroll report immediately ahead of the government data, the ADP private payrolls report, showed that while hiring increased, pay growth has continued to trend down. The annual gain for those remaining in their jobs decreased to 4.7%, while it fell even more for job switchers, to 6.6%, down 0.7 percentage point from August.

“This would just completely complicate everything that the Fed is trying to do because they’re not getting a read to what the economy is actually performing,” Jim Bianco, head of Bianco Research, told CNBC’s “Fast Money” on Tuesday.

In the longer-term analysis, the wage increase being sought by the union will confirm that wage growth is not going back to its pre-Covid trend, of about 2.5%, according to Peter Boockvar, chief investment officer for Bleakley Financial Group. Instead, he estimates it will settle around 4%, which will put a floor under inflation.

“I continue to believe that after the disinflation plays out, which is mostly taking place in goods, 3-4% will be the normalized inflation rate,” said Boockvar. “And this wage deal, when it happens, will result in goods prices to inflect higher.”

“For those dependent on functioning ports for their livelihood, the collateral damage is often underestimated by those watching from afar,” said Alan Baer, CEO of logistics firm OL USA.  

Steve Lamar, CEO of the American Apparel and Footwear Association, said it’s imperative that the Biden Administration use all the tools at its disposal, including its authorities under Taft Hartley, to keep the parties at the negotiating table, the ports opened, and goods moving efficiently. “Allowing the status quo to persist increases the likelihood that this port crisis will hurt our industry and the overall U.S. economy through job losses, higher prices, and goods shortages,” said Lamar.

—Reporting by CNBC’s Jeff Cox contributed to this article.

Southwest Airlines is planning to reduce service to and from Atlanta next year, cutting more than 300 pilot and flight attendant positions, according to a company memo seen by CNBC.

The changes come a day before Southwest’s investor day, when executives will map out the company’s plan to cut costs and grow revenue as pressure mounts from activist investor Elliott Investment Management.

Southwest told staff it isn’t closing its crew base in Atlanta. Instead, it will reduce staffing by as many as 200 flight attendants and as many as 140 pilots, for the April 2025 bid month.

The airline also isn’t laying the crews off, but they will likely have to bid to work from other cities.

Southwest will reduce its Atlanta presence to 11 gates next year from 18, according to a separate memo from the pilots’ union.

It will service 21 cities from Atlanta starting next April, down from 37 in March, the carrier said.

“Although we try everything we can before making difficult decisions like this one, we simply cannot afford continued losses and must make this change to help restore our profitability,” Southwest said in its memo. “This decision in no way reflects our Employees’ performance, and we’re proud of the Hospitality and the efforts they have made and will continue to make with our Customers in ATL.”

The unions that represent Southwest’s pilot and flight attendants railed against the airline for the staffing and service cuts.

“Southwest Airlines management is failing Employees while impacting Customers. Management continues to make decisions that lack full transparency, sufficient communication with Union leadership, and most alarmingly, a lack of focus on what has made the airline great, the Employees,” said Bill Bernal, the flight attendants’ union president.

A Southwest spokesman confirmed the changes and said the carrier will “continue to optimize our network to meet customer demand, best utilize our fleet, and maximize revenue opportunities.”

The airline had already pulled out of certain airports, some of which it experimented with during the pandemic to focus on more profitable service.

Southwest is not only facing changing booking patterns and oversupplied parts of the U.S. market but aircraft delays from Boeing, whose yet-to-be-certified 737 Max 7 airplanes are years behind schedule

The airline’s COO, Andrew Watterson, told staff last week that it will have to make “difficult decisions” to boost profits.

The reduction in Atlanta, the world’s busiest airport and Delta Air Lines home hub, is the latest development for the airline. In July, Southwest announced it plans to get rid of open seating and offer extra legroom on its airplanes, the biggest changes in its more than half-century of flying.

Also on Wednesday, Southwest released an expanded schedule, selling tickets through June 4. In addition to the planned cuts in Atlanta, the carrier said it will boost service to and from Nashville, Tennessee. It will also start offering overnight flights from Hawaii, beginning April 8. Those include service from Honolulu to Las Vegas and Phoenix; Kona, Hawaii, to Las Vegas; and Maui, Hawaii, to Las Vegas and Phoenix.