![]() |
SEA Base Future
Read today that the SEA flight attendant base is closing. With the previous closure of the SEA 777 pilot base, what is expected to happen with the 757/767 base there? I know it's small, will it be converted to an airplane that transits SEA more or will they just close it?
|
Under the UPA, SEAFO is required to stay open until Dec. 2014. After that you can guess what happens to a single-fleet domicile with less than 10 lines of flying. My guess is that UAL won't be able to give Delta gates fast enough.
|
The SSC did recomend a Sea 737 base. The research showed that Sea could support around 40-50 737 pilots. Now we will see what the company does with that.
|
Originally Posted by catIIIc
(Post 1748191)
The SSC did recomend a Sea 737 base. The research showed that Sea could support around 40-50 737 pilots. Now we will see what the company does with that.
Hmmm... what will they do with information that makes sense and makes pilots happy?:rolleyes: |
Originally Posted by catIIIc
(Post 1748191)
The SSC did recomend a Sea 737 base. The research showed that Sea could support around 40-50 737 pilots. Now we will see what the company does with that.
|
How about a base back in FL again. Lots of us are waiting for that.
|
There are rumors of a new FL base.....(ie, not MIA)
|
Originally Posted by UAL T38 Phlyer
(Post 1748353)
There are rumors of a new FL base.....(ie, not MIA)
|
Based on what i heard this week at charm school, it won't surprise me to see it close soon.
VP of Revenue talking points were...... We don't think its a battle we can win with delta and Alaska there. And even if we do win, what do we get? A redundancy to our SFO hub. Delta only doing it because they have no west coast hub and it's tough for them $$ wise. Can only afford to do it because of the $$ they make out of ATL. We would rather spend our efforts on building SFO. >>>>>>>>>>>> Then today, an overheard comment started a rumor having something to with us and Alaska. NO idea whatsoever as to the validity or scope of that comment........just that it was overheard. |
Originally Posted by Flyguppy
(Post 1748538)
Then today, an overheard comment started a rumor having something to with us and Alaska. NO idea whatsoever as to the validity or scope of that comment........just that it was overheard.
|
Originally Posted by pilot64golfer
(Post 1748547)
Probably never happen. Can't see it getting approved. But if it does I hope we adopt all of their IT.
|
Originally Posted by Flyguppy
(Post 1748538)
Then today, an overheard comment started a rumor having something to with us and Alaska. NO idea whatsoever as to the validity or scope of that comment........just that it was overheard. |
Originally Posted by Hilltopper89
(Post 1748549)
As long as they're all stapled below....;)
1) Captains to be merged with Captains. 2) Jumbo doesn't appear in ALPA merger policy. "Pilot" is status and "airline" is category. 3) Pilots only want to fly 737s. (That's all Alaska has) 4) UAL is overstaffed because of all the bases, so we have "extra" pilots. 5) Pilots don't want to be trapped in Rome in a hotel room. They'd rather be trapped in Nome, in a hotel room. 6) "1-for-1" proposal, effectively stapling the bottom 11,000 UAL pilots to the bottom (Since Alaska only has 1,500 pilots) putting a CAL/UAL 1985 hire below their most recently hired pilot. Either that or they would want 100% DOH. |
Originally Posted by intrepidcv11
(Post 1748358)
There are ALWAYS rumors of the pending TPA-MCO co terminal base.
|
Originally Posted by pilot64golfer
(Post 1748773)
Never happen. I can forsee Alaska Airlines SLI presentation now.
1) Captains to be merged with Captains. 2) Jumbo doesn't appear in ALPA merger policy. "Pilot" is status and "airline" is category. 3) Pilots only want to fly 737s. (That's all Alaska has) 4) UAL is overstaffed because of all the bases, so we have "extra" pilots. 5) Pilots don't want to be trapped in Rome in a hotel room. They'd rather be trapped in Nome, in a hotel room. 6) "1-for-1" proposal, effectively stapling the bottom 11,000 UAL pilots to the bottom (Since Alaska only has 1,500 pilots) putting a CAL/UAL 1985 hire below their most recently hired pilot. Either that or they would want 100% DOH. |
Originally Posted by Grumble
(Post 1748858)
Just fence off every airplane but the 737 for X years.
|
Originally Posted by Hilltopper89
(Post 1748549)
As long as they're all stapled below....;)
|
Originally Posted by pilot64golfer
(Post 1748773)
Never happen. I can forsee Alaska Airlines SLI presentation now.
1) Captains to be merged with Captains. 2) Jumbo doesn't appear in ALPA merger policy. "Pilot" is status and "airline" is category. 3) Pilots only want to fly 737s. (That's all Alaska has) 4) UAL is overstaffed because of all the bases, so we have "extra" pilots. 5) Pilots don't want to be trapped in Rome in a hotel room. They'd rather be trapped in Nome, in a hotel room. 6) "1-for-1" proposal, effectively stapling the bottom 11,000 UAL pilots to the bottom (Since Alaska only has 1,500 pilots) putting a CAL/UAL 1985 hire below their most recently hired pilot. Either that or they would want 100% DOH. |
Originally Posted by pilot64golfer
(Post 1748773)
Never happen. I can forsee Alaska Airlines SLI presentation now.
1) Captains to be merged with Captains. 2) Jumbo doesn't appear in ALPA merger policy. "Pilot" is status and "airline" is category. 3) Pilots only want to fly 737s. (That's all Alaska has) 4) UAL is overstaffed because of all the bases, so we have "extra" pilots. 5) Pilots don't want to be trapped in Rome in a hotel room. They'd rather be trapped in Nome, in a hotel room. 6) "1-for-1" proposal, effectively stapling the bottom 11,000 UAL pilots to the bottom (Since Alaska only has 1,500 pilots) putting a CAL/UAL 1985 hire below their most recently hired pilot. Either that or they would want 100% DOH. C'mon man, you know the arbs. would laugh and throw that out.....oh wait, I see what you did there. ;) |
Originally Posted by pilot64golfer
(Post 1748773)
Never happen. I can forsee Alaska Airlines SLI presentation now.
1) Captains to be merged with Captains. 2) Jumbo doesn't appear in ALPA merger policy. "Pilot" is status and "airline" is category. 3) Pilots only want to fly 737s. (That's all Alaska has) 4) UAL is overstaffed because of all the bases, so we have "extra" pilots. 5) Pilots don't want to be trapped in Rome in a hotel room. They'd rather be trapped in Nome, in a hotel room. 6) "1-for-1" proposal, effectively stapling the bottom 11,000 UAL pilots to the bottom (Since Alaska only has 1,500 pilots) putting a CAL/UAL 1985 hire below their most recently hired pilot. Either that or they would want 100% DOH. THAT right there is classic. Nice job with the linkages to other absurd proposals! |
From Howard's latest update...
October 31, 2014 SEA base closure We have made the difficult decision to close our Seattle domicile, anticipated in March 2015. Changes in our operations, flight schedule and fleet renewal have required us to force flying into SEA for some time. As we work to put our pilots in the right places, we worked through the NPDM process as outlined in the UPA to consider this change. After very careful analysis, we concluded that it simply does not make economic sense to continue to maintain the SEA flight base. This closure will be included in Round 5 of our base rebalancing work, which will be a displacement bid. We expect to open that bid next week and will release more details about other rebalancing work prior to the bid opening, but I wanted to make sure you had the latest information as soon as possible. |
Wow, who saw that coming?
|
if you're a Seattle commuter life just got a bit crappier, the flight attendants are all going to SFO and are senior to most, plus another 40 pilots into the scrum. Summer should be fun.
|
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y18...psebea9ef3.jpg
UCH base realignment plan....The truth of the matter. |
Originally Posted by Airhoss
(Post 1757225)
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y18...psebea9ef3.jpg
UCH base realignment plan....The truth of the matter. |
Originally Posted by awax
(Post 1757264)
Yes, because to be UCH pilot base the airport must be near a coastal toxic waste dump, or a rust belt city with lots of debt and route duplication.
|
Originally Posted by Fresh
(Post 1757344)
Who wants to be based in a desirable city?? :rolleyes:
|
How many pilots are based in SEA currently?
|
Originally Posted by coorsFlight
(Post 1757376)
How many pilots are based in SEA currently?
|
Originally Posted by Fresh
(Post 1757001)
From Howard's latest update...
October 31, 2014 SEA base closure We have made the difficult decision to close our Seattle domicile, anticipated in March 2015. Changes in our operations, flight schedule and fleet renewal have required us to force flying into SEA for some time. As we work to put our pilots in the right places, we worked through the NPDM process as outlined in the UPA to consider this change. After very careful analysis, we concluded that it simply does not make economic sense to continue to maintain the SEA flight base. This closure will be included in Round 5 of our base rebalancing work, which will be a displacement bid. We expect to open that bid next week and will release more details about other rebalancing work prior to the bid opening, but I wanted to make sure you had the latest information as soon as possible. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 02:58 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands