Alaska General Discussion
#1221
Yea, if they're sufficiently concerned with pilot recruiting they could build lots of trips with DHDs to/from SEATAC in hopes of shooting fish in the AS barrel.
But a smart pilot might be leery of signing on for that... the pilot shortage won't last forever.
But a smart pilot might be leery of signing on for that... the pilot shortage won't last forever.
#1222
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2017
Posts: 200
Most ANC trips start or end with a SEA leg.
#1223
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2017
Position: Making coffee
Posts: 171
For what it’s worth when UA opened the LAS and MCO bases there wasn’t any additional flying associated with it, trips were just built out of there. There’s a decent amount of 73 and Bus flying through SEA already.
#1224
I guess my point is if it wasn't justified before, and there's no expansion at the new domicile, why are they doing it now?
If the answer is pilot shortage and recruiting, not growth, then ask yourself what happens after the shortage? That could matter if you're young and don't want to commute (or move) to SFO or DEN at some point.
If the answer is pilot shortage and recruiting, not growth, then ask yourself what happens after the shortage? That could matter if you're young and don't want to commute (or move) to SFO or DEN at some point.
#1225
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2019
Posts: 791
It is also possible that there is a gentle paradigm shift taking place. It is possible that when viewed in totality, the cost benefit of more choices and more satisfaction in the ranks can outrun the cost and make it a lasting proposition. As to gate space, the port of Seattle is charged with benefiting the community as a whole. Helping grow another full service international carrier like UAL back towards their previous stature is viewed as a huge win. The port does not consider code share/alliance or marketing agreements when they look at community benefit. Alaska is viewed as a domestic only product by the port for that reason
#1226
As to gate space, the port of Seattle is charged with benefiting the community as a whole. Helping grow another full service international carrier like UAL back towards their previous stature is viewed as a huge win. The port does not consider code share/alliance or marketing agreements when they look at community benefit. Alaska is viewed as a domestic only product by the port for that reason
The current legal landscape actually allows communities to preference local businesses.
#1227
Not saying they won't do it. Just questioning the motive and how long it will last.
#1228
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Position: SFO Guppy CA
Posts: 1,112
Heard today on a United JS that UAL CEO either did announce or at minimum stated they are considering SEA as a crew base. If that’s true, do I think that’s laying the groundwork for a potential merger? No. Do I think that Delta and UAL both having crew bases in SEA is going to cripple recruiting? Can’t imagine why it wouldn’t
Any bases would probably not be like our existing base structure. They wouldn’t be considered a “hub”. They would simply be somewhere we start and end the flying based on how many commuters there are. That is what the Company has actually said. They want to have bases where pilots predominantly want to live.
#1229
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2018
Posts: 1,238
United guy here…. No formal announcement of a SEA base has been announced by the Company nor the Union. What I can tell you is that I’ve been hearing that SEA and PHX are still on the table. LAS hasn’t worked out like they (the Company) had hoped. MCO has worked out very well because they have better flying there. Right now there is a logistical problem because in another 5 years, we’re not going to have the space to park airplanes with our current base structure. So we need so find some space.
Any bases would probably not be like our existing base structure. They wouldn’t be considered a “hub”. They would simply be somewhere we start and end the flying based on how many commuters there are. That is what the Company has actually said. They want to have bases where pilots predominantly want to live.
Any bases would probably not be like our existing base structure. They wouldn’t be considered a “hub”. They would simply be somewhere we start and end the flying based on how many commuters there are. That is what the Company has actually said. They want to have bases where pilots predominantly want to live.
Remember Alaska is going out of business, Angry 30 have already decided in their own minds… must be true🙄🙄🙄
#1230
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2018
Posts: 1,238
It is also possible that there is a gentle paradigm shift taking place. It is possible that when viewed in totality, the cost benefit of more choices and more satisfaction in the ranks can outrun the cost and make it a lasting proposition. As to gate space, the port of Seattle is charged with benefiting the community as a whole. Helping grow another full service international carrier like UAL back towards their previous stature is viewed as a huge win. The port does not consider code share/alliance or marketing agreements when they look at community benefit. Alaska is viewed as a domestic only product by the port for that reason
As for your other premise about the Port of Seattle. It’s all 100% BS. It is uneducated gibberish, no the POS can’t just take 10 gates from Alaska because they want too, because international somehow benefits the community more… Allocation for 2024 is done, Alaska makes up 55%, there is no 10 gate hold for UA😂😂😂
United could try and trade gates or buy AS or DA, those are the real options.
UA is a great airline, AS is a great airline, both are going to be just fine. I think 2024 however is going to be a rough year for everyone!
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post