|
I am a huge advocate of living in base. If you absolutely have to live in the PNW, then Delta pays the best with the best variety of flying. Will they always have a presence in Seattle? Likely but who knows. United used to be huge up there. Will Alaska? Definitely. If Alaska is no longer in Seattle then Alaska has closed the doors or been bought out.
Every time I fly from SFO-SEA or vice versa I have at least one jump seater. Usually they are very senior. It's a doable commute but you are wasting so many hours of your life. I don't have the commuter mentality. I want to get in my car and drive home, which is why I moved to a base. That being said, your potential earnings commuting for UAL will hands down beat Alaska. I have friends at Alaska and morale is in the toilet there. Most newbies are leaving for the big 3 the second they get the call. I guess my advice would be to suck it up and commute for UAL. Best of luck with your decision! |
Originally Posted by Big Perm
(Post 2534505)
ALASKA living in Seattle VS UNITED SFO based living in Seattle
This is “hypothetical” of course….I’m trying to get some input on which of these course of actions you guys and gals would suggest and why. I have about 25 years left to fly and plan on staying in Seattle. -Both are great gigs. Most people emphasize living in base over all other aspects. -There are about 25 flights a day between SEA and SFO. -Currently no scope protection at Alaska. -Wide body opportunities at UAL. -Future mergers possible at Alaska could have an impact. -Work rules differences? -Upgrade time likely to be similar ~6 years? -Proportionally, it looks like more retirements at UAL in the coming years vs more growth at Alaska (trying to go from 2900 pilots to 4000 in 3 years). -UAL pays more but you could potentially make up for that living in base with Alaska. I’m not trying to turn this into a ****ing match. Just looking for input between living in base with Alaska vs commuting to San Fran with UAL from Seattle. Thank you in advance. |
As a pilot you’re gonna need a boat where it’s sunny and girlfriend in a different zip code anyway. Seems like a UA commute could kill a lot birds here.
|
Ding ding!
|
I just had a UAL Jumpseater up to sea from Sfo last month who left Alaska after almost 2 years, said UAL was a better place for him than the big A.
|
Originally Posted by oldmako
(Post 2534508)
Not having to fly a guppy for 25 years, priceless. :D
|
Alaska has no scope. Make the smart choice. Where do you think those 100 MRJs Skywest has on order are going? I can tell you where they aren’t.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk |
Originally Posted by Big Perm
(Post 2534505)
ALASKA living in Seattle VS UNITED SFO based living in Seattle
This is “hypothetical” of course….I’m trying to get some input on which of these course of actions you guys and gals would suggest and why. I have about 25 years left to fly and plan on staying in Seattle. -Both are great gigs. Most people emphasize living in base over all other aspects. -There are about 25 flights a day between SEA and SFO. -Currently no scope protection at Alaska. -Wide body opportunities at UAL. -Future mergers possible at Alaska could have an impact. -Work rules differences? -Upgrade time likely to be similar ~6 years? -Proportionally, it looks like more retirements at UAL in the coming years vs more growth at Alaska (trying to go from 2900 pilots to 4000 in 3 years). -UAL pays more but you could potentially make up for that living in base with Alaska. I’m not trying to turn this into a ****ing match. Just looking for input between living in base with Alaska vs commuting to San Fran with UAL from Seattle. Thank you in advance. UAL has announced they are growing 4-6% for the foreseeable future and targeting companies like Alaska. The industry has consolidated into 3 behemoths and further consolidation both domestically and globally is highly likely. Furthermore anyone in this industry will tell you choosing a carrier because of a "base" is a fools game because companies change, downsize, and rightsize hubs and "bases" as easily as you and I change our underwear, and that says nothing about the present value of a 30 year career at each of the carriers. The sooner you can get on a major seniority list the better. In my mind this is a ridiculous question. |
Originally Posted by Sunvox
(Post 2534794)
I don't mean to be the jerk here . . . but you are kidding right?
UAL has announced they are growing 4-6% for the foreseeable future and targeting companies like Alaska. The industry has consolidated into 3 behemoths and further consolidation both domestically and globally is highly likely. Furthermore anyone in this industry will tell you choosing a carrier because of a "base" is a fools game because companies change, downsize, and rightsize hubs and "bases" as easily as you and I change our underwear, and that says nothing about the present value of a 30 year career at each of the carriers. The sooner you can get on a major seniority list the better. In my mind this is a ridiculous question. |
I don't know what your situation is at home (spouse with great job?), but if I were in your shoes, I'd do the United interview. If you get hired, suck up the short term pain and move to a base.
That's what I did. Moving was the best damn decision I made. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:28 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands