Let's also not forget how many pilots AA just lost. Not sure what % were from the SFO base, but perhaps this was an opportunity to consolidate?

Also, for a city with so few AA flights there is a surprising amount of fleet diversity (seemingly more than before) so if the pilots aren't multi-type certified the utility of an actual pilot base may be diminished.

No problem for me, I only live 10-15 minutes away from SJC.:D

"And almost everywhere else"? I hope you are talking about SFO specifically because there are definitely places where UA's route network is non-existent.

How much extra are you spending for that W or higher fare to be able to upgrade? It all depends where you're going.

For those of us that do significant international travel and want to use our systemwides, the rules at AA are entirely different than the rules at UA,and it really does need to be spelled out.

Right now an upgradable base fare SFO-SYD on UA is $1,730 vs $1,038 for discounted economy, so almost $700 more to get on the upgrade list. I know an FTer that has similarly priced fare for Singapore coming up in order to get on the upgrade list. There is no guarantee you'll clear the upgrade list (in fact, the term "upgrade lottery" has been coined on the UA forum). No refunds or reduction in fare if you don't clear, either, and this is after buying the higher priced ticket.

Here's part of a post from a UA flyer from just two days ago on a routing to Shanghai:

An upgradable fare in that market has a base fare of $1,051RT vs $585 in discounted coach using sample November travel dates, so almost $500 extra to get on the list (those fares probably don't include fuel surcharges). AA's lowest fare here is $580RT.

If you're comparing AA systemwides to UA systemwides there's a world of difference in the product. Granted AA doesn't fly the amount of routes UA does, but you won't be paying over $500-700 extra just to try and use your systemwides to get there with AA.

That's the main reason I elect to keep EXP at AA over 1K at UA. I could have gone in either direction this year but couldn't afford to hold onto both.

How would you be able to even use an AA SWU to Syd?

Business travelers who don't want to take convoluted routings to use their elite SWUs are going to find AA harder to fly based on where they are going. For price sensitive leisure fliers EXP is a dream, but I'm not sure that is going to drive a profitable bottom line.

You can't. It is a route I have used UA systemwides on before they went to H fares and then dropped down to W fares. That was the first route I thought of where there is a significant price difference to buy a fare you can try to use a UA systemwide on. I posted it to show how much more you need to spend there to try and use systemwides.

The second example I posted (ORD-PVG) is a direct comparison.

I think the problem is until SWUs can be used on other OW carriers their usefulness is becoming significantly narrower than other airlines OR it will take a more convoluted routing. SIN, HKG, SEL, DXB, GVA, TXL, MUC, TLV, ATH, FCO (yearround), KUW, BCN, DUS are all no goes for AA SWUs or take a double connection from the West Coast unless you fly from LAX. And FRA is just 1x a day now.

If you have a business traveler's schedule the AA route network is certainly lacking in lots of areas if you want to use SWUs.

It's not just AA. DL has reduced considerably since the 2008 NW merger United's presence is smaller today than 2005 and certainly pre-9/11.

Per BTS statistics, United plus Skywest had fewer boardings in the twelve months ending June 30, 2011 compared to the twelve months ending June 30, 2007. The Skywest numbers also include their operations for Delta-so even assuming Skywest didn't operate a single flight for DL (which isn't true) United HAS indeed retreated at SFO.

Total Enplanements Twelve Months ending June 30, 2011 (in thousands):
United: 10,130
Skywest: 2,995
Total=13,125


Total Enplanements Twelve Months ending June 30, 2007 (in thousands):
United: 10,792
Skywest: 2,364
Total=13,156

SOURCE: http://www.transtats.bts.gov/airports.asp?pn=1

Skywest does have significant operations for DL at SFO offering 10x daily service to Los Angeles and several frequencies to Salt Lake City (augmented with mainline service). So even assuming Skywest didn't board a single passenger on behalf DL, UA's SFO operation is smaller today than in 2007 and certainly smaller than in 2005 or 2000. Contacting UA's investor relations and requesting information about the SFO operation will reveal that fewer flights operate today than in 2005 and UA also has fewer SFO-based employees today.

Besides, having a greater proportion of flights operated with regional carriers doesn't "bode well" for the viability of a hub as other posters have incited.
The SFO overhaul base has also been downsized substantially even with local incentive money provided to retain jobs. Like it or not, Chicago is UA's world headquarters, Houston will remain the largest hub, and Newark is the premier international gateway. The 787 will allow more routes to be served from those cities where UA can handle passengers at lower costs than SFO which further diminish SFO's relevance in the UA system.


Don't let the facts get in the way.

Agree with many of the sentiments in this thread. As a San Francisco-based EXP for 4+yrs now who runs his own firm with need for both Asia and Europe business travel (generally once each a quarter), and usually cannot pass off cost of full fare F or J, pressure is inevitably towards maximizing dollar value of airfare spend. AA has been amazing the past four years to me personally, with only one SWU not clearing since becoming EXP -- happened to be last week out of PVG-ORD (were 26+ EVIP requests on a fully sold out flight).

With capacity cutbacks out of SFO have been closely watching UA and the temptation to switch, but with chaos in integration of their FFPs all anecdotal evidence I have is that unless you can justify the spend to become Global Services on UA (revenue basis), there is no way the reliability of using SWUs is comparable out of this hub.

In the end for international travel one kills a day plus as it is so it's worth the connection in LAX or DFW going either west or east. It's the domestic travel that becomes more frustrating when trying to make cities like DEN, WAS, BOS or SEA (although Alaska helps there). We do need one more morning and late evening LAX connection both directions, that would go a long way to easing the burden.

And by the way, for you SFO-haters out there, I second someone's comment earlier that it's tiring to hear the negativity from you all. This thread was clearly titled SFO, so if you don't want to listen in our conversation about painful changes to the airline we love and rely on, just don't click on the thread please. Recognize we are largely still trying to stay with AA and that in its own small way helps makes the airline better and viable for all of us, even those who don't live in the Bay Area.

If injecting facts into a discussion is construed as negativity, then I'll be a negative poster through my FT tenure. I'm glad FT and AAdvantage have allowed you to have a more enjoyable travel experience while saving money at the same time-that's precisely why many of us are here. Please recognize that this is a public forum and a confluence of people with different background, perspectives, experiences, and expectations. I've enjoyed partaking in these threads throughout the past several years in AA's gradual pull-down in the Bay Area and will continue to do so.

AAerSTL, I think that raucous was on your side! And BTW, I completely agree with you -- facts over AApologies.

SFO-based cockpit crew?
 

At the beginning of the flight 1707 LAX-SFO, the FA mentioned that they were an SFO-based cockpit crew and are LAX-based FAs. She again mentioned it at the end of the flight.

I thought AA closed the SFO pilot base. Did the FA misspeak?

Its been announced of being closed, it hasn't closed yet. With the BK, everything is "fluid" as well. While I expect the base to eventually close, we won't know until some official word from AA.

OP: enter [San Francisco base] in the "Search this Forum" box (at the forum level) and you can read all about it.

Now that the original thread title has been edited to include "San Francisco', you can. Otherwise, it would have called for "sfo"+base. ;)

I know the search and I have posted in the thread you are referring to. But I was under the impression that the consensus was that the base was actually closed. Hence, a new topic. The threads merged anyway, so it doesn't matter anymore.