Community
Wiki Posts
Search

United gone from Santiago Chile

 
Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Apr 21, 2005, 9:36 pm
  #16  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Programs: UA Silver
Posts: 2,262
Originally Posted by nerd
110 workers to support a single daily flight? Is that correct?


I'm really curious why do they need 110 EMPLOYEES to handle only single daily flight? This seems to me as a complete waste of money and human resource. I heard UA had 100 employees to support only just one daily flight, which was 777-222ER, at AKL back in 2002. I have no idea why they needed 100 employees for themselves. Since both USA and NZ use English as national language, coludn't UA get a contract with a GSA at AKL? Or couldn't they ask Air New Zealand to handle their flight? In my understanding, American carriers get a lot of advantages in getting ground service at international destinations because English in the universal language. For example, Asian carriers have difficulties in getting agents outside their nations since it's hard to find international GSA that speaks their language. However American carriers can get GSA that speaks English anywhere around the world.
N227UA is offline  
Old Apr 21, 2005, 10:36 pm
  #17  
Moderator: Hyatt Gold Passport & Star Alliance
 
Join Date: May 1998
Location: London, UK
Programs: UA-1K 3MM/HY- LT Globalist/BA-GGL/GfL
Posts: 12,085
Originally Posted by ExtrAAordinaire
UA exited SCL when the airline drew down its Latin America gateway at MIA. The US-SCL market is very small; other than MIA, only DFW and ATL have been able to support SCL service.
LanChile fly from LAX (2 per day one as LanPeru) and from JFK as well as MIA.
Markie is offline  
Old Apr 21, 2005, 10:40 pm
  #18  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: n.y.c.
Posts: 13,988
Originally Posted by Markie
LanChile fly from LAX (2 per day one as LanPeru) and from JFK as well as MIA.
The JFK service on LAN is to LIM, not to SCL.
nerd is offline  
Old Apr 21, 2005, 10:54 pm
  #19  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Over the Bay Bridge, CA
Programs: Jumbo mas
Posts: 38,623
They also used to have a SCL/LIM flight (I believe it started in MIA) a long time ago.
Eastbay1K is offline  
Old Apr 21, 2005, 11:08 pm
  #20  
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: SEA
Programs: UA 1P
Posts: 1,191
Originally Posted by zrudeboyz
I asked a question "how to get to SCL with *A (UA)?" a few days ago, here is the thread.


Most people said to fly to EZE or GIG or GRU on UA and pay for a LA ticket to SCL (unless of course you have other miles).
If you want to keep everything within *A so that you have useable miles I'd suggest going to EZE and then connecting on the AC flight to SCL. I'm not sure when it departs EZE but I know it's quite soon after the arrival of the flight from ORD. Several times the FAs have asked everyone on the plane to allow those going on to SCL to get off the plane first before everyone else deplanes.
TakeMeToEZE is offline  
Old Apr 21, 2005, 11:10 pm
  #21  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Programs: HH Gold, AA Gold
Posts: 10,458
Originally Posted by N227UA
I'm really curious why do they need 110 EMPLOYEES to handle only single daily flight? This seems to me as a complete waste of money and human resource. I heard UA had 100 employees to support only just one daily flight, which was 777-222ER, at AKL back in 2002. I have no idea why they needed 100 employees for themselves. Since both USA and NZ use English as national language, coludn't UA get a contract with a GSA at AKL? Or couldn't they ask Air New Zealand to handle their flight? In my understanding, American carriers get a lot of advantages in getting ground service at international destinations because English in the universal language. For example, Asian carriers have difficulties in getting agents outside their nations since it's hard to find international GSA that speaks their language. However American carriers can get GSA that speaks English anywhere around the world.
There are two parts to this issue. First, SCL is leftover from PanAm's South American routes. These routes date back many years. When UA took them over, these governments required UA to keep ALL the employees -- or else they wouldn't approve the take over of Pan Am's routes.

Second, many, many countries have in the past required the airlines to hire many people. Then, they impose "no layoff" provisions or very difficult layoff rules on these employees. For example, the Israeli TWA employees tried to sue AA -- even though AA discontinued service to Tel Aviv when it took over TW.
formeraa is offline  
Old Apr 21, 2005, 11:52 pm
  #22  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Seattle
Programs: Alaska MVP
Posts: 1,171
Many, many countries have in the past required the airlines to hire many people.
This isn't unique to airlines, I believe.

Jobs that would require 2 people in the US, 5 people might do in Santiago. In a store, instead of having one sales clerk to ring up your purchase and sticking it in a bag, you'll have one writing out a receipt/invoice for your item, one manning the register, one meticulously wrapping your parcel for you and possibly one other doing some kind of bookkeeping along the way.
icedancer is offline  
Old Apr 22, 2005, 1:12 am
  #23  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: USA
Programs: UA Platinum, 1MM
Posts: 13,458
The cost of wages in many countries are lower than the US. In Chile, you might be able to have two people for the wages of one person in the US for example. Either way 110 people is a lot for two daily flights if that number is correct. I'm sure it contributed to their decision to ax the flight too.
CApreppie is offline  
Old Apr 22, 2005, 2:34 am
  #24  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: NYC
Programs: UA *G; Delta Diamond; AA EXP; Marriott LT Plat; Hyatt Globalist
Posts: 480
Originally Posted by nerd
The JFK service on LAN is to LIM, not to SCL.
The LAN Service goes from JFK with a stop at LIM and then proceeds to SCL. I was just on it recently.
awc4 is offline  
Old Apr 22, 2005, 5:13 am
  #25  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: SF CA USA. I love large faceless corporations. And they cherish me in return (sometimes). ;)
Programs: UA Premier Gold/disappointed 1MM, HH Gold, IHG Plat, MB Gold, BW Diam Sel
Posts: 17,575
Originally Posted by CApreppie
The cost of wages in many countries are lower than the US. In Chile, you might be able to have two people for the wages of one person in the US for example. Either way 110 people is a lot for two daily flights if that number is correct. I'm sure it contributed to their decision to ax the flight too.
I'm only guessing, but perhaps that number included staff at a ticketing office in Santiago, as well as other support staff we don't normally think of?

But as far as "contributing to the decision to ax the flight," what makes you think other US airlines (AA, Delta) that fly to South America don't have the same requirements imposed on them by the governments there?

Again, only a guess, but United might have reduced its presence in South America in order to focus on the Asian market, where economic growth is so much stronger than in South America. All FWIW.
KathyWdrf is offline  
Old Apr 22, 2005, 6:49 am
  #26  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: n.y.c.
Posts: 13,988
Originally Posted by awc4
The LAN Service goes from JFK with a stop at LIM and then proceeds to SCL. I was just on it recently.
Me, too - last week.

My point was that the service on that route is not there just because of US-SCL demand, but because of demand to LIM and all connecting cities, which of course includes SCL.
nerd is offline  
Old Apr 22, 2005, 7:30 am
  #27  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Programs: Nah.
Posts: 13,967
Originally Posted by icedancer
This isn't unique to airlines, I believe.

Jobs that would require 2 people in the US, 5 people might do in Santiago. In a store, instead of having one sales clerk to ring up your purchase and sticking it in a bag, you'll have one writing out a receipt/invoice for your item, one manning the register, one meticulously wrapping your parcel for you and possibly one other doing some kind of bookkeeping along the way.
This is especially true in Chile! When I was there, I was told it was a a Pinochet inflicted idealogoy such that EVERYONE had a job to do. Another suggestion was that the buy a ticket/redeem a ticket thing for a hot dog was to reduce corruption...who knows?
qasr is offline  
Old Apr 22, 2005, 7:31 am
  #28  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Programs: Nah.
Posts: 13,967
I think when UA closed SCL, it was one of the rare cases where top tier status was comped.

AA comped all UA 1K's at SCL to EXP on AA.
qasr is offline  
Old Apr 22, 2005, 10:17 am
  #29  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,222
Originally Posted by Markie
LanChile fly from LAX (2 per day one as LanPeru) and from JFK as well as MIA.
LAX and JFK are one-stop service, however. Only MIA, DFW, and ATL have non-stop SCL service from the United States.
ExtrAAordinaire is offline  
Old Apr 22, 2005, 1:55 pm
  #30  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Posts: 11,468
Originally Posted by CApreppie
Either way 110 people is a lot for two daily flights if that number is correct. I'm sure it contributed to their decision to ax the flight too.
By comparision UA ZRH employs 9 people, 6 at the office in ZRH (sales & admin. only, no ticket counter) and 3 at the airport (taking turns for the 7-day shift).
cesco.g is offline  


Contact Us - Manage Preferences - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.