UA will close FA bases in NRT, HKG, FRA

jetawayusa · Mon Sep 14, 2020 6:40 pm

eta unknown wrote:
jetawayusa wrote:
What is crazy is that US tax payers under the "Cares Act" paid for the salary of foreign workers// Flight Attendants (non Citizens and Green Card holders) based in Tokyo Frankfurt and London.

Green card holders are US taxpayers- if you're going to troll at least get your facts straight.

What I meant was Non-Green card holder....cant edit my post now.... But what I know is that UA continued to pay the foreign base FAs (non green card holders and US citizens) that are not covered by the CaresAct with CaresAct money. As a US tax payer...UA needs to be called out on it! For example I know of one FA who was former CDG based (Non US citizen or resident) who chose to be base in NRT (She did not want to be based in FRA/LHR or HKG) She was collecting a Salary from UA during these past 4 months. She is a French citizen with no rights to work in the USA....and yet the US taxpayers are paying for her salary from the Care's Act.

WorldFlier · Mon Sep 14, 2020 6:46 pm

LondonXtreme wrote:
zakuivcustom wrote:
Doesn't surprise me from a labor cost standpoint. UA is not the only airline cutting foreign crew base anyway. For example, while UA cut HKG base, CX had already cut their YVR crew base and a few others.

I am surprise that UA actually still have a base in HKG anyway. They have what? 3 daily flights now? (This was before COVID-19). No more beyond flights from either HKG or NRT, either.

Absolutely, there's no need for HKG base still exist. But the loss of NRT base is really sad and the majority of crews on US-NRT bound flights are NRT based crew and they can at least offer Japanese languages. In contrast, how come UA can't cut the LHR base instead of NRT? Doesn't LHR cost more?

America has speakers of almost every language as American citizens. Speaking the language gets you on flights that would requires years more seniority.

This is the right thing to do. Hotels are cheaper than having a large support (HR, Tax, Legal, etc) infrastructure in that country.

MIflyer12 · Mon Sep 14, 2020 7:04 pm

WorldFlier wrote:
This is the right thing to do. Hotels are cheaper than having a large support (HR, Tax, Legal, etc) infrastructure in that country.

If that were obviously and consistently true then U.S. carriers never would have set up foreign bases. There are lots of reasons that work (and workers) may not be based in the U.S. UA Corporate functions going to India, anyone?

eta unknown · Mon Sep 14, 2020 8:40 pm

Well QF has a LHR crew base and NZ just closed theirs as route cancelled. Both bases existed purely because of the LHR hotel cost issue- and yes it was cheaper to pay local LON admin staff. Are hotels cheaper- normally yes, but LON is the exception. Another unique LON issue is many hotels don't want crew business which pushes up the already high hotel rates even further.

eta unknown · Mon Sep 14, 2020 8:51 pm

jetawayusa wrote:
eta unknown wrote:
jetawayusa wrote:
What is crazy is that US tax payers under the "Cares Act" paid for the salary of foreign workers// Flight Attendants (non Citizens and Green Card holders) based in Tokyo Frankfurt and London.

Green card holders are US taxpayers- if you're going to troll at least get your facts straight.

What I meant was Non-Green card holder....cant edit my post now.... But what I know is that UA continued to pay the foreign base FAs (non green card holders and US citizens) that are not covered by the CaresAct with CaresAct money. As a US tax payer...UA needs to be called out on it! For example I know of one FA who was former CDG based (Non US citizen or resident) who chose to be base in NRT (She did not want to be based in FRA/LHR or HKG) She was collecting a Salary from UA during these past 4 months. She is a French citizen with no rights to work in the USA....and yet the US taxpayers are paying for her salary from the Care's Act.

Do you know her salary was paid from a United US bank account? How do you know her salary was paid with actual CARES act money? What about USA based employees of KLM for example? I don't understand your outrage- IMO you are trying to beat up something that isn't worth the time of day with the excuse of "my tax dollars". Are you also enraged that your tax dollars fund international aid development projects?

WorldFlier · Mon Sep 14, 2020 9:57 pm

MIflyer12 wrote:
WorldFlier wrote:
This is the right thing to do. Hotels are cheaper than having a large support (HR, Tax, Legal, etc) infrastructure in that country.

If that were obviously and consistently true then U.S. carriers never would have set up foreign bases. There are lots of reasons that work (and workers) may not be based in the U.S. UA Corporate functions going to India, anyone?

Legacy costs from a simpler time...that stick around because change costs money.

Change costs much less when you can just axe an entire office...

EWRCabincrew · Mon Sep 14, 2020 11:15 pm

Judge1310 wrote:
Some of you all are so sad on this thread and it elucidates how many of the lot of you don't understand how foreign bases/crew scheduling/resources function. Over the past few years, there were only a few pairings (crew schedules) that were operated solely by foreign based crews--quite often there were a few US-based crewmembers mixed along. Those foreign based, quite literally, had the easiest jobs to work: occasional foreign base - USA hub with the occasional smattering of 6-day trips that would send them either domestically or to another international destination. E.g. for a while, earlier this year, NRT based FAs were operating NRT-SFO-ICN-SFO-NRT along with NRT-EWR-LHR-EWR-NRT and others. So please stop trying to Monday morning quarterback on how crew resources/scheduling actually operate. There are legal contractual obligations and FAA/DOT regulations that still have to be followed. Inquiries are fine and appreciated but the "would haves/could haves/should haves" can pretty much go kick rocks with barefeet.

NRT crews never flew EWR-LHR-EWR.

EWRCabincrew · Mon Sep 14, 2020 11:21 pm

Pi7472000 wrote:
CobaltScar wrote:
Bad for the foreign crews, but good for the U.S. based FAs who will now get to fly more of these routes. If it helps save more U.S. jobs overall, great news.

Not for the customer!!! The foreign crews were much more professional and service oriented than the U.S. based crews. UA can't compete against foreign airlines or Delta nearly as well because they have some crews that are not professional and provide really poor service from the U.S.

Shouldn’t generalize. Not all crews from overseas bases provide the best service, as not all domestic US crews provide less than service.

Nicknuzzii · Mon Sep 14, 2020 11:54 pm

EWRCabincrew wrote:
Pi7472000 wrote:
CobaltScar wrote:
Bad for the foreign crews, but good for the U.S. based FAs who will now get to fly more of these routes. If it helps save more U.S. jobs overall, great news.

Not for the customer!!! The foreign crews were much more professional and service oriented than the U.S. based crews. UA can't compete against foreign airlines or Delta nearly as well because they have some crews that are not professional and provide really poor service from the U.S.

Shouldn’t generalize. Not all crews from overseas bases provide the best service, as not all domestic US crews provide less than service.

Nothing beats an EWR crew. DEN is very hit or miss and LAX is meh. Never had an international based crew though.

Judge1310 · Tue Sep 15, 2020 12:20 am

EWRCabincrew wrote:
Judge1310 wrote:
Some of you all are so sad on this thread and it elucidates how many of the lot of you don't understand how foreign bases/crew scheduling/resources function. Over the past few years, there were only a few pairings (crew schedules) that were operated solely by foreign based crews--quite often there were a few US-based crewmembers mixed along. Those foreign based, quite literally, had the easiest jobs to work: occasional foreign base - USA hub with the occasional smattering of 6-day trips that would send them either domestically or to another international destination. E.g. for a while, earlier this year, NRT based FAs were operating NRT-SFO-ICN-SFO-NRT along with NRT-EWR-LHR-EWR-NRT and others. So please stop trying to Monday morning quarterback on how crew resources/scheduling actually operate. There are legal contractual obligations and FAA/DOT regulations that still have to be followed. Inquiries are fine and appreciated but the "would haves/could haves/should haves" can pretty much go kick rocks with barefeet.

NRT crews never flew EWR-LHR-EWR.

My bad. Doesn't negate the SFO-ICN-ICN rotation. I know that there were plans for a foreign-base to operate an XXX-LHR-XXX rotation...whether it was going to be HKG or NRT really doesn't matter now as it's water long gone under the bridge and out to sea.

Talk about a near-death thread resurrection! :lol:

Pinto · Tue Sep 15, 2020 12:24 am

jetawayusa wrote:
eta unknown wrote:
jetawayusa wrote:
What is crazy is that US tax payers under the "Cares Act" paid for the salary of foreign workers// Flight Attendants (non Citizens and Green Card holders) based in Tokyo Frankfurt and London.

Green card holders are US taxpayers- if you're going to troll at least get your facts straight.

What I meant was Non-Green card holder....cant edit my post now.... But what I know is that UA continued to pay the foreign base FAs (non green card holders and US citizens) that are not covered by the CaresAct with CaresAct money. As a US tax payer...UA needs to be called out on it! For example I know of one FA who was former CDG based (Non US citizen or resident) who chose to be base in NRT (She did not want to be based in FRA/LHR or HKG) She was collecting a Salary from UA during these past 4 months. She is a French citizen with no rights to work in the USA....and yet the US taxpayers are paying for her salary from the Care's Act.

They are employed under a US company, they are entitled to that money as much as anyone esle at the company.

LAXintl · Sun Sep 27, 2020 12:49 am

No shock, but AFA lost its arbitration complaint against the closure of 3 bases, clearing the way for closure next week.

Coexstud · Sun Sep 27, 2020 4:46 am

FSDan wrote:
Is this referring to pilot bases? FA bases? Both? I'm assuming these would be 777 bases?

No Yonited didn’t have international pilot bases apart from GUM

Coexstud · Sun Sep 27, 2020 4:52 am

Pinto wrote:
jetawayusa wrote:
eta unknown wrote:
Green card holders are US taxpayers- if you're going to troll at least get your facts straight.

What I meant was Non-Green card holder....cant edit my post now.... But what I know is that UA continued to pay the foreign base FAs (non green card holders and US citizens) that are not covered by the CaresAct with CaresAct money. As a US tax payer...UA needs to be called out on it! For example I know of one FA who was former CDG based (Non US citizen or resident) who chose to be base in NRT (She did not want to be based in FRA/LHR or HKG) She was collecting a Salary from UA during these past 4 months. She is a French citizen with no rights to work in the USA....and yet the US taxpayers are paying for her salary from the Care's Act.

They are employed under a US company, they are entitled to that money as much as anyone esle at the company.

And she/he is afa . The non afa bases of BKK TPE CDG SIN DEL all closed and those FA’s weren’t Collectively Bargain bound and but contractual unlike NRT HKG FRA LHR who are unionized and will seek injunctions it’s just the begging for them.....

Jamake1 · Sun Sep 27, 2020 5:20 am

Coexstud wrote:
Pinto wrote:
jetawayusa wrote:

What I meant was Non-Green card holder....cant edit my post now.... But what I know is that UA continued to pay the foreign base FAs (non green card holders and US citizens) that are not covered by the CaresAct with CaresAct money. As a US tax payer...UA needs to be called out on it! For example I know of one FA who was former CDG based (Non US citizen or resident) who chose to be base in NRT (She did not want to be based in FRA/LHR or HKG) She was collecting a Salary from UA during these past 4 months. She is a French citizen with no rights to work in the USA....and yet the US taxpayers are paying for her salary from the Care's Act.

They are employed under a US company, they are entitled to that money as much as anyone esle at the company.

And she/he is afa . The non afa bases of BKK TPE CDG SIN DEL all closed and those FA’s weren’t Collectively Bargain bound and but contractual unlike NRT HKG FRA LHR who are unionized and will seek injunctions it’s just the begging for them.....

Let me correct your historical knowledge: TPE and CDG were both AFA bases. BKK and SIN were not. When TPE closed, most of those AFA-represented F/A’s went to NRT. When CDG closed, those AFA-represented F/A’s went to LHR and FRA. DEL was never a F/A base at UA.

Blerg · Sun Sep 27, 2020 5:49 am

Will this affect their presence in FRA? Lufthansa is not doing that well right now, I can't imagine UA is rushing to restore many pre-covid flights.

eamondzhang · Sun Sep 27, 2020 8:31 am

Blerg wrote:
Will this affect their presence in FRA? Lufthansa is not doing that well right now, I can't imagine UA is rushing to restore many pre-covid flights.

Just like everyone else in the industry.

No one is doing well in pax airline market period. It's all about survival. If it means shrinking to achieve survival, so be it.

Michael

Blerg · Sun Sep 27, 2020 9:48 am

eamondzhang wrote:
Blerg wrote:
Will this affect their presence in FRA? Lufthansa is not doing that well right now, I can't imagine UA is rushing to restore many pre-covid flights.

Just like everyone else in the industry.

No one is doing well in pax airline market period. It's all about survival. If it means shrinking to achieve survival, so be it.

Michael

I didn't mean just now, I meant long-term. How will this affect them in a post-covid world? Will more flights shift to Lufthansa?

RyanairGuru · Sun Sep 27, 2020 10:22 am

Blerg wrote:
eamondzhang wrote:
Blerg wrote:
Will this affect their presence in FRA? Lufthansa is not doing that well right now, I can't imagine UA is rushing to restore many pre-covid flights.

Just like everyone else in the industry.

No one is doing well in pax airline market period. It's all about survival. If it means shrinking to achieve survival, so be it.

Michael

I didn't mean just now, I meant long-term. How will this affect them in a post-covid world? Will more flights shift to Lufthansa?

No one, not even in United HQ, can say for sure what the future network will look like. That said, FRA will of course continue to be an important market for United due to the Lufthansa JV. Every route to FRA pre-Covid came from a US crew base, so they can easily continue to serve their entire 2019 route portfolio ex-FRA without a crew base there.

seat38a · Sun Sep 27, 2020 11:42 am

Pinto wrote:
jetawayusa wrote:
eta unknown wrote:
Green card holders are US taxpayers- if you're going to troll at least get your facts straight.

What I meant was Non-Green card holder....cant edit my post now.... But what I know is that UA continued to pay the foreign base FAs (non green card holders and US citizens) that are not covered by the CaresAct with CaresAct money. As a US tax payer...UA needs to be called out on it! For example I know of one FA who was former CDG based (Non US citizen or resident) who chose to be base in NRT (She did not want to be based in FRA/LHR or HKG) She was collecting a Salary from UA during these past 4 months. She is a French citizen with no rights to work in the USA....and yet the US taxpayers are paying for her salary from the Care's Act.

They are employed under a US company, they are entitled to that money as much as anyone esle at the company.

Actually not sure how the airline portion of it is affected, but foreign employees are generally excluded from the program.

The CARES Act expressly excludes from its definition of "eligible individual" any person who is a "nonresident alien,"

https://www.nixonpeabody.com/en/ideas/b ... ice%20(IRS).

QF93 · Sun Sep 27, 2020 2:39 pm

eta unknown wrote:
Well QF has a LHR crew base and NZ just closed theirs as route cancelled. Both bases existed purely because of the LHR hotel cost issue- and yes it was cheaper to pay local LON admin staff. Are hotels cheaper- normally yes, but LON is the exception. Another unique LON issue is many hotels don't want crew business which pushes up the already high hotel rates even further.

Out of curiosity, why don’t some hotels want crew business? Is it just the discounted rates are too low relative to selling rooms at retail rates, or is there something more to it?

MIflyer12 · Sun Sep 27, 2020 2:42 pm

Pinto wrote:
They are employed under a US company, they are entitled to that money as much as anyone esle at the company.

I would guess that the employees in these bases are formally employed by foreign subsidiaries of UA, allowing the application of local (rather than U.S.) labor law. I believe that would disqualify the employees for PSP aid under the CARES Act.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/08/trav ... mulus.html

jetawayusa wrote:
eta unknown wrote:
jetawayusa wrote:
What is crazy is that US tax payers under the "Cares Act" paid for the salary of foreign workers// Flight Attendants (non Citizens and Green Card holders) based in Tokyo Frankfurt and London.

Green card holders are US taxpayers- if you're going to troll at least get your facts straight.

What I meant was Non-Green card holder....cant edit my post now.... But what I know is that UA continued to pay the foreign base FAs (non green card holders and US citizens) that are not covered by the CaresAct with CaresAct money. As a US tax payer...UA needs to be called out on it! For example I know of one FA who was former CDG based (Non US citizen or resident) who chose to be base in NRT (She did not want to be based in FRA/LHR or HKG) She was collecting a Salary from UA during these past 4 months. She is a French citizen with no rights to work in the USA....and yet the US taxpayers are paying for her salary from the Care's Act.

UA can pay salaries to anyone it wants. UA got funds to meet qualifying payroll - about 75% of that, actually. AFAIK foreign citizens aren't part of qualifying payroll.

eta unknown · Sun Sep 27, 2020 3:37 pm

Qualifying payroll- depends how the US airlines have set up how to pay their overseas staff. For example, in Australia I worked for 2 foreign carriers. One paid me directly from their head office as a bank wire transfer. The other had a local account- as to how that account was funded I didn't know or care as long as money hit my account.

eta unknown · Sun Sep 27, 2020 3:42 pm

QF93 wrote:
eta unknown wrote:
Well QF has a LHR crew base and NZ just closed theirs as route cancelled. Both bases existed purely because of the LHR hotel cost issue- and yes it was cheaper to pay local LON admin staff. Are hotels cheaper- normally yes, but LON is the exception. Another unique LON issue is many hotels don't want crew business which pushes up the already high hotel rates even further.

Out of curiosity, why don’t some hotels want crew business? Is it just the discounted rates are too low relative to selling rooms at retail rates, or is there something more to it?

Nothing more to it- you hit the nail on the head. London hotel demand far outstrips the crew rates airlines want to pay. I once knew one of the EK hotel procurement guys and he said London negotiations were a nightmare and nowhere else came even remotely close. The room rates are high and the room quality low.

EWRCabincrew · Sun Sep 27, 2020 8:29 pm

jetawayusa wrote:
eta unknown wrote:
jetawayusa wrote:
What is crazy is that US tax payers under the "Cares Act" paid for the salary of foreign workers// Flight Attendants (non Citizens and Green Card holders) based in Tokyo Frankfurt and London.

Green card holders are US taxpayers- if you're going to troll at least get your facts straight.

What I meant was Non-Green card holder....cant edit my post now.... But what I know is that UA continued to pay the foreign base FAs (non green card holders and US citizens) that are not covered by the CaresAct with CaresAct money. As a US tax payer...UA needs to be called out on it! For example I know of one FA who was former CDG based (Non US citizen or resident) who chose to be base in NRT (She did not want to be based in FRA/LHR or HKG) She was collecting a Salary from UA during these past 4 months. She is a French citizen with no rights to work in the USA....and yet the US taxpayers are paying for her salary from the Care's Act.

Their salary is guaranteed within the parameters of our contract, regardless of work status. Those who are non US residents see no differential from where or how their salary is paid. United pays their salary. The money from the CARES act pays for far more than ALL employees salaries. I would love to see where their salaries are paid 100% directly from the CARES act.

Weatherwatcher1 · Sun Sep 27, 2020 10:20 pm

QF93 wrote:
eta unknown wrote:
Well QF has a LHR crew base and NZ just closed theirs as route cancelled. Both bases existed purely because of the LHR hotel cost issue- and yes it was cheaper to pay local LON admin staff. Are hotels cheaper- normally yes, but LON is the exception. Another unique LON issue is many hotels don't want crew business which pushes up the already high hotel rates even further.

Out of curiosity, why don’t some hotels want crew business? Is it just the discounted rates are too low relative to selling rooms at retail rates, or is there something more to it?

It’s not just discounted rates. Crew contracts require the room to be available when the crew arrives. The majority of US originated flights into LHR arrive between 6am and 10am. That means hotel rooms have to be available around 7-11am. That precludes the hotel from selling the room to typical travelers who have a checkout time at 11am or Noon. Even though it’s only a single night layover where the airline pays one night, it can take the room out of generating business/leisure travelers for two nights. There’s ways around it by limiting rooms to just airline crew, however in a competitive market like London hotels that fit the airline union contracts, hotels don’t always want to complexities of serving crew which leads to hotels not offering discounted rates.

strfyr51 · Sun Sep 27, 2020 11:40 pm

UA444 wrote:
So incredibly sad. Those NRT and HKG FAs are the absolute best UA has to offer. By far the friendliest and most attentive.

Some of those people were the former Inter-Asian FA's from the NRT crew base weren't they? I had a buddy at United that Married one. And she continued to fly after they got married as she spoke 7 languages and Nearly all the Dialects of China.

exmike · Mon Sep 28, 2020 12:06 am

Coexstud wrote:
FSDan wrote:
Is this referring to pilot bases? FA bases? Both? I'm assuming these would be 777 bases?

No Yonited didn’t have international pilot bases apart from GUM

Last I checked Guam was part of the United States.

N649DL · Mon Sep 28, 2020 12:17 am

mmahpeel wrote:
Current FA populations for these base locations:

FRA - 229
HKG - 320
NRT - 364

That's actually a lot of F/A's and really sad considering how much they built out US seasonal satellite bases at MCO / FLL / SAN / AUS / TPA / SEA last year.

I'm assuming it's because these bases have super senior F/A's with a high rate of pay and probably a lack of flying hours since COVID-19 and cutting down the NRT base.

Regarding LHR? That I don't see closing at all, still lots of frequency to all the hubs. I would think HNL would be next (if that's even still open at this point.)

CobaltScar · Mon Sep 28, 2020 12:58 am

eta unknown wrote:
Nothing more to it- you hit the nail on the head. London hotel demand far outstrips the crew rates airlines want to pay. I once knew one of the EK hotel procurement guys and he said London negotiations were a nightmare and nowhere else came even remotely close. The room rates are high and the room quality low.

Interesting, I wonder how in the world B6 will afford the layover hotels because no way will they open a base there.

LH748 · Mon Sep 28, 2020 1:05 am

1 or 2 years ago I was considering to apply for the FRA base but the requirement was to have a either US citizenship or a greencard so I assume all the employees would have at least a greencard and be allowed to relocate to the US but I doubt anyone would consider this in the current situation.

eta unknown · Mon Sep 28, 2020 8:27 am

CobaltScar wrote:
eta unknown wrote:
Nothing more to it- you hit the nail on the head. London hotel demand far outstrips the crew rates airlines want to pay. I once knew one of the EK hotel procurement guys and he said London negotiations were a nightmare and nowhere else came even remotely close. The room rates are high and the room quality low.

Interesting, I wonder how in the world B6 will afford the layover hotels because no way will they open a base there.

They will be forced to pay- at least with a narrowbody it's a smaller number of rooms.

EWRCabincrew · Mon Sep 28, 2020 1:20 pm

LH748 wrote:
1 or 2 years ago I was considering to apply for the FRA base but the requirement was to have a either US citizenship or a greencard so I assume all the employees would have at least a greencard and be allowed to relocate to the US but I doubt anyone would consider this in the current situation.

With regard to applying for certain and specific FA bases, everything is seniority driven and all vacancies are to be filled by seniority and then remaining vacancies filled by need, especially with new hires.

In a nutshell, when you get hired you will go to one of the main hubs within the contiguous 48 states, usually EWR, SFO, IAD. Once at a particular base, you can put your transfer in to any base you see fit. FRA was a FA base that had no one transferring in, in years.

EWRCabincrew · Mon Sep 28, 2020 1:24 pm

N649DL wrote:
mmahpeel wrote:
Current FA populations for these base locations:

FRA - 229
HKG - 320
NRT - 364

That's actually a lot of F/A's and really sad considering how much they built out US seasonal satellite bases at MCO / FLL / SAN / AUS / TPA / SEA last year.

I'm assuming it's because these bases have super senior F/A's with a high rate of pay and probably a lack of flying hours since COVID-19 and cutting down the NRT base.

Regarding LHR? That I don't see closing at all, still lots of frequency to all the hubs. I would think HNL would be next (if that's even still open at this point.)

We do not have seasonal bases. Once they’re open, it’s a base. They operate year-round. Also known as a satellite base, meaning the base management comes from a bigger base.

jetblastdubai · Mon Sep 28, 2020 4:55 pm

QF93 wrote:

Out of curiosity, why don’t some hotels want crew business? Is it just the discounted rates are too low relative to selling rooms at retail rates, or is there something more to it?

I was told, years ago, that United owned a (relatively) nice hotel near the East Bank Club in Chicago exclusively for crew layovers. I thought it was on either Hubbard or Kinzie Street. It seems like this would be a financially sound idea in more expensive cities where you have a need to purchase a large block of rooms on a daily basis. If an airline owned a 50-100 room hotel or even purchased an apartment complex that could be used for layover crews, they could quite possibly realize a lot of savings over the long term.

I know Emirates owns several high-rise apartment buildings and villas in Dubai for their own DXB-based employees. Rents are super steep in Dubai and housing is normally included in ex-pat contracts so after the initial (huge) investment, the savings add up over time.

airzim · Mon Sep 28, 2020 5:14 pm

British Airways owned a hotel in Manhattan called the Concord. I believe they sold it years ago.

Of course in the early years of the industry several airlines owned hotel chains. Pan Am with Intercontinental Hotels, Air France-Le Meridian, Japan Airlines-Hotel Nikko, ANA also has hotels under their brand. United's holding company also owned Hyatt, and Continental Airlines owned several hotels in Micronesia. I also have a memory of Northwest owning lots of property in Japan, and that they might also owned a hotel near Narita (but that might not be true).

adv40624 · Mon Sep 28, 2020 6:34 pm

United at one time owned a hotel in Waikiki called the Seaside Hotel. It was only a block or so from the beach and had 125 rooms. They would use this hotel for crew and was also available for employees to book. They sold the hotel in 2012. United did at one time own the Westin and Hilton hotels, but I do not recall them ever owning the Hyatt. They also owned Hertz during the 80s. All these non-airline business were sold off around 1988.

In 1987, UAL Chairman Richard Ferris announced a plan to transform UAL into Allegis, a travel conglomerate based around the airline, Hertz Rent-a-Car, Hilton Hotels, and Westin and linked by Apollo, the GDS (global distribution system).

This plan failed, however, and Westin was sold in 1988 to Aoki Corporation of Japan and in 1998 Starwood Hotels & Resorts took over 100% ownership of the chain.

https://www.travelweekly.com/Hawaii-Tra ... kiki-hotel

airzim · Mon Sep 28, 2020 6:37 pm

adv40624 wrote:
United at one time owned a hotel in Waikiki called the Seaside Hotel. It was only a block or so from the beach and had 125 rooms. They would use this hotel for crew and was also available for employees to book. They sold the hotel in 2012. United did at one time own the Westin and Hilton hotels, but I do not recall them ever owning the Hyatt. They also owned Hertz during the 80s. All these non-airline business were sold off around 1988.

In 1987, UAL Chairman Richard Ferris announced a plan to transform UAL into Allegis, a travel conglomerate based around the airline, Hertz Rent-a-Car, Hilton Hotels, and Westin and linked by Apollo, the GDS (global distribution system).

This plan failed, however, and Westin was sold in 1988 to Aoki Corporation of Japan and in 1998 Starwood Hotels & Resorts took over 100% ownership of the chain.

https://www.travelweekly.com/Hawaii-Tra ... kiki-hotel

You're right. It was Westin not Hyatt.

DarkSnowyNight · Mon Sep 28, 2020 7:32 pm

WorldFlier wrote:
MIflyer12 wrote:
WorldFlier wrote:
This is the right thing to do. Hotels are cheaper than having a large support (HR, Tax, Legal, etc) infrastructure in that country.

If that were obviously and consistently true then U.S. carriers never would have set up foreign bases. There are lots of reasons that work (and workers) may not be based in the U.S. UA Corporate functions going to India, anyone?

Legacy costs from a simpler time...that stick around because change costs money.

Change costs much less when you can just axe an entire office...

As well, beyond all that, it is a legacy of a different era's technological limitations. An NRT & HKG base made sense back then as there were not exactly things like 789s capable of reaching from SFO deep into east asia. So transfer points made more sense and the cost of a crew base would have been a normal cost of doing that sort of business.

eta unknown wrote:
QF93 wrote:
eta unknown wrote:
Well QF has a LHR crew base and NZ just closed theirs as route cancelled. Both bases existed purely because of the LHR hotel cost issue- and yes it was cheaper to pay local LON admin staff. Are hotels cheaper- normally yes, but LON is the exception. Another unique LON issue is many hotels don't want crew business which pushes up the already high hotel rates even further.

Out of curiosity, why don’t some hotels want crew business? Is it just the discounted rates are too low relative to selling rooms at retail rates, or is there something more to it?

Nothing more to it- you hit the nail on the head. London hotel demand far outstrips the crew rates airlines want to pay. I once knew one of the EK hotel procurement guys and he said London negotiations were a nightmare and nowhere else came even remotely close. The room rates are high and the room quality low.

Yep. Flight and Cabin Crew are not typically known to be Party Vikings, so it really is just an availability & diminished revenue situation.

Weatherwatcher1 wrote:

It’s not just discounted rates. Crew contracts require the room to be available when the crew arrives. The majority of US originated flights into LHR arrive between 6am and 10am. That means hotel rooms have to be available around 7-11am.

Maybe thirty years ago. These days, most establishments and chains have more flexible options. Before this year, I was routinely checking in at times like that, and that was not in the purview of working for an airline.

Some chains monetize that option, some do not. But WRT airline crews, it really is just a money thing. Airline contracts really are not what they used to be.

N649DL · Mon Sep 28, 2020 10:48 pm

EWRCabincrew wrote:
N649DL wrote:
mmahpeel wrote:
Current FA populations for these base locations:

FRA - 229
HKG - 320
NRT - 364

That's actually a lot of F/A's and really sad considering how much they built out US seasonal satellite bases at MCO / FLL / SAN / AUS / TPA / SEA last year.

I'm assuming it's because these bases have super senior F/A's with a high rate of pay and probably a lack of flying hours since COVID-19 and cutting down the NRT base.

Regarding LHR? That I don't see closing at all, still lots of frequency to all the hubs. I would think HNL would be next (if that's even still open at this point.)

We do not have seasonal bases. Once they’re open, it’s a base. They operate year-round. Also known as a satellite base, meaning the base management comes from a bigger base.

Why call it a satellite base then? A base is a base meaning PHX as a base would be no different than BOS for Flight Attendants. It's confusing.

EWRCabincrew · Mon Sep 28, 2020 11:05 pm

N649DL wrote:
EWRCabincrew wrote:
N649DL wrote:

That's actually a lot of F/A's and really sad considering how much they built out US seasonal satellite bases at MCO / FLL / SAN / AUS / TPA / SEA last year.

I'm assuming it's because these bases have super senior F/A's with a high rate of pay and probably a lack of flying hours since COVID-19 and cutting down the NRT base.

Regarding LHR? That I don't see closing at all, still lots of frequency to all the hubs. I would think HNL would be next (if that's even still open at this point.)

We do not have seasonal bases. Once they’re open, it’s a base. They operate year-round. Also known as a satellite base, meaning the base management comes from a bigger base.

Why call it a satellite base then? A base is a base meaning PHX as a base would be no different than BOS for Flight Attendants. It's confusing.

That’s just the terminology used within the company. Example, MCO and FLL are satellites of EWR meaning EWR management oversees what happens there, but trips originate and terminate from those bases. BOS has local management. Just confusing for those outside the company.

N649DL · Mon Sep 28, 2020 11:32 pm

EWRCabincrew wrote:
N649DL wrote:
EWRCabincrew wrote:

We do not have seasonal bases. Once they’re open, it’s a base. They operate year-round. Also known as a satellite base, meaning the base management comes from a bigger base.

Why call it a satellite base then? A base is a base meaning PHX as a base would be no different than BOS for Flight Attendants. It's confusing.

That’s just the terminology used within the company. Example, MCO and FLL are satellites of EWR meaning EWR management oversees what happens there, but trips originate and terminate from those bases. BOS has local management. Just confusing for those outside the company.

Ah, got it. Thanks for that. I did some research on this last night and found out UA had vacancies between bases posted so for instance PHX --> DEN or rolled up to it.

So these are actual net new F/A bases for UA then? Kind of surprising that AUS even falls into this category.

EWRCabincrew · Tue Sep 29, 2020 2:58 am

N649DL wrote:
EWRCabincrew wrote:
N649DL wrote:

Why call it a satellite base then? A base is a base meaning PHX as a base would be no different than BOS for Flight Attendants. It's confusing.

That’s just the terminology used within the company. Example, MCO and FLL are satellites of EWR meaning EWR management oversees what happens there, but trips originate and terminate from those bases. BOS has local management. Just confusing for those outside the company.

Ah, got it. Thanks for that. I did some research on this last night and found out UA had vacancies between bases posted so for instance PHX --> DEN or rolled up to it.

So these are actual net new F/A bases for UA then? Kind of surprising that AUS even falls into this category.

Yes, new bases for UA. As for vacancies.....we have a transfer list given out almost 2 months in advance. For October, only EWR, DEN, IAH, IAD, SFO, LHR, ORD received transfers.

eta unknown · Tue Sep 29, 2020 2:00 pm

Weatherwatcher1 wrote:

It’s not just discounted rates. Crew contracts require the room to be available when the crew arrives. The majority of US originated flights into LHR arrive between 6am and 10am. That means hotel rooms have to be available around 7-11am.

Maybe thirty years ago. These days, most establishments and chains have more flexible options. Before this year, I was routinely checking in at times like that, and that was not in the purview of working for an airline.

Some chains monetize that option, some do not. But WRT airline crews, it really is just a money thing. Airline contracts really are not what they used to be.

I've been on both sides of the negotiating table- the early check-in/late check-out is definitely built into the rate somewhere although we always had a dedicated set of rooms we used for crew. One airline crew made a habit of gathering up all the tissue/toilet paper to take with them (we changed it to sandpaper quality to discourage this) and one US air cargo crew I had to kick out with 24 hours notice due to behavior issues.

Pinto · Tue Sep 29, 2020 4:43 pm

N649DL wrote:
EWRCabincrew wrote:
N649DL wrote:

That's actually a lot of F/A's and really sad considering how much they built out US seasonal satellite bases at MCO / FLL / SAN / AUS / TPA / SEA last year.

I'm assuming it's because these bases have super senior F/A's with a high rate of pay and probably a lack of flying hours since COVID-19 and cutting down the NRT base.

Regarding LHR? That I don't see closing at all, still lots of frequency to all the hubs. I would think HNL would be next (if that's even still open at this point.)

We do not have seasonal bases. Once they’re open, it’s a base. They operate year-round. Also known as a satellite base, meaning the base management comes from a bigger base.

Why call it a satellite base then? A base is a base meaning PHX as a base would be no different than BOS for Flight Attendants. It's confusing.

It is called a satellite base because they opened up strictly for FAs and thats is their only purpose. The purporse was to give FAs that commute out of these airports the option to work without communing.

EWRCabincrew · Wed Sep 30, 2020 2:59 pm

Pinto wrote:
N649DL wrote:
EWRCabincrew wrote:

We do not have seasonal bases. Once they’re open, it’s a base. They operate year-round. Also known as a satellite base, meaning the base management comes from a bigger base.

Why call it a satellite base then? A base is a base meaning PHX as a base would be no different than BOS for Flight Attendants. It's confusing.

It is called a satellite base because they opened up strictly for FAs and thats is their only purpose. The purporse was to give FAs that commute out of these airports the option to work without communing.

It is called a satellite base because it doesn’t have proper base management on site. The base management comes from a bigger hub.

I don’t know about if that was the purpose, we have a lot of crew who commute to the new satellite bases who do not live in those particular cities. It could be because it’s a closer commute, an easier commute, a shorter commute. The reasons are varied.

Electra · Tue Oct 13, 2020 1:24 pm

EWRCabincrew wrote:
LH748 wrote:
1 or 2 years ago I was considering to apply for the FRA base but the requirement was to have a either US citizenship or a greencard so I assume all the employees would have at least a greencard and be allowed to relocate to the US but I doubt anyone would consider this in the current situation.

With regard to applying for certain and specific FA bases, everything is seniority driven and all vacancies are to be filled by seniority and then remaining vacancies filled by need, especially with new hires.

In a nutshell, when you get hired you will go to one of the main hubs within the contiguous 48 states, usually EWR, SFO, IAD. Once at a particular base, you can put your transfer in to any base you see fit. FRA was a FA base that had no one transferring in, in years.

Interesting, for some reason I was always under the impression that SFO was a very senior base, and IAD as well for that matter. I guess you learn something new everyday! Thanks for the info

CobaltScar · Tue Oct 13, 2020 3:09 pm

Electra wrote:
EWRCabincrew wrote:
LH748 wrote:
1 or 2 years ago I was considering to apply for the FRA base but the requirement was to have a either US citizenship or a greencard so I assume all the employees would have at least a greencard and be allowed to relocate to the US but I doubt anyone would consider this in the current situation.

With regard to applying for certain and specific FA bases, everything is seniority driven and all vacancies are to be filled by seniority and then remaining vacancies filled by need, especially with new hires.

In a nutshell, when you get hired you will go to one of the main hubs within the contiguous 48 states, usually EWR, SFO, IAD. Once at a particular base, you can put your transfer in to any base you see fit. FRA was a FA base that had no one transferring in, in years.

Interesting, for some reason I was always under the impression that SFO was a very senior base, and IAD as well for that matter. I guess you learn something new everyday! Thanks for the info

It changes, but SFO constantly stays a jr. base. Why? Because SFO is absurdly expensive to live in and around and also they have a large population of street bums. On the opposite end of the spectrum there is IAH, which was and is very senior and use to be very hard to get into. Why? Because its far more affordable to live in Houston and they have less of a local homeless population harassing people going to and from work.

A few years ago ORD was a jr. base and EWR and IAD were something you'd have to wait several months at a min to transfer into out of training.

SFO consistently junior, IAH consistently senior. The others fluctuate.

Electra · Wed Oct 14, 2020 9:49 pm

CobaltScar wrote:
Electra wrote:
EWRCabincrew wrote:

With regard to applying for certain and specific FA bases, everything is seniority driven and all vacancies are to be filled by seniority and then remaining vacancies filled by need, especially with new hires.

In a nutshell, when you get hired you will go to one of the main hubs within the contiguous 48 states, usually EWR, SFO, IAD. Once at a particular base, you can put your transfer in to any base you see fit. FRA was a FA base that had no one transferring in, in years.

Interesting, for some reason I was always under the impression that SFO was a very senior base, and IAD as well for that matter. I guess you learn something new everyday! Thanks for the info

It changes, but SFO constantly stays a jr. base. Why? Because SFO is absurdly expensive to live in and around and also they have a large population of street bums. On the opposite end of the spectrum there is IAH, which was and is very senior and use to be very hard to get into. Why? Because its far more affordable to live in Houston and they have less of a local homeless population harassing people going to and from work.

A few years ago ORD was a jr. base and EWR and IAD were something you'd have to wait several months at a min to transfer into out of training.

SFO consistently junior, IAH consistently senior. The others fluctuate.

Ah ok, makes sense. I guess I was considering the type of flying out of the bases (for SFO, transpacific/Asia etc), rather than the standard of living and affordability of the cities themselves.

Thanks for your reply

airzim · Wed Oct 14, 2020 10:01 pm

CobaltScar wrote:
Electra wrote:
EWRCabincrew wrote:

With regard to applying for certain and specific FA bases, everything is seniority driven and all vacancies are to be filled by seniority and then remaining vacancies filled by need, especially with new hires.

In a nutshell, when you get hired you will go to one of the main hubs within the contiguous 48 states, usually EWR, SFO, IAD. Once at a particular base, you can put your transfer in to any base you see fit. FRA was a FA base that had no one transferring in, in years.

Interesting, for some reason I was always under the impression that SFO was a very senior base, and IAD as well for that matter. I guess you learn something new everyday! Thanks for the info

It changes, but SFO constantly stays a jr. base. Why? Because SFO is absurdly expensive to live in and around and also they have a large population of street bums. On the opposite end of the spectrum there is IAH, which was and is very senior and use to be very hard to get into. Why? Because its far more affordable to live in Houston and they have less of a local homeless population harassing people going to and from work.

A few years ago ORD was a jr. base and EWR and IAD were something you'd have to wait several months at a min to transfer into out of training.

SFO consistently junior, IAH consistently senior. The others fluctuate.

There's no doubt that San Francisco, and for that matter all major cities, have a homeless problem. I think the overwhelming reason it stays so junior (except possible for long haul) is cost of living. The same is true in EWR. The fact is, housing is not only expensive in downtown, but all across the Bay Area. Hard to live on a pilot or FA salary with any decent standard of living. New Jersey is a bit better with rail connections to the Shore and out West. But I would doubt without other means of income, most don't live in NYC. The other matter is a great many FA and pilots commute to work and have crash pads at the base and live in way cheaper locations. I would assume the commute to/from base also factors into their base location decision. Can they reliably get on a plane Space Available?

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net