Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
TUGMASTER wrote:Think JL also has a LON base
Conversely AA with upto 22 daily flights ( pre pandemic) always use a hotel.
dcajet wrote:TUGMASTER wrote:Think JL also has a LON base
Conversely AA with upto 22 daily flights ( pre pandemic) always use a hotel.
The union will not allow it. They already had to accept legacy bases (from the Braniff days) at BOG, EZE, LIM & SCL but they are fenced in: they can only operate flights to one US port of entry, Miami, and are not allowed to fly domestic sectors.
TUGMASTER wrote:Believe the Non-stop LHR-PER was crewed just by LON based cabin crew. Guess the same is now for the DRW flight.
The internals obviously being crewed by Local Aussies .
airlinepeanuts wrote:.dcajet wrote:TUGMASTER wrote:Think JL also has a LON base
Conversely AA with upto 22 daily flights ( pre pandemic) always use a hotel.
The union will not allow it. They already had to accept legacy bases (from the Braniff days) at BOG, EZE, LIM & SCL but they are fenced in: they can only operate flights to one US port of entry, Miami, and are not allowed to fly domestic sectors.
I don’t get why the union won’t allow it, isn’t the alternative (potentially) no London flying at all?
smi0006 wrote:I would also suggest PER-FCO will probably be crew by LHR base, with 24hr layover in PER and FCO due to frequency and lower labour costs. LHR-PER-FCO-pax LHR.
skipness1E wrote:What % of LHR flying is on London based crews with United?
qf2220 wrote:smi0006 wrote:I would also suggest PER-FCO will probably be crew by LHR base, with 24hr layover in PER and FCO due to frequency and lower labour costs. LHR-PER-FCO-pax LHR.
Why not LHR-PER-FCO/CDG/Other europe-PER-LHR?
AAMDanny wrote:It's worth noting CX also has a sizeable crew base at LHR.
eta unknown wrote:The same reason NZ used to have one: LON hotel costs, arguably the most costly and difficult to negotiate in the world. The crew per diem expenses are also high for LON.
zeke wrote:AAMDanny wrote:It's worth noting CX also has a sizeable crew base at LHR.
Closed recently
jetskipper wrote:United has a Flight Attendant base there as well.
dcajet wrote:airlinepeanuts wrote:.dcajet wrote:
The union will not allow it. They already had to accept legacy bases (from the Braniff days) at BOG, EZE, LIM & SCL but they are fenced in: they can only operate flights to one US port of entry, Miami, and are not allowed to fly domestic sectors.
I don’t get why the union won’t allow it, isn’t the alternative (potentially) no London flying at all?
And why would AA stop flying to London? Probably the most profitable (in normal times) international station, up there with GRU & EZE. AA will never give up London flying.
The US union is doing what it is supposed to do: protect US jobs. If AA were to open a London base, it would have to staff it with foreign nationals and those trips would be lost for good for the US F/As. And yes, United has a London base, but it should be said that UA grandfathered that base when it acquired the London routes from Pan Am back in 1991. I doubt very much that UA would have opened it on their own. Further to my point, UA has closed all its Asia bases recently (HKG, NRT & SIN). In a context where they were letting go US based F/As it is very hard to justify these foreign nationals' bases. After all, both AA and UA are US based corporations and their first priority should be to employ Americans first, whenever practical or feasible.
skipness1E wrote:Didn't they also have LHR based pilots too?
ContinentalEWR wrote:dcajet wrote:airlinepeanuts wrote:.
I don’t get why the union won’t allow it, isn’t the alternative (potentially) no London flying at all?
And why would AA stop flying to London? Probably the most profitable (in normal times) international station, up there with GRU & EZE. AA will never give up London flying.
The US union is doing what it is supposed to do: protect US jobs. If AA were to open a London base, it would have to staff it with foreign nationals and those trips would be lost for good for the US F/As. And yes, United has a London base, but it should be said that UA grandfathered that base when it acquired the London routes from Pan Am back in 1991. I doubt very much that UA would have opened it on their own. Further to my point, UA has closed all its Asia bases recently (HKG, NRT & SIN). In a context where they were letting go US based F/As it is very hard to justify these foreign nationals' bases. After all, both AA and UA are US based corporations and their first priority should be to employ Americans first, whenever practical or feasible.
AA has a crew base in EZE as well, and I think still do in BOG and SCL. I believe the rules prevent those crews from working US domestic flights.
dcajet wrote:TUGMASTER wrote:Think JL also has a LON base
Conversely AA with upto 22 daily flights ( pre pandemic) always use a hotel.
The union will not allow it. They already had to accept legacy bases (from the Braniff days) at BOG, EZE, LIM & SCL but they are fenced in: they can only operate flights to one US port of entry, Miami, and are not allowed to fly domestic sectors.
LGWFAN wrote:Hi all,
Apologies if this has been posted before, however, I’m interested to know the rationale behind Qantas’ LHR crew base?
Many thanks.
Ionosphere wrote:dcajet wrote:TUGMASTER wrote:Think JL also has a LON base
Conversely AA with upto 22 daily flights ( pre pandemic) always use a hotel.
The union will not allow it. They already had to accept legacy bases (from the Braniff days) at BOG, EZE, LIM & SCL but they are fenced in: they can only operate flights to one US port of entry, Miami, and are not allowed to fly domestic sectors.
The UA LHR base is staffed by AFA represented FAs.
Ionosphere wrote:dcajet wrote:TUGMASTER wrote:Think JL also has a LON base
Conversely AA with upto 22 daily flights ( pre pandemic) always use a hotel.
The union will not allow it. They already had to accept legacy bases (from the Braniff days) at BOG, EZE, LIM & SCL but they are fenced in: they can only operate flights to one US port of entry, Miami, and are not allowed to fly domestic sectors.
The UA LHR base is staffed by AFA represented FAs.
jetskipper wrote:Ionosphere wrote:dcajet wrote:
The union will not allow it. They already had to accept legacy bases (from the Braniff days) at BOG, EZE, LIM & SCL but they are fenced in: they can only operate flights to one US port of entry, Miami, and are not allowed to fly domestic sectors.
The UA LHR base is staffed by AFA represented FAs.
Correct, a LHR based flight attendant could
base trade to CLE or GUM for instance and anyone from a UA domestic base could bid LHR.
dcajet wrote:airlinepeanuts wrote:.dcajet wrote:
The union will not allow it. They already had to accept legacy bases (from the Braniff days) at BOG, EZE, LIM & SCL but they are fenced in: they can only operate flights to one US port of entry, Miami, and are not allowed to fly domestic sectors.
I don’t get why the union won’t allow it, isn’t the alternative (potentially) no London flying at all?
And why would AA stop flying to London? Probably the most profitable (in normal times) international station, up there with GRU & EZE. AA will never give up London flying.
airbazar wrote:dcajet wrote:airlinepeanuts wrote:.
I don’t get why the union won’t allow it, isn’t the alternative (potentially) no London flying at all?
And why would AA stop flying to London? Probably the most profitable (in normal times) international station, up there with GRU & EZE. AA will never give up London flying.
Maybe not out right stop it but reduced frequencies and fewer routes are very much a reality. AA has stopped some routes to LHR in the past in lieu of BA. There are also some city pairs with a larger BA presence than a AA presence, and in some instances no AA presence at all. Part of the reason is because it's cheaper for BA to operate the route and part of the reason why it's cheaper it's because AA doesn't have a base at LHR. The idea that the Union wants to protect American jobs is out right misleading in this day and age. The Union's number one priority is to collect union dues to maintain its political clout. Preserving jobs is just the means to that end.
zeke wrote:Crewing them out of Australia and the U.K. each sector effectively only needs an overnight down route. Crews can be scheduled for more flights a month.
eta unknown wrote:The same reason NZ used to have one: LON hotel costs, arguably the most costly and difficult to negotiate in the world. The crew per diem expenses are also high for LON.
a350lover wrote:
More flights per month with a crew group which only operates ultra-long haul flights like the QF LHR crews isn't exactly possible. Assuming max 100hrs per month (in 28days) is rostered to anyone... I don't think QF crews can fly more than 2 Perths per month. LHR-PER-LHR 2 times leaves you very close to 90 flying hours. Not much they can fly.
flyjay123 wrote:eta unknown wrote:The same reason NZ used to have one: LON hotel costs, arguably the most costly and difficult to negotiate in the world. The crew per diem expenses are also high for LON.
BA has a few India crew bases, they have to hotel those crews in Lon..... so how does your logic work here compared to cheaper hotels in India UK based crews?
airbazar wrote:dcajet wrote:airlinepeanuts wrote:.
I don’t get why the union won’t allow it, isn’t the alternative (potentially) no London flying at all?
And why would AA stop flying to London? Probably the most profitable (in normal times) international station, up there with GRU & EZE. AA will never give up London flying.
Maybe not out right stop it but reduced frequencies and fewer routes are very much a reality. AA has stopped some routes to LHR in the past in lieu of BA. There are also some city pairs with a larger BA presence than a AA presence, and in some instances no AA presence at all. Part of the reason is because it's cheaper for BA to operate the route and part of the reason why it's cheaper it's because AA doesn't have a base at LHR. The idea that the Union wants to protect American jobs is out right misleading in this day and age. The Union's number one priority is to collect union dues to maintain its political clout. Preserving jobs is just the means to that end.
WA707atMSP wrote:John Nance's book about Braniff's decline, Splash of Colors, says when Braniff tried to sell their South American routes to PA, PA did not want to assume Braniff's bases in South America. Nance goes on to say that many of the Braniff flight attendants based in South American were the daughters of influential government employees and business executives in the countries where they were based, and the countries served by Braniff voiced opposition to Pan Am taking over the routes partly because these women would lose their jobs.
Eastern agreed to assume Braniff's South American bases, which made the South American countries served by Braniff more agreeable to an Eastern takeover of Braniff's routes.
dcajet wrote:airlinepeanuts wrote:.dcajet wrote:
The union will not allow it. They already had to accept legacy bases (from the Braniff days) at BOG, EZE, LIM & SCL but they are fenced in: they can only operate flights to one US port of entry, Miami, and are not allowed to fly domestic sectors.
I don’t get why the union won’t allow it, isn’t the alternative (potentially) no London flying at all?
And why would AA stop flying to London? Probably the most profitable (in normal times) international station, up there with GRU & EZE. AA will never give up London flying.
The US union is doing what it is supposed to do: protect US jobs. If AA were to open a London base, it would have to staff it with foreign nationals and those trips would be lost for good for the US F/As.
jfklganyc wrote:airbazar wrote:dcajet wrote:.
And why would AA stop flying to London? Probably the most profitable (in normal times) international station, up there with GRU & EZE. AA will never give up London flying.
Maybe not out right stop it but reduced frequencies and fewer routes are very much a reality. AA has stopped some routes to LHR in the past in lieu of BA. There are also some city pairs with a larger BA presence than a AA presence, and in some instances no AA presence at all. Part of the reason is because it's cheaper for BA to operate the route and part of the reason why it's cheaper it's because AA doesn't have a base at LHR. The idea that the Union wants to protect American jobs is out right misleading in this day and age. The Union's number one priority is to collect union dues to maintain its political clout. Preserving jobs is just the means to that end.
London and NY are must flies. LA and Paris are just below.
No airline is stopping any flying based on hotel logistics or base logistics
dcajet wrote:Not sure what to say other than "tell me you dislike unions without telling me you dislike unions".
TUGMASTER wrote:Think JL also has a LON base
qantas330 wrote:Slightly off topic but SAS out of LHR seem to employ UK crew and also pilots. Does anyone know exactly how that works`?
skipness1E wrote:qantas330 wrote:Slightly off topic but SAS out of LHR seem to employ UK crew and also pilots. Does anyone know exactly how that works`?
It's called SAIL and it's a union busting, cost cutting arms length subsidiary which has a fleet of Irish registered NEOs under the "Spinnaker" callsign. It's just lower cost SAS using SAS aircraft in SAS livery employing non Scandinavian labour. It only got past the unions by a promise of they wouldn't be based flying out of Scandinavia, which I believe they now are.
zeke wrote:a350lover wrote:
More flights per month with a crew group which only operates ultra-long haul flights like the QF LHR crews isn't exactly possible. Assuming max 100hrs per month (in 28days) is rostered to anyone... I don't think QF crews can fly more than 2 Perths per month. LHR-PER-LHR 2 times leaves you very close to 90 flying hours. Not much they can fly.
What I had in mind were the one stops via sin, Australian based crews could do more sin turns
FURUREFA wrote:dcajet wrote:airlinepeanuts wrote:.
I don’t get why the union won’t allow it, isn’t the alternative (potentially) no London flying at all?
And why would AA stop flying to London? Probably the most profitable (in normal times) international station, up there with GRU & EZE. AA will never give up London flying.
The US union is doing what it is supposed to do: protect US jobs. If AA were to open a London base, it would have to staff it with foreign nationals and those trips would be lost for good for the US F/As.
Not sure why APFA would care as long as they're APFA flight attendants, with the same seniority list / contract (like UA's AFA-represented flight attendants in LHR, and formerly HKG / NRT / FRA / CDG - not sure if I'm missing any).
airbazar wrote:How is a flight operated by BA better for AA's Unions?
skipness1E wrote:qantas330 wrote:Slightly off topic but SAS out of LHR seem to employ UK crew and also pilots. Does anyone know exactly how that works`?
It's called SAIL and it's a union busting, cost cutting arms length subsidiary which has a fleet of Irish registered NEOs under the "Spinnaker" callsign. It's just lower cost SAS using SAS aircraft in SAS livery employing non Scandinavian labour. It only got past the unions by a promise of they wouldn't be based flying out of Scandinavia, which I believe they now are.
dcajet wrote:FURUREFA wrote:dcajet wrote:.
And why would AA stop flying to London? Probably the most profitable (in normal times) international station, up there with GRU & EZE. AA will never give up London flying.
The US union is doing what it is supposed to do: protect US jobs. If AA were to open a London base, it would have to staff it with foreign nationals and those trips would be lost for good for the US F/As.
Not sure why APFA would care as long as they're APFA flight attendants, with the same seniority list / contract (like UA's AFA-represented flight attendants in LHR, and formerly HKG / NRT / FRA / CDG - not sure if I'm missing any).
In the case of American's foreign nationals' bases, those F/As are NOT APFA members.
gabrielchew wrote:TUGMASTER wrote:Think JL also has a LON base
Not sure about JL, but NH still have a LHR base.
eta unknown wrote:flyjay123 wrote:eta unknown wrote:The same reason NZ used to have one: LON hotel costs, arguably the most costly and difficult to negotiate in the world. The crew per diem expenses are also high for LON.
BA has a few India crew bases, they have to hotel those crews in Lon..... so how does your logic work here compared to cheaper hotels in India UK based crews?
The number of Indian crew compared to the total number employed is small. Also bear in mind BA has more bargaining power in the UK than foreign carriers.