UA Closing JFK Operations, moving p.s. over to EWR

[ThirdSeatHero]

UA closed the station.

I don't have to know the intimate details of anything to figure out that when the company closes it, something isn't right.

250 plus people for a dozen flights, even if some of them MIGHT have been shared with other stations is excessive.


UA's decision validates the economics didn't work.

 
Yes, United is closing the station. Yes, United's decision validates the economics didn't work.
 
Now about those economics -
 
While in your amateurish uninformed opinion you state a " large reason " the economics didn't work was over-staffing at the station. On the other hand, we have a plethora of articles written by highly respected organizations  like WSJ, Reuters, etc that clearly and infinitely more accurately point to United's lack of system network access at JFK as the driver behind the closure.
 
Funny thing, I have yet read a single article citing "over-staffing" as a determining factor.  Hmmmmmmmmm
 
 
You have your story - the rest of us have the truth.

 

[Glenn Quagmire]

I have seen (and worked) at stations where airlines have less then 18 flights a day that had close to 60 mechanics. That is because they chose to do a certain type of check their due to optimum ground time, etc. The mechanics were also used to work several other airline's turns and overnight checks. WT has no clue about UAL's operation there, nor do I.

It is yet another post with no basis in fact. Thanks to you TSH for setting it straight.

 

[eolesen]

Haven't gone to look at a schedule, but JFK still had a lot of RON's, and I'll guess they were still doing what AA would have called a B check.

If so, 60 FTE's isn't out of the question considering 24/7 coverage at a very senior station with lots of VC weeks on the books.

 

[WorldTraveler]

Yes, United is closing the station. Yes, United's decision validates the economics didn't work.
 
 
Funny thing, I have yet read a single article citing "over-staffing" as a determining factor.  Hmmmmmmmmm

you should have just stopped at the first sentence. UA is walking away.

as for your next sentence which I quoted, how many articles do you ever see talking about the reasons why route decisions are made?

Did you see anything citing the 20% increase in the dollar relative ot the yen in the past year that factored into DL's decision to get rid of SEA-HND?
 
 

I have seen (and worked) at stations where airlines have less then 18 flights a day that had close to 60 mechanics. That is because they chose to do a certain type of check their due to optimum ground time, etc. The mechanics were also used to work several other airline's turns and overnight checks. WT has no clue about UAL's operation there, nor do I.

It is yet another post with no basis in fact. Thanks to you TSH for setting it straight.

again, if it takes 60 mechanics to maintain a fleet of aircraft that fly 12 flights, that is a lot of manpower for much short of doing overhaul work.

No one has even indicated how extensive the maintenance was that UA did at JFK and they also have yet to provide proof that JFK mechanics in reality actually worked to any sigifnicnat degree outside of JFK.

all, might have beens but in the meantime, UA made the decision to close a station that had over 250 employees - way in excess of what other airlines including UA would use to board 12 flights/day

 

[ThirdSeatHero]

again, if it takes 60 mechanics to maintain a fleet of aircraft that fly 12 flights, that is a lot of manpower for much short of doing overhaul work.

No one has even indicated how extensive the maintenance was that UA did at JFK and they also have yet to provide proof that JFK mechanics in reality actually worked to any sigifnicnat degree outside of JFK.

all, might have beens but in the meantime, UA made the decision to close a station that had over 250 employees - way in excess of what other airlines including UA would use to board 12 flights/day

 
Provide Proof?
 
You come on this board making outlandish and ignorant pronouncements about the maintenance staffing for an airline you do not work for, and when you are challenged on it you have the audacity to claim others must provide "proof" to refute your comically ignorant statements?  LMFAO!
 
 
Oh, and since you mentioned overhauls & 60 mechanics - better fix that magic 8 ball of yours - overhaul crews take more than 60 mechanics - ALOT more. 
 
Oh look! Your ignorance is showing again!
 

 

[FrugalFlyerv2.0]

You have your story - the rest of us have the truth.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This is the Whole Truth!

 

[WorldTraveler]

the proof is that UA closed the JFK station.

We have no proof about of the statements about maintenance working anywhere outside of JFK or an example where UA has anywhere close to that number of employees at any other station that handles 12 flights/day.

 

[ThirdSeatHero]

the proof is that UA closed the JFK station.
 

 
Really?  Where did it say it was because JFK was overstaffed? 
 
Just so you know, it isn't proof just because you said it.

 

[WorldTraveler]

While you continue to get hung on the fact that I said there is proof that UA's decision to close JFK was because it was overstaffed, I never said that.

I noted the overstaffing and said it could have been the reason for the closure and you went into full defense mode.

250 people at a station with 12 flights is excessive. if you want to argue that point separately, provide proof.

UA closed JFK. If you want to argue reasons for UA's closure, go ahead.

I specifically noted the strategic reasons and also added the staffing issues. I said nothing was done because of a single cause.

 

[eolesen]

Cranky weighs in.

http://crankyflier.com/2015/06/18/united-exits-jfk-consolidates-its-power-at-newark/

A little more info on the 60 number from someone I worked with back in the PE days -- 15 are GSE/FM, and another 5 or so in Stores.

That implies about 35-40 mechanics to cover 3 RONs and 10 turns on a fleet with no spares or backups. That's ~10 per shift when you factor in vacation relief. Seems entirely reasonable for a high profile spoke.

 

[Kev3188]

Yes it does.

All the more so if it turns out they (and/or the ramp) were doing work for other carriers as well...

 

[FrugalFlyerv2.0]

A little more info on the 60 number from someone I worked with back in the PE days -- 15 are GSE/FM, and another 5 or so in Stores.

That implies about 35-40 mechanics to cover 3 RONs and 10 turns on a fleet with no spares or backups. That's ~10 per shift when you factor in vacation relief. Seems entirely reasonable for a high profile spoke.

 
Now you've done it. 
You ruined the narrative of how only DL can properly staff stations.
Great!

 

[ThirdSeatHero]

While you continue to get hung on the fact that I said there is proof that UA's decision to close JFK was because it was overstaffed, I never said that.

I noted the overstaffing and said it could have been the reason for the closure and you went into full defense mode.

250 people at a station with 12 flights is excessive. if you want to argue that point separately, provide proof.

UA closed JFK. If you want to argue reasons for UA's closure, go ahead.

I specifically noted the strategic reasons and also added the staffing issues. I said nothing was done because of a single cause.

 
And another splendid example of your typical embellishments.
 
"full defense mode" you say?
 
Here is my first post on this thread...
 

United has aprox 270 employees total at JFK. Of that, about 60 are mechanics.
 
It was first and foremost a Premium Service station, and it was staffed appropriately for that roll.
 

 
Without knowing a thing about our operations at JFK you made a statement that isn't true.  You don't know what you're talking about, its that simple.
 
Blather away.

 

[ThirdSeatHero]

 
Now you've done it. 
You ruined the narrative of how only DL can properly staff stations.
Great!

 
Yeah! Thanks for ruining the ride E!

 

[FrugalFlyerv2.0]

I specifically noted the strategic reasons and also added the staffing issues. I said nothing was done because of a single cause.

 

It is notable that UA had 300 or so employees including a bunch of mechanics - far in excess of what was necessary to support a dozen and a half flights at most.

 
You indeed have noted the staffing issue, but then, as usual, you reached an invalid conclusion.
 
Ofcourse now that you got caught fabricating things, you got your panties in a bunch.
 
Please, continue to spin away!