Cant seem to find a complete article yet but has seemed to be confirmed on both the AeroExplorer instagram as well as the United Pilot Forums


Link to the original post:
https://www.instagram.com/p/ClmyHDws_Fx/?igshid=NDk5N2NlZjQ=

Being discussed in United thread along with copy of the memo announcement.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1468679

Very interesting, I do think that this warrants its own thread though, since most people won't dig through the UA thread to find this, and this is fairly big news.

Anyway, cue the "is UA making a hub in LAS and MCO?" rumors...

Gulfstream500 wrote:

Very interesting, I do think that this warrants its own thread though, since most people won't dig through the UA thread to find this, and this is fairly big news.

Anyway, cue the "is UA making a hub in LAS and MCO?" rumors...

Ed Russell has a good writeup as always, and he points out that the letter from UA explicitly states that this is no announcement of hub building:

https://airlineweekly.com/2022/11/unite ... s-drag-on/

LAS, MCO, and TPA all have something in common: they all have service at minimum to UA's seven main hubs, and they all skew mainline-heavy (particularly on the 737.) Putting bases in those cities definitely makes sense, and I wouldn't be surprised if they think about opening more bases in other cities that meet those criteria as well (BOS, PHX, SEA, AUS.)

intotheair wrote:

LAS, MCO, and TPA all have something in common: they all have service at minimum to UA's seven main hubs, and they all skew mainline-heavy (particularly on the 737.) Putting bases in those cities definitely makes sense, and I wouldn't be surprised if they think about opening more bases in other cities that meet those criteria as well (BOS, PHX, SEA, AUS.)

All of those, minus SEA, are inflight satellite or full blown bases as well.

This is about quality of life and operational integrity. They’re huge commuter cities. Eliminating a commute for crews is incredibly enticing, for obvious reasons. Operationally, the amount of money spent on hotel rooms in both cities is astounding. This is a win all around for United and its pilots.

This is going to induce further difficulties for LCC airline hiring. Many pilots favor Spirit/Frontier/JetBlue etc for their Florida bases (and LAS for the first two).

TonyClifton wrote:

This is going to induce further difficulties for LCC airline hiring. Many pilots favor Spirit/Frontier/JetBlue etc for their Florida bases (and LAS for the first two).

Operationally, smart. Cost wise, smart. Recruiting wise, excellent move pointed out by Tony.

Surprised United did not do this years ago. Hopefully it works well.

I know of more than a couple UA pilots are going to be very very excited to hear this. Happy early holidays to them

Las Vegas and MCO/TPA. I wonder if they're trying to entice some NK/B6 pilots to join United.

TonyClifton wrote:

This is going to induce further difficulties for LCC airline hiring. Many pilots favor Spirit/Frontier/JetBlue etc for their Florida bases (and LAS for the first two).

Allowing hires to go to low tax/no tax/lower cost of living states vs high-tax and regulation California Illinois, DC/Virginia and New York.

It would be interesting to observe the first few bids and learn what the trends are. Also an incentive for pilots to remain on the 737, to stay in those places.

That aside, it allows United to add more leisure as needed, given economic conditions.

kiowa wrote:

Surprised United did not do this years ago. Hopefully it works well.

IIRC, United had a base in Tampa for several years?

FlyingElvii wrote:

TonyClifton wrote:

This is going to induce further difficulties for LCC airline hiring. Many pilots favor Spirit/Frontier/JetBlue etc for their Florida bases (and LAS for the first two).

Allowing hires to go to low tax/no tax/lower cost of living states vs high-tax and regulation California Illinois, DC/Virginia and New York.

It would be interesting to observe the first few bids and learn what the trends are.

Yep it is tempting to think that this is a way to entice Spirit, Frontier, and JetBlue pilots to come to United instead of another major. But I bet these bases will go senior, making them off limits to new hires at least for the first year or two. Like others have said, airline employees want to maximize their standard of living by getting out of expensive coastal cities. LAS and MCO are ideal ways to do that.

I also think this is about layover costs. With the new "premium leisure" boom, Vegas - and especially Florida - are red hot. Hotels are very expensive. With hundreds of 737s in the fleet, UA knows it is going to have dozens of 737 pilots laying over in these cities for the foreseeable future. This is a way to avoid paying for those layovers, and to shift hotel costs to smaller cities where room prices are lower.

FlyingElvii wrote:

Also an incentive for pilots to remain on the 737, to stay in those places.

This is also a good point. I know one 737 pilot who lives in LAS who has considered upgrading to a widebody, but I can guarantee he'll be taking a very very close look at this, as he hates commuting. Can almost guarantee he'll take LAS 737 (if he can hold it) versus upgrading if it means he can stop commuting.

TW870 wrote:

With the new "premium leisure" boom, Vegas - and especially Florida - are red hot. Hotels are very expensive. With hundreds of 737s in the fleet, UA knows it is going to have dozens of 737 pilots laying over in these cities for the foreseeable future. This is a way to avoid paying for those layovers, and to shift hotel costs to smaller cities where room prices are lower.

It's potentially also a way to tap leisure demand at lower cost on off-peak days/seasons. It's not opening a hub since few connections would be offered (probably just to 3M) but they could do some out-and-back trips to non-hub markets -- things like Saturday-only MCO-IND or TPA-MSN.

ScottB wrote:

TW870 wrote:

With the new "premium leisure" boom, Vegas - and especially Florida - are red hot. Hotels are very expensive. With hundreds of 737s in the fleet, UA knows it is going to have dozens of 737 pilots laying over in these cities for the foreseeable future. This is a way to avoid paying for those layovers, and to shift hotel costs to smaller cities where room prices are lower.

It's potentially also a way to tap leisure demand at lower cost on off-peak days/seasons. It's not opening a hub since few connections would be offered (probably just to 3M) but they could do some out-and-back trips to non-hub markets -- things like Saturday-only MCO-IND or TPA-MSN.

United toyed with this a bit during the pandemic, why not add a few point-to-point flights to reposition crews.

ScottB wrote:

TW870 wrote:

With the new "premium leisure" boom, Vegas - and especially Florida - are red hot. Hotels are very expensive. With hundreds of 737s in the fleet, UA knows it is going to have dozens of 737 pilots laying over in these cities for the foreseeable future. This is a way to avoid paying for those layovers, and to shift hotel costs to smaller cities where room prices are lower.

It's potentially also a way to tap leisure demand at lower cost on off-peak days/seasons. It's not opening a hub since few connections would be offered (probably just to 3M) but they could do some out-and-back trips to non-hub markets -- things like Saturday-only MCO-IND or TPA-MSN.

A lot of the Saturday leisure stuff has operated in the past with the opposite schedule (effectively an out and back IND-MCO-IND, for instance, though it may not have been crewed that way). I think out-and-backs from MCO are generally a better schedule for leisure passengers: check out and head to the airport to fly home northbound, arrive and go straight to the hotel to begin scheduled activities Sunday southbound. The same is probably true for potential LAS options like LAS-OKC, though Las Vegas passengers seem to trend less schedule sensitive.

TW870 wrote:

I also think this is about layover costs. With the new "premium leisure" boom, Vegas - and especially Florida - are red hot. Hotels are very expensive. With hundreds of 737s in the fleet, UA knows it is going to have dozens of 737 pilots laying over in these cities for the foreseeable future. This is a way to avoid paying for those layovers, and to shift hotel costs to smaller cities where room prices are lower.

Why are there (many) scheduled layovers in LAS? Can't they be avoided with rotations something like same-day ORD-LAS-ORD? SFO-LAS-EWR?

MIflyer12 wrote:

TW870 wrote:

I also think this is about layover costs. With the new "premium leisure" boom, Vegas - and especially Florida - are red hot. Hotels are very expensive. With hundreds of 737s in the fleet, UA knows it is going to have dozens of 737 pilots laying over in these cities for the foreseeable future. This is a way to avoid paying for those layovers, and to shift hotel costs to smaller cities where room prices are lower.

Why are there (many) scheduled layovers in LAS? Can't they be avoided with rotations something like same-day ORD-LAS-ORD? SFO-LAS-EWR?

RONs. You can't get every evening arrival out of town on a redeye.

TPA will require a LOA with ALPA and they made it clear last night that a contract is the priority not giving the company a co-terminal.

floridaflyboy wrote:

FlyingElvii wrote:

Also an incentive for pilots to remain on the 737, to stay in those places.

This is also a good point. I know one 737 pilot who lives in LAS who has considered upgrading to a widebody, but I can guarantee he'll be taking a very very close look at this, as he hates commuting. Can almost guarantee he'll take LAS 737 (if he can hold it) versus upgrading if it means he can stop commuting.

Forgive but I do not understand the term of pilots commuting, could you explain pls. I have no experience of crew ops.

If the pandemic taught corporate America anything it's that remote work is possible and, in some cases, optimal to traditional on site model. Modern crew bases don't need large amounts of real estate with computers, briefing rooms & layers of management.
Flight & cabin crew have access to all the information needed on their personal phones and company issued PDAs. Scheduling dispatch & operations issues requiring human intervention can be handled over the phone by existing support infrastructure. I hope we see more of this in the future. The QOL boost is huge.

panam330 wrote:

This is a win all around for United and its pilots.

Why only mention pilots....FA's also commute?

Vicenza wrote:

panam330 wrote:

This is a win all around for United and its pilots.

Why only mention pilots....FA's also commute?

This is a discussion on a pilot base. Nothing to do with FAs.

Also the FAs already have a base in MCO and LAS

Vicenza wrote:

panam330 wrote:

This is a win all around for United and its pilots.

Why only mention pilots....FA's also commute?

Because they aren't part of this announcement. The FA's already have a TPA and LAS base.

airtran737 wrote:

Vicenza wrote:

panam330 wrote:

This is a win all around for United and its pilots.

Why only mention pilots....FA's also commute?

Because they aren't part of this announcement. The FA's already have a TPA and LAS base.

Not that big of a deal, MCO is an easy two-hour van ride most days.
3am callout, 5am report, 2 hour van ride, one hour ground side, and they can work an 8-ish AM departure to anywhere.

TPA would work the same for Cockpit crew, but I am sure United will eventually push for a co-base, as many airlines consider MIA-FLL or New York to be.
With the growth around Lakeland, it is eventually going to be a mega-metro anyway.

Cubsrule wrote:

MIflyer12 wrote:

TW870 wrote:

I also think this is about layover costs. With the new "premium leisure" boom, Vegas - and especially Florida - are red hot. Hotels are very expensive. With hundreds of 737s in the fleet, UA knows it is going to have dozens of 737 pilots laying over in these cities for the foreseeable future. This is a way to avoid paying for those layovers, and to shift hotel costs to smaller cities where room prices are lower.

Why are there (many) scheduled layovers in LAS? Can't they be avoided with rotations something like same-day ORD-LAS-ORD? SFO-LAS-EWR?

RONs. You can't get every evening arrival out of town on a redeye.

That is absolutely right, as both of these airports have large numbers of remain over night (RON) airplanes. This is especially true at MCO where geography precludes redeye utilization. Yes, eastern time allows them to launch some late departures to DEN, IAH, and the west coast, but you have many airplanes sitting on the ground overnight. Right now, all of those crews layover in hotel markets that are booming. The will allow them to staff dozens of early morning departures in both LAS and MCO with local crews instead of those coming from the hotel.

Cubsrule wrote:

MIflyer12 wrote:

TW870 wrote:

I also think this is about layover costs. With the new "premium leisure" boom, Vegas - and especially Florida - are red hot. Hotels are very expensive. With hundreds of 737s in the fleet, UA knows it is going to have dozens of 737 pilots laying over in these cities for the foreseeable future. This is a way to avoid paying for those layovers, and to shift hotel costs to smaller cities where room prices are lower.

Why are there (many) scheduled layovers in LAS? Can't they be avoided with rotations something like same-day ORD-LAS-ORD? SFO-LAS-EWR?

RONs. You can't get every evening arrival out of town on a redeye.

Which is perhaps a downside of LAS and why it will probably go more junior than MCO... lots of all-nighters.

codc10 wrote:

Cubsrule wrote:

MIflyer12 wrote:

Why are there (many) scheduled layovers in LAS? Can't they be avoided with rotations something like same-day ORD-LAS-ORD? SFO-LAS-EWR?

RONs. You can't get every evening arrival out of town on a redeye.

Which is perhaps a downside of LAS and why it will probably go more junior than MCO... lots of all-nighters.

Do UA pilots have contractual protection from working a flight after a redeye? If so, staffing redeyes with LAS crews just moves the hotel room "problem" from LAS to the hubs.

Italianflyer wrote:

If the pandemic taught corporate America anything it's that remote work is possible and, in some cases, optimal to traditional on site model. Modern crew bases don't need large amounts of real estate with computers, briefing rooms & layers of management.
Flight & cabin crew have access to all the information needed on their personal phones and company issued PDAs. Scheduling dispatch & operations issues requiring human intervention can be handled over the phone by existing support infrastructure. I hope we see more of this in the future. The QOL boost is huge.

We’ve been told that these new bases will be staffed like any other base, chief pilots, crew areas etc. So pilots will have the same planning areas, computers, etc. as any other domicile, so I don’t see the comparison with regular corporate America trending towards remote work.

Cubsrule wrote:

codc10 wrote:

Cubsrule wrote:

RONs. You can't get every evening arrival out of town on a redeye.

Which is perhaps a downside of LAS and why it will probably go more junior than MCO... lots of all-nighters.

Do UA pilots have contractual protection from working a flight after a redeye? If so, staffing redeyes with LAS crews just moves the hotel room "problem" from LAS to the hubs.

There are numerous contractual protections with all night flying, but all you really need after operating a red eye is legal rest. People based on the West Coast fly a lot of red eyes and already did a lot of day stays in hubs. This will be no different.

Interesting.

A high cost full service airline basing / hubbing in 2 chronically low yield markets.

I can’t see this working out well.

The discussion is off track. The crew base has nothing to do with more flights or a hub. Simply allowing pilots to stop commuting and give an employee perk to attract more pilots

Caspian27 wrote:

Cubsrule wrote:

codc10 wrote:

Which is perhaps a downside of LAS and why it will probably go more junior than MCO... lots of all-nighters.

Do UA pilots have contractual protection from working a flight after a redeye? If so, staffing redeyes with LAS crews just moves the hotel room "problem" from LAS to the hubs.

There are numerous contractual protections with all night flying, but all you really need after operating a red eye is legal rest. People based on the West Coast fly a lot of red eyes and already did a lot of day stays in hubs. This will be no different.

My question was a little different. Can UA pilots operate, say, LAS-ORD-IND as a contractual matter? That’s a legal itinerary FAR-wise unless the ORD layover is really long.

Cubsrule wrote:

Caspian27 wrote:

Cubsrule wrote:

Do UA pilots have contractual protection from working a flight after a redeye? If so, staffing redeyes with LAS crews just moves the hotel room "problem" from LAS to the hubs.

There are numerous contractual protections with all night flying, but all you really need after operating a red eye is legal rest. People based on the West Coast fly a lot of red eyes and already did a lot of day stays in hubs. This will be no different.

My question was a little different. Can UA pilots operate, say, LAS-ORD-IND as a contractual matter? That’s a legal itinerary FAR-wise unless the ORD layover is really long.

No, that's not contractually allowable. We must have an off-duty period (legal rest, i.e. a minimum of 10 hours) after any ANF or All Night Flying.

Acey559 wrote:

Cubsrule wrote:

Caspian27 wrote:

There are numerous contractual protections with all night flying, but all you really need after operating a red eye is legal rest. People based on the West Coast fly a lot of red eyes and already did a lot of day stays in hubs. This will be no different.

My question was a little different. Can UA pilots operate, say, LAS-ORD-IND as a contractual matter? That’s a legal itinerary FAR-wise unless the ORD layover is really long.

No, that's not contractually allowable. We must have an off-duty period (legal rest, i.e. a minimum of 10 hours) after any ANF or All Night Flying.

Thanks. That’s what I expected. What that means is that having a LAS crew operate LAS redeyes results in hotel expenses at the hubs.

Surprised no one has brought up the possibility of these crew bases being the precursor to opening a new hub or hubs, MCO seems particularly likely

Max Q wrote:

Surprised no one has brought up the possibility of these crew bases being the precursor to opening a new hub or hubs, MCO seems particularly likely

United would lose a lot of money with an MCO hub. Yields are too low especially for a carrier like UA.

This is being done to keep pilots happy.

Cubsrule wrote:

Acey559 wrote:

Cubsrule wrote:

My question was a little different. Can UA pilots operate, say, LAS-ORD-IND as a contractual matter? That’s a legal itinerary FAR-wise unless the ORD layover is really long.

No, that's not contractually allowable. We must have an off-duty period (legal rest, i.e. a minimum of 10 hours) after any ANF or All Night Flying.

Thanks. That’s what I expected. What that means is that having a LAS crew operate LAS redeyes results in hotel expenses at the hubs.

Hotel savings are not the prime benefit of opening a pilot domicile, but it is notable that LAS and MCO are costly hotel markets and less seasonal than in years past. Any trip with an ANF leg is going to have a hotel stay somewhere in the pairing, so if it's in a market where UA has major economies of scale (like a hub), it might be cheaper to shift hotel costs there rather than the non-hub.

United clearly has determined the goodwill among an increasingly-disgruntled workgroup, incremental reliability improvements, marginal hotel cost savings and recruiting advantage of Nevada and Florida pilot bases outweigh the additional expense and operational complexity of adding new domiciles.

Cubsrule wrote:

Acey559 wrote:

Cubsrule wrote:

My question was a little different. Can UA pilots operate, say, LAS-ORD-IND as a contractual matter? That’s a legal itinerary FAR-wise unless the ORD layover is really long.

No, that's not contractually allowable. We must have an off-duty period (legal rest, i.e. a minimum of 10 hours) after any ANF or All Night Flying.

Thanks. That’s what I expected. What that means is that having a LAS crew operate LAS redeyes results in hotel expenses at the hubs.

That is unlikely. The redeyes out of LAS are to ORD, EWR, and IAD, all of which are crew bases. Since the contract requires rest after an all nighter, it is most efficient to schedule the all nighter with ORD, EWR, and IAD-based crews on the last leg of a trip.

The cost savings come in not needing hotels for the late night arrival RONs - which turn into the morning departures.

Cubsrule wrote:

Acey559 wrote:

Cubsrule wrote:

My question was a little different. Can UA pilots operate, say, LAS-ORD-IND as a contractual matter? That’s a legal itinerary FAR-wise unless the ORD layover is really long.

No, that's not contractually allowable. We must have an off-duty period (legal rest, i.e. a minimum of 10 hours) after any ANF or All Night Flying.

Thanks. That’s what I expected. What that means is that having a LAS crew operate LAS redeyes results in hotel expenses at the hubs.

I would expect limited of the LAS red-eyes to be crewed with LAS crews on day 1 of their trip. It makes more sense to crew those red-eyes (when possible) with crews from other bases as they can efficiently fly a leg before hand.

For what it's worth, we had a town hall yesterday and we were specifically told by one of the people who is in charge of pairing construction that LAS will have a high concentration of red eyes. Whether that's to start the ID or somewhere in the middle I'm not sure he specified, but he did make a point to address it.

Max Q wrote:

Surprised no one has brought up the possibility of these crew bases being the precursor to opening a new hub or hubs, MCO seems particularly likely

Crew base doesn’t equal a “hub”. It will be a place crews originate and terminate trips from. That’s all>…

alasizon wrote:

Cubsrule wrote:

Acey559 wrote:

No, that's not contractually allowable. We must have an off-duty period (legal rest, i.e. a minimum of 10 hours) after any ANF or All Night Flying.

Thanks. That’s what I expected. What that means is that having a LAS crew operate LAS redeyes results in hotel expenses at the hubs.

I would expect limited of the LAS red-eyes to be crewed with LAS crews on day 1 of their trip. It makes more sense to crew those red-eyes (when possible) with crews from other bases as they can efficiently fly a leg before hand.

LAS crews should be able to fly a LAX or SFO turn and still be legal to operate at least the shorter redeyes. That’s actually a fairly efficient day.

Cubsrule wrote:

alasizon wrote:

Cubsrule wrote:

Thanks. That’s what I expected. What that means is that having a LAS crew operate LAS redeyes results in hotel expenses at the hubs.

I would expect limited of the LAS red-eyes to be crewed with LAS crews on day 1 of their trip. It makes more sense to crew those red-eyes (when possible) with crews from other bases as they can efficiently fly a leg before hand.

LAS crews should be able to fly a LAX or SFO turn and still be legal to operate at least the shorter redeyes. That’s actually a fairly efficient day.

It would be, but the company is restricted by ALPA to constructing pairings that contain only one ANF segment. ALPA can waive that provision to allow a maximum of two flight segments (LAS-LAX-EWR, for example) but that's the most we would ever be able to do and only with union concurrence.

Acey559 wrote:

Cubsrule wrote:

alasizon wrote:

I would expect limited of the LAS red-eyes to be crewed with LAS crews on day 1 of their trip. It makes more sense to crew those red-eyes (when possible) with crews from other bases as they can efficiently fly a leg before hand.

LAS crews should be able to fly a LAX or SFO turn and still be legal to operate at least the shorter redeyes. That’s actually a fairly efficient day.

It would be, but the company is restricted by ALPA to constructing pairings that contain only one ANF segment. ALPA can waive that provision to allow a maximum of two flight segments (LAS-LAX-EWR, for example) but that's the most we would ever be able to do and only with union concurrence.

With that restriction—and I don’t view waiver as a very real possibility given the current labor climate—it really doesn’t matter what base operates the flights from a cost/efficiency perspective.

jimbo737 wrote:

Interesting.

A high cost full service airline basing / hubbing in 2 chronically low yield markets.

I can’t see this working out well.

This is not a hub announcement; in fact it specifically notes no hubs are forthcoming. This is about pilot bases to better help scheduling, pilot retention, quality of life etc. FAs have had bases there for years. It also does not cost UA much at all. Win-win. No tax states like Texas, Nevada, and Florida are popular in the industry.

Does anyone think this affects the CLE base in any way?