Apparently they do. It's not nearly as simple as you'd like it to be.

It literally is that simple. My company had ~6 months worth of expenses stashed away in cash, cash equivalents, and other fairly liquid vehicles, and our net profit was ~4% on over a billion in revenue.

Edit: Why should I, as an individual, be held to a higher standard than a group of individuals who have come together in the name of profit (most of which goes to those at the top) and have limited liability in case of failure?

The stock they bought back is a liquid vehicle. Seeing as your company, whatever that may be, had sixth months put away, I imagine you actually mean "invested" and very little of it was cash. Your operating expenses are extremely high and earnings low.

As to why it's a different standard, it's different for the same reason baseball doesn't use the same rules as water polo. Both sports, but very different.

I'm not here trying to defend poor management, but it's hard to take your "maintain a massive emergency cash fund" idea seriously.

3-6 months worth of operating expenses is in no way a “massive emergency cash fund.” Around half of that 6 months worth was in cash or cash equivalents (I don’t remember the exact numbers offhand), not shares or other investments.

You’re actually proving my point when you say our expenses are high relative to net profits. If we can do it, and still be growing at an adequate pace (we grew earnings at, IIRC, 8% last year), what can’t other companies? Before, you claimed it would stifle growth We have way more software engineers on staff than financial engineers. I find it hard to believe we can do this and other companies can’t. You haven’t given me any reason why they can’t, either.

And, BTW, if repurchased stock is so liquid, why are these airlines crying now? It’s because either they didn’t adequately insure against a systemic risk to their business, or they canceled the shares.