HkCaGu

HKG hotels will remain cheap for a long while. Longer than when COVID is over.

OTOH, US pilots had always operated 5th freedom flights.

ORDnHKG

In the past there were lines for SFO base to do SFO-HKG-SIN or ORD base doing ORD-HKG-SIN, one of my ORD base friend who can hold ORD-HKG as purser did that once in a while. In case you are not aware, UA is not as cheap as you think to their FA, UA‘s FA even have longer layover time than both AA and CO.

UA HKG base actually exist way before late 1990s/early 2000s, some of those HKG base are indians that used to fly HKG-DEL, back then UA even base a 3 class 763 at HKG just to fly HKG-DEL-LHR and back when UA was still in Flying U/rainbow livery, so you know how long it has been.

buckeyefanflyer

How much money is saved by doing this . I always wondered. I would think much better ways to cut costs.

garykung

You still have other issues. Hotel is just one aspect.

SFO's B744 actually went to SGN. It was the ORD's B744/B772 going to SIN.

ORD-HKG and HKG-SIN were operated by different crews.

buckeyefanflyer

A lot of the CLE based FA’s commute from homes in Michigan and PA also other parts of Ohio which is drivable.

Bear96

That is not what you were saying before (which sure sounded to me like you were saying they would not be allowed to for some reason), but apologies if I misunderstood so OK let's go with that.

UA would make it work the same way they and other airlines do in similar situations. It really is not that difficult. They could fly US-HKG, lay over, HKG-SIN, lay over, SIN-HKG, lay over, HKG-US. How do you think they schedule pilots for intra-Asia routes when there are no UA pilot domiciles in Asia?

Sure, some intra-Asia pairings won't be as efficient without the NRT / HKG domiciles and there would be increased hotel costs. But maintaining domiciles has costs too, especially smaller ones. They have to have office space, management and other support staff, etc. And smaller domiciles lose other efficiencies of scale especially in terms of crew scheduling.

Being "cheap" is probably precisely whey they made this decision. Do you think they would be doing things right now that actually increase costs?

JimInOhio

That sounds more like a voluntary transfer request rule. Reassignment due to base closure probably doesn’t have this furlough clearing rule.

Bear96

UA has to make room for them SOMEwhere, but not necessarily where they want to go. For example, if a domicile with 200 F/As is being closed, or a large domicile is being downsized by 200, those F/As are considered to be displaced or surplused. UA then has to make at least 200 spots available elsewhere, but where those spots are is UA's choice. They might post 50 openings at Domicile A, 100 at B, and 75 at C. (Typically the total number available is somewhat more than the number displaced to give some flexibility.) The displaced F/As would then bid on A, B or C and be awarded by seniority. They would have priority over normal transfers in to those locations.

However, if a displaced F/A didn't like choices A, B or C, and instead wanted to go to D, too bad. Likewise, if a junior displacee wanted A but 50 more senior displacess bid on A, also too bad. In both of those cases, s/he would be out of luck even if there were F/As junior to him or her already at A or D. They can only go to the domiciles where UA posted openings, as opposed to anywhere they want to as long as someone junior to them is there, to avoid the domino effect.

hscottm

i can’t answer how much money is saved.

The “are there better ways to save costs” question is relevant, but I suspect it’s not that question they have, it is “why are we paying these crews to do nothing for this long of time, and when this all shakes out can’t we just staff the reduced number of flights from the domestic domiciles?”

embedded in that would be some kind of comparison - starting months from now - of paying the per diem like costs for domestically domiciled crew staying in those (Eg Asian) cities versus the reverse of SFO or EWR crews staying there. Frankly it can’t be a massive difference cause they’re all expensive places.

i presume the main reason they were kept for so long was operational flexibility - which they won’t need for a while. Not sure how to quantify that. I am sure Kirby has a spreadsheet.

Bear96

No. Reductions in force like involuntary furloughs are done by system seniority, not by base.

hkskyline

For HK, prying a pilot from Cathay is going to be very expensive, but flight attendant salaries are very low. To highlight how extreme this disparity can get, minimum wage here is under USD $5 an hour.

The high cost of doing business is really driven by property prices.

restlessinRNO

I remember many years ago when UA had FA bases at BKK & SIN. In those days UA flew NRT-BKK & NRT-SIN. Perhaps those were the halcyon days of UA Asian travel.

HawaiiO

Sad to see the NRT base close.
The FAs there are the best FAs in the UA system especially the Taiwanese and Japanese FAs.
So much better service and attitude than many FAs based in USA.
Unfortunately most if not all of them wont be able to transfer to another UA base as they arent American citizens or green card holders.

The SIN base also had some amazing FAs but that base closed a long time ago.

MatthewLAX

yes, flying GUM-NRT was like flying another airline.

HKG crews, IME, were not all that different than US ones.

garykung

That's exactly why HKG crews "existed'. And that's why UA won't do it.

In term of the cost, HKG crews cost about the same as U.S. crews because they are all under the same CBA. But HKG is cheaper because UA has to pay the layover costs for the U.S. crews.

From past experience, we know that UA won't be able to fill up a widebody for HKG-SIN. So why would UA resume HKG-SIN while cutting a base that is essential for such operation?

Per my observation, UA places extra personnel in the plane so that no layover is required without violating any CBA and/or duty rules.

They will only if that means increased revenue.