SAN Base opening, finally…
#81
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 3,390
Likes: 220
From: 737 FO
Well, welcome to junior basing. OAK, BWI are junior for SWA, the New York 3 are junior for almost everyone who has bases there. UAL, DAL, and AAL run vacancies in almost every base, in multiple fleets, almost perpetually. That's how the airlines work. Junior things are junior because reasons. I am not sympathetic to the company AT ALL for having bases that are junior. They need to staff them right and grow them right. Alaska handles staffing, basing, and position bids unlike anyone else, and we seem to be the only ones with problems like this. Gee, I wonder why.
If anyone is pretending that SAN won't be another junior, understaffed, and problematic base on the FO side, they are insane...
If anyone is pretending that SAN won't be another junior, understaffed, and problematic base on the FO side, they are insane...
#82
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 3,390
Likes: 220
From: 737 FO
That’s just not true. Outside SAN is way more affordable than the Bay Area and the weather is way more worth the cost. I’d actually consider living in SAN if my grandkids weren’t in the PDX area. No way I’d choose to live in the Bay.
#83
It isn't about choosing where to live. If that were the case, Alaska would just make everyone move to Gig Harbor. The argument is that it is another extremely expensive place to live. There are tons of more affordable areas in the Bay Area aside from San Francisco. The comparison doesn't hold water. If we are talking about somebody's willingness to move to a base, I could see the argument of SAN over SFO. I am simply talking about right now, and in the future, finding locals to fill those slots is going to be challenging. A new hire with no ties to any base we have, could move local to SFO just as easily as SAN. The premise here is that DM doesn't want commuters and we have to fill a base with locals. I already think this will be a problem. There are enough senior CAs who either live close enough or will commute. I think the FO side will be a problem. Or at the very least, will take FOs from LAX to SAN and create vacancies in LAX. Continuing to interview PNW residents and slapping them in other bases is not gonna solve staffing in SAN.
#84
If they keep it in the 150/seat range I’d guess SAN would stay pretty senior in both seats. The problem with SFO is they were trying to grow it to an unsustainable size while we were losing pilots daily to other carriers. 300 pilots/seat was never gonna happen. Hell 200/seat is pretty unsustainable in my opinion. If we had something other than a 737 in SFO that would change things drastically but then we’d be going head to head with United and you know how management feels about that.
#85
I think their reasoning for the SAN is fundamentally hotel costs. Pilot hiring pool would seem like a secondary consideration, but it's not just about hiring, it's also about retention.
Lemoore is irrelevant, almost nobody puts down roots there, it has more in common with Minot AFB in that regard. SAN is a fleet concentration center, you have opportunities for multiple tours over your career, so it's easy to get roots. And a nice place to live.
Lemoore is irrelevant, almost nobody puts down roots there, it has more in common with Minot AFB in that regard. SAN is a fleet concentration center, you have opportunities for multiple tours over your career, so it's easy to get roots. And a nice place to live.
#86
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 3,390
Likes: 220
From: 737 FO
It isn't about choosing where to live. If that were the case, Alaska would just make everyone move to Gig Harbor. The argument is that it is another extremely expensive place to live. There are tons of more affordable areas in the Bay Area aside from San Francisco. The comparison doesn't hold water. If we are talking about somebody's willingness to move to a base, I could see the argument of SAN over SFO. I am simply talking about right now, and in the future, finding locals to fill those slots is going to be challenging. A new hire with no ties to any base we have, could move local to SFO just as easily as SAN. The premise here is that DM doesn't want commuters and we have to fill a base with locals. I already think this will be a problem. There are enough senior CAs who either live close enough or will commute. I think the FO side will be a problem. Or at the very least, will take FOs from LAX to SAN and create vacancies in LAX. Continuing to interview PNW residents and slapping them in other bases is not gonna solve staffing in SAN.
#87
You’re not wrong, but being the only major with a SAN base will help a little. Recruiting is going to have to change things up though if they want to staff the California bases with mostly locals. On that we definitely agree. Bigger issue is how much more can Seattle actually grow? I think we’ve gotten about as big as we can there and Seattle will get more senior.
#88
Line Holder
Joined: Mar 2022
Posts: 1,892
Likes: 186
Hate to interrupt the MinRest word302 bro fest, but the only way to attract pilots to an airline is by providing a stable place to work that is growing. This airline is only unpredictably shifting flying around while barely growing if at all. It’s gotten so bad that 8 year + pilots are going to be nervously checking this bid not to see if their career is making progress but to see if they will have to commute, disrupt their family life with a move or be forced to downgrade. Or a combination of the above.
If we want to attract pilots we need to establish a pittance of growth of the years and commit to bases with a long term plan. Not threaten the pilot group with taking away their new toy if they can’t make a severely constrained airport work at all times.
If we want to attract pilots we need to establish a pittance of growth of the years and commit to bases with a long term plan. Not threaten the pilot group with taking away their new toy if they can’t make a severely constrained airport work at all times.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post



