JFK Hangar 10 future?

[lpbrian]

If JetFlu can have a hangar at JFK, why not AA?

 

[upsilon]

<_< ----- Damn! For once we agree!!

I thought the same thing!

 

[MCI transplant]

<_< ---- Just out of curiosity. Why hasn't AA returned the exTWA hanger at LAX to the city? Anything going on in it? I mean besides patching up crunched MD80's!------ Although it was fitting! An exTWA MD80, and returning to the exTWA overhaul base!------- Kinda poetic ain"t it?

 

[lpbrian]

We had this discussion back in August... Back then, it was all about forcing the TWU into concessions... then it was forcing people to take the VBR.... now, it's the NE director who hates JFK.

There was also a lot of chest thumping about how AA couldn't serve JFK without a hangar...


It's a fact that maintenance directors don't make decisions on real estate leases. That's CRE's job at HDQ, and they do it in conjunction with the fleet plan. The lease which expired in December 2008 was probably entered into while that MD was still turning a wrench.

It's a fact that the A300's are going away, and not being replaced with other widebodies.

It's a fact that AA is converting 757's for international routes under 8 hours, and that means launching them from JFK or BOS if they're going to Europe.

It's a fact that the twin to hangar 10 in LAX is being torn down for airport expansion.

And lastly, it's a fact that AA's real estate costs at JFK are higher than any other airport.

Connect the dots, boys and girls.... it ain't rumor, it ain't a contract ploy. It's fleet planning and real estate reduction at a very high cost airport.

If there's such a need for a widebody hangar in the Northeast, AA's probably better off building one at Stewart and ferrying aircraft back/forth as necessary to JFK, LGA, EWR, BOS, etc....

It is also a fact that the LAWA people are dreamers....It is only a fact until it actually happens...

 

[777 fixer]

It's a fact that the twin to hangar 10 in LAX is being torn down for airport expansion.

And lastly, it's a fact that AA's real estate costs at JFK are higher than any other airport.

Connect the dots, boys and girls.... it ain't rumor, it ain't a contract ploy. It's fleet planning and real estate reduction at a very high cost airport.

If there's such a need for a widebody hangar in the Northeast, AA's probably better off building one at Stewart and ferrying aircraft back/forth as necessary to JFK, LGA, EWR, BOS, etc....

If the hangars at LAX are torn down wouldn't that sort of force the company to keep the hangar at JFK?

 

[eolesen]

If the hangars at LAX are torn down wouldn't that sort of force the company to keep the hangar at JFK?

Not necessarily. If they put 757s on transcons, you'll see routings like JFK-LAX-DFW and LAX-JFK-MIA so they can do B checks in one of the hubs.

 

[Thomas Paine]

IMO, they should also build new runways at LGA in order to increase capacity and minimize delays.

Where? In College Point or Rikers Island?

 

[nyc6035]

Where? In College Point or Rikers Island?

Fill in part of the Flushing Bay...take over Flushing Meadows Park.....build another runway........bury part of the LIE and GCP...move the Mets to the Meadowlands....

now there's a public works project!

 

[Hopeful]

Fill in part of the Flushing Bay...take over Flushing Meadows Park.....build another runway........bury part of the LIE and GCP...move the Mets to the Meadowlands....

now there's a public works project!

At the same time put thousands of people to work for the next ten years. (And as long as the we have the Yankees, sounds like a grand project.)

 

[aafsc]

Fill in part of the Flushing Bay...take over Flushing Meadows Park.....build another runway........bury part of the LIE and GCP...move the Mets to the Meadowlands....

now there's a public works project!

That is basically what I was advocating. Looks like they could fill in part of the bay and build runways on it. Looks like there could possibly be enough space between the existing and hypothetical new runways for simultaneous approaches.

 

[eolesen]

Good luck filling in wetlands, guys. If it were that easy, JFK would have two more runways by now.

 

[DalMD88]

Very recently there was talk of the company getting a bigger hangar in Boston but that fell through, MASSPORT gave it to somebody else. If the company was looking to expand their maintenance operation in Boston, which has a lot less flights than JFK, and isnt any cheaper, then its unlikely that would they want to get rid of hangar 10 in JFK.

That would be the widebody hangar that United just vacated. Massport gave it to DL. We are moving 1 April. I think we got it because Massport wants to tear down our current hangar an convert it to a parking lot like they are doing with the old NorthEast hangar which abuts ours. It may not come down soon, but I think it is in the plan. The current NW hangar is also going to be open soon. Rumor is JetBlue will move in.

 

[TIME FOR CHANGE]

Good luck filling in wetlands, guys. If it were that easy, JFK would have two more runways by now.

Most of JFK was wetlands before it was built

 

[eolesen]

Yep. And then the laws were changed in the early 70's...