Vacancy 23-01V

Subscribe
7  8  9  10  11  12  13 
Page 11 of 13
Go to
Can confirm they can and will have you fly in to do your day 1 orientation the morning of Christmas Eve then have you back in sims the afternoon of the 26th.
Reply
Quote: Explain that.

Simesk was CEO alongside Tilton during the CAL/UAL merger which was heralded as “a no overlap” route structure combination. It’s true that to pass DOJ antitrust scrutiny, some routes were divested.

UAL pilots got shafted on the pre-merger 737 fleet shutdown and were frozen out of the west coast. But overall, I’m interested in hearing more about how the domestic route structure was torn down. CAL pilots got full access to the west coast, UAL pilots got to bid CLE and EWR. I mean a win win, right?
You mean the 737 shut down for the US Air merger??
Get over it , there's 2 sides to every story.
Reply
It’s funny… vacancy bid resulting in net loss of narrowbody CA because insufficient pilots are upgrading to fill all the backfills plus vacancies.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Reply
Quote: In Seattle: Costco, Amazon, Boeing, Microsoft, and Weyerhaeuser is about it. Certainly no slouches by any measure, but those companies represent most of the business travel.

In San Francisco, Apple, Google, Uber, Facebook, Wells Fargo, Oracle, Yahoo!, Visa, and on and on when you look at all the next tier companies and Y-Combinator type incubators. The value of the SFO market when SEA was closed made it a no brainier. I've been through enough base closures to know they suck, but if the goal is to put resources where the money is, seriously in 2015, it wasn't even close.

As for Delta, combining Salt Lake and Portland as a west coast gateway, yes Seattle was certainly an improvement.
The value of SFO was high, absolutely, but that's not exactly relevant. There was good money to be made in SEA and the company walked away and ceded the space to Delta.
Reply
Quote: The value of SFO was high, absolutely, but that's not exactly relevant. There was good money to be made in SEA and the company walked away and ceded the space to Delta.
It actually is relevant. United was very small in SEA (not a hub) and once DAL started building up with Alaska already #1 there the decision to leave was easy for United. The largest player in a hub gets a disproportionate amount of the revenue and over time if their costs are in line with bleed the smaller players. United has the two best international gateways in EWR and SFO. The ROI of adding to those hubs likely dwarfs other options. Leaving JFK was idiotic because of the transcons. The high yield corporate customers don't want to get to the Hamptons via EWR.
Reply
Quote: It actually is relevant. United was very small in SEA (not a hub) and once DAL started building up with Alaska already #1 there the decision to leave was easy for United. The largest player in a hub gets a disproportionate amount of the revenue and over time if their costs are in line with bleed the smaller players. United has the two best international gateways in EWR and SFO. The ROI of adding to those hubs likely dwarfs other options. Leaving JFK was idiotic because of the transcons. The high yield corporate customers don't want to get to the Hamptons via EWR.
SEA was absolutely a hub...

Horizon (yes the same horizon that exists today) and several other regionals fed the SEA hub for UA at different times through history.

Leaving SEA was a mistake.
Reply
Quote: SEA was absolutely a hub...
It played a bigger role when UA was flying 747 classics to Asia along with Northwest. The Seattle pulled down started happening well before the UA/CO merger. As the range of WB increased, the importance of SEA decreased as SFO could be leveraged as United’s gateway to Asia with the 400s and triples. The same thing happened with the NRT hub. The Delta expansion was just the final straw.
Reply
Quote: It played a bigger role when UA was flying 747 classics to Asia along with Northwest. The Seattle pulled down started happening well before the UA/CO merger. As the range of WB increased, the importance of SEA decreased as SFO could be leveraged as United’s gateway to Asia with the 400s and triples. The same thing happened with the NRT hub. The Delta expansion was just the final straw.
And instead of keeping it as a medium-cost placeholder to keep a competitor from creating a hub that would allow them to create inroads on Asia they just tucked tail and ran. Poor decision making.
Reply
Quote: It played a bigger role when UA was flying 747 classics to Asia along with Northwest. The Seattle pulled down started happening well before the UA/CO merger. As the range of WB increased, the importance of SEA decreased as SFO could be leveraged as United’s gateway to Asia with the 400s and triples. The same thing happened with the NRT hub. The Delta expansion was just the final straw.
Exactly. United only improved their market share and yields in the Pacific while leaving SEA before Covid.
Reply
Quote: And instead of keeping it as a medium-cost placeholder to keep a competitor from creating a hub that would allow them to create inroads on Asia they just tucked tail and ran. Poor decision making.
I disagree, trans pac yields improved for United once the move was made. SFO as a fortress and LAX to capture O and D traffic combination for the trans-pac is great.

Seattle has been a loss leader for Delta for long time when they set off to build up that hub even with it it being their primary pacific gateway. They were desperate for one. Staying and fighting for Seattle against DL and AS in a market that can’t sustain that kind of blood bath would have resulted trashed yields.

There was no benefit of maintaining the Seattle hub.
Reply
7  8  9  10  11  12  13 
Page 11 of 13
Go to