EWR764

FA domiciles have infrastructure like office space, crew lounge, support staff, etc. that are significant cost items, in these cases, for such small bases.

There is a bit of a misconception that these particular FAs are being let go... while there will be furloughs after October, the overseas bases are sufficiently senior that most, if not all, will be able to stay with the company even with expected layoffs. Some noncitizens may have eligibility issues for working in the USA, but the overseas bases have a lot of commuters as it is, so many will simply switch to commuting to a different domicile. Quality of life may change, though, as I know some commuters (FRA) who hold choice schedules they otherwise wouldn’t be able to at a stateside base.

Without fifth freedom flights or routes to non-hubs, and all flight attendants on the same contract, (IOW, not lower-cost labor) foreign domiciles really serve only to diversify exposure to hotel costs. Reserve FA coverage is not really an issue on longhaul, augmented-staffing flights and there are language speakers at mainland bases.

Even Delta, with a huge AMS operation and dozens of crew laying over every (normal) night, has no overseas FA base.

PsiFighter37

It feels like a shortsighted short-term move, but given the economic forecast is very difficult to forecast (and especially given the predicament airlines are in), I suppose that it's a better option than selling off aircraft at fire-sale prices. I imagine it's also prudent since travel is likely going to skew even more heavily domestic than it did previously.

EWR764

A local FA base is not essential to allow for HKG-SIN to operate. Full stop.

As others have noted, it would be built into a TPAC trip the same way GRU-GIG, SYD-MEL or KWI-BAH used to be.

UA_Flyer

Correct! SFO-HKG-SIN has been loaded into the July schedule.

Bear96

OK, so UA won't resume HKG-SIN (or any other route) while it doesn't make economic sense to do so, including factors such as crew scheduling. That's a given. Sorry but I am not sure I understand what your point is.

I am not sure what you mean by this. "Extra personnel" (I guess you mean deadheading crew?) on a flight are still considered to be "on duty" per FAA regs and so would still need applicable layover / rest upon arrival before working an onward flight. Pilots - or F/As for that matter - cannot (for example) deadhead SFO-HKG and then immediately continue on working HKG-SIN in the same duty period. Upon arrival in HKG they would need a legal rest before continuing to SIN, even if they had a lie-flat seat from SFO to HKG.

wanderingkev

I find it incredible how far some people in the airline industry live from their base and commute for all kinds of reasons, family ,lifestyle et al .
I knew a BA 747 captain who lived in the Hunter wine region north of Sydney and went back to LHR to start his trips, There is an FA on IAD -NRT I know well and she lives in HNL
another from LHR who lives in Sicily and my friend at FRA lives in Southwest France and takes two planes to get there.I live in Raleigh and there are many senior FA's here that are based at EWR/ORD and IAD

garykung

So how would you address the timeout and layover issue?

HKG crews are not eliminated until October. You speak too soon.

Also - just because HKG-SIN has been resumed for now during COVID-19, it does not mean

BTW - Is that flight available for passenger booking? The 5th freedom approval does allow passenger, but based on the application, it does not sound like UA intends to carry passengers.

A minor OT as well - based on schedules pre-COVID-19, the only aircraft capable of operating is EWR-HKG, as both SFO-HKG B772/Ws turn around after offload and ORD-HKG has practically terminated. I simply do not see how UA can make it work after COVID-19.

In the past, GUM-HKG-GUM/GUM-HKG-SGN were using the same set of crews all the way (3 pilots+3 cabin crews).

HkCaGu

SFO base crew have to rest one or two nights in HKG before either returning to SFO or flying to SIN. From SIN they need to rest in HKG before flying to SFO or (if W pattern) going back to SIN. What’s the issue?

GUM-NRT-HKG-SGN/SIN was 14 hours or so. That was well below duty time limit. With 3 or 4 pilots this could be done. SFO-HKG-SIN is beyond duty time limit. You cannot deadhead the first leg to operate the second leg.

Bear96

You seem to be confusing two very different issues:

1 - When & where UA's marketing & flight planning dep'ts decide to fly planes based on what routes are most profitable; and

2 - When & where UA's crew scheduling dep'ts (pilots and F/A) decide how to schedule crews most efficiently based on # 1.

UA can operate HKG-SIN, or between HKG and anywhere else in the world, with or without a HKG F/A or pilot domicile. (Whether or not UA can carry local passengers between HKG and XXX is a separate issue, but that is irrelevant to the fact that it can operate HKG-XXX with U.S.-based crews.)

UA can even operate HKG-SIN with a HKG-based crew one month, and a U.S.-based crew the next month.

garykung

$$$.

With HKG based crews instead of U.S. based crews, UA can save the layover cost (IIRC - you need at least 3-4 sets of crews to make the entire cycle).

HKG-SIN is not exactly a profitable route, as it is really competitive. That has definitely resulted UA's cancellation of the route in the past.

There is no indication that the route can be more profitable than the past. Then with the HKG crew eliminated, why would UA be interested in operating the route with the increased cost and without an acceptable revenue?

That's why in order for HKG-SIN to stay, you need a crew change at HKG.

Without the HKG base, UA is not going to make HKG-SIN permanent.

UA_Flyer

I see the issue now. You have not caught up to date on the latest development.
UA has also gained fifth freedom right to carry passenger in addition to the cargo approval earlier.
It has showed up in multiple news reports in the last a few days

The flight is bookable on United.com and United App as well.

https://downloads.regulations.gov/DO...tachment_1.pdf

UA869 dep SFO 1340 arr HKG 1845+1
UA869 dep HKG 20:45+1 arr SIN 0035+2
UA862 dep SIN 0600 arr HKG 0945
UA862 dep HKG 1130 arr SFO 0910

Flights will be operated using 787-9

Hope we are all on the same page now that the HKG-SIN-HKG flights will take place not IF it will take place.

The question as you pointed out whether the flight will continue on a long term. My projection is not. It is only offered during the short term. Once the demand is back to support one single direct HKG and SIN each from SFO, I don't see it continuing. The demand is likely to be linked to when the borders are open for Americans to enter HK and Singapore. .

EWR764

Day 1- TPAC leg to HKG
Day 2 - HKG overnight
Day 3 - HKG-SIN, overnight SIN
Day 4 - SIN-HKG (I think flight attendants can technically fly it as a “stand up” turn), HKG overnight
Day 5 - TPAC from HKG

Easy peasy and only 1 extra hotel night due to the timing of the HKG flights. Not super productive but it would work. Additional flight attendants and the bunkies could probably do it as the usual 4 day pairing with another crew on the return.

garykung

Won't that cost more to UA? The cost for Day 2 and 4 was eliminated by HKG crews?

Also, how about:

1. The aircraft? Using the pre-COVID-19 schedule as the blueprint, there would be 1 B772, i.e. the one for EWR-HKG available?

Note - because the 2 SFO-HKG B772/Ws turned around within hours, it is impossible to make SFO-HKG-SIN works unless UA eliminate the night flight. Also - HKG-EWR scheduling was not exactly a match the former SIN-HKG

2. Transit passengers?

secretalcoholic

Ugh, what a shame. The HKG-based crew were one of my favorites. Over the years they know me on a first name basis, and they are indeed local hires...
From my experience their service was much much better than any US-based crew I've flown with.

Bear96

Cost more than what? Did you factor in the costs of maintaining a domicile in HKG and all that entails, as I mentioned before? Do you think UA didn't run those numbers?

All of this is irrelevant in terms of maintaining a F/A domicile in HKG.

Maybe we are not even talking about the same thing any more. I can't really tell.