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

[ThirdSeatHero]

so, what work above line maintenance does UA do on those aircraft at JFK - that question was asked previously?

and is line maintenance considered work that can be followed?

if so, what is the work that can be moved without having the mechanics be able to follow?

and if it is only because UA is moving those PS 757 aircraft to EWR while grounding other 757s, are you telling me that UA will give priority to mechanics from JFK while eliminating mechanics at EWR who maintained 757s that are being grounded?

and E's statements are simply inflammatory and unsubstantiated - but that is what we have come to expect from him - faulty and inaccurate information and fly off the handle conclusions.

and T5's comment makes the most sense and says the issue is not about following maintenance but maintaining one's job within the point and bumping those that can't hold it any longer regardless of the aircraft being serviced.

 
Again, you're asking me?
 
You stated and have defended vehemently that JFK was overstaffed. How could you possibly come to that conclusion if you don't already know what type of work is performed there?
 
I'm guessing that E's and Kev's and 700's comments have started you second guessing your initial assumption that all you were dealing with was 12 flights - well I'll spare you the suspense and let you know they are all correct, there is more than standard 757 line work going on.
 
As for T5's comment, I'm sure it does make sense - most specific to this discussion is part where he points out, he wasn't talking about maintenance.

 

[700UW]

In other words, the IAM contract discourages moving checks (eg moving some B checks from JFK to LAX) like another airline routinely does. It's a bit of a handcuff perhaps, but it Keeps the company honest and prevents playing stations against each other.

The IBT represents Mechanics at UA, not the IAM, the IAM represents, Ramp, CSA, Res and Stores.

 

[700UW]

Also come to find out, BA is in charge of T7, not UA, UA signed the rights over to BA and BA has total control over T7 since after 9/11.

 

[WorldTraveler]

Again, you're asking me?
 
You stated and have defended vehemently that JFK was overstaffed. How could you possibly come to that conclusion if you don't already know what type of work is performed there?
 
I'm guessing that E's and Kev's and 700's comments have started you second guessing your initial assumption that all you were dealing with was 12 flights - well I'll spare you the suspense and let you know they are all correct, there is more than standard 757 line work going on.
 
As for T5's comment, I'm sure it does make sense - most specific to this discussion is part where he points out, he wasn't talking about maintenance.

Yes, I made the assertion that JFK was overstaffed for that number of flying - and it wasn't just because of maintenance.
You have thrown out defenses about UA"s JFK mechanics potentially having to work at other NYC airports but you acknowledge that both have mechanics there and you haven't yet told us what level of work UA did/does at JFK to justify 250 people including 20% of those in maintenance/stores/GSE functions.

and you and no one else has provided any justification for a similar level of employees at any other station, UA or otherwise, that has a dozen narrowbody flights per day on average or to show that what UA does at JFK is unique enough that it wasn't being duplicated elsewhere.

We can discuss the work rules and job protections that UA has but I have yet to see a shred of evidence to counter my contention that UA's JFK is overstaffed.

further, T5's information about job protection makes far more sense rather than argue that a specific function has been performed on the PS 757s which will allow personnel at JFK to have preferential bumping rights at EWR even as UA reduces its non-PS 757 fleet. In fact, UA's JFK employees will bump almost entirely because of their seniority and because JFK and EWR (and potentially LGA if UA adds PS 75s on LGA longhaul domestic as part of the elimination of the LGA longhaul restrictions) because they are part of the same city.
 
 

Also come to find out, BA is in charge of T7, not UA, UA signed the rights over to BA and BA has total control over T7 since after 9/11.
[/quote

some of us knew that.... which is why BA has no interest in T4 or any other facility at JFK unless they can gain an even larger amount of space than what they hold.

 

[700UW]

You don't get it.

When the work is moved and the jobs follow the work they don't bump anyone.

Its an increase of work at the station where the work is moved.

You are truly clueless.

 

[WorldTraveler]

I actually DO get it.

If UA is reducing work because they are replacing 757s with 739s which are newer and need less maintenance then the work may or may not actually result in higher headcount.

I know we can't count on you to give us the final tab since you are an outsider from UA, but it would be more than insightful to know how the UA employees at UA/JFK end up moving and whether UA's total staffing in NYC goes up, down, or is unchanged as a result of the closure of JFK.

 

[robbedagain]

good luck to all the JFK based UA folks

 

[WorldTraveler]

good luck to all the JFK based UA folks

I couldn't agree more, robbed.

great words.

 

[eolesen]

The IBT represents Mechanics at UA, not the IAM, the IAM represents, Ramp, CSA, Res and Stores.

Yeah, I knew that. Didn't pick up on the mistake when I wrote the post.

I do find it quite interesting that WT want to accuse me of fly off the handle conclusions when I'm the one who disproved his over staffing BS.

Then again, he has convinced himself that a former DL manager knows more than people who actually work/worked at the airlines he likes to criticize.

 

[700UW]

I actually DO get it.

If UA is reducing work because they are replacing 757s with 739s which are newer and need less maintenance then the work may or may not actually result in higher headcount.

I know we can't count on you to give us the final tab since you are an outsider from UA, but it would be more than insightful to know how the UA employees at UA/JFK end up moving and whether UA's total staffing in NYC goes up, down, or is unchanged as a result of the closure of JFK.

Who said UA is reducing work?
 
And what you clearly dont get, is this is about the PS moving to EWR, those mechanics that work them will be able to move to EWR with their work and keep their jobs, and not displace anyone.
 
Do you know what work or check is done to them?
 
Nope you dont.
 
You have no clue what work UA has done at JFK.

 

[eolesen]

It's probably not clear if there's a reduction of work just based on the press release.

I'm sure that you won't see UA's existing JFK-LAX/SFO frequencies moved to EWR without any modifications to the existing EWR-LAX/SFO schedule.

If there are reductions and those aircraft are just redeployed out of EWR, there's no incremental loss of work. If it frees up aircraft and they add frequencies elsewhere, or retire aircraft, then there's a relative loss of work at EWR.

 

[WorldTraveler]

precisely.

UA is reducing the size of its network with this move and also is in the process of, in general retiring older aircraft. They have changed their retirement schedule of late but in general are being fairly aggressive with retiring older aircraft - which do require less maintenance.

Thus, I have not argued that UA's move of 757s to EWR isn't an isolated move at UA but is part of a moving series of decisions of which this is one part.

and neither E, 700, or I work for or ever have worked for United Airlines. to try to once again paint that someone else less qualified than someone(s) else who also are no more personally involved is hypocrisy at best.

and when I asked specific questions of the UA people who are closest to being personally involved in UA maintenance, they responded with generalities which they not only didn't back up with specifics later on but in fact responded with information that the generalities don't actually play out in reality the way we were led to believe they did

 

[T5towbar]

Well there is a lot of things still in flux though. MX doesn't have a contract yet, so no one really knows what is going to happen. I'm quite sure with this news, there has to be more consultations among the membership on how they want to proceed. Maybe that's why the IBT hasn't said anything yet. This is major news coming from a large station within the point.
 
All we (on the IAM side) are being told that P.S. Service will now be at EWR, and we don't know how much or if any job loss will happen. Company officials will be visiting EWR tomorrow. Right now is the plan to get thru the summer first. That's why extra help by people from JFK and LGA is needed in EWR. Company said there would be some job loss. How many is the issue.  We were cut too deep in the reductions; and along with a lot of OJI's from the new work processes (ie: management trying to reinvent the wheel). Otherwise, I think the ramp side can absorb a bunch of people. The only thing I don't know about is Stores (which also falls under the IAM contract). Don't know how much headcount is involved in that workgroup in the point as well.
 
Hopefully things will work themselves out. I'm tired of hearing bad news after bad news. No wonder why morale is so low here. WE also don't have the greatest management team in the world either.  It has just been mistake after mistake and they are keeping both sides of the house divided, even though we are trying our best to work with each other.

 

[ThirdSeatHero]

precisely.

UA is reducing the size of its network with this move and also is in the process of, in general retiring older aircraft. They have changed their retirement schedule of late but in general are being fairly aggressive with retiring older aircraft - which do require less maintenance.

Thus, I have not argued that UA's move of 757s to EWR isn't an isolated move at UA but is part of a moving series of decisions of which this is one part.

and neither E, 700, or I work for or ever have worked for United Airlines. to try to once again paint that someone else less qualified than someone(s) else who also are no more personally involved is hypocrisy at best.

and when I asked specific questions of the UA people who are closest to being personally involved in UA maintenance, they responded with generalities which they not only didn't back up with specifics later on but in fact responded with information that the generalities don't actually play out in reality the way we were led to believe they did

 
The reality is you made a ridiculous assumption about JFK being overstaffed and that it contributed a large part to the lack of profitability in the operation. 
 
While I don't recall anyone speaking specifically about "qualifications",  E, Kev, and 700 in whatever their respective positions are, at least have gleaned enough knowledge of maintenance in general to accurately surmise the work UAL was doing in addition to the  P.S. flights. Something you were not capable of - that's not hypocrisy - that's you not knowing what you're talking about.
 
I find it humorous you have the gall to complain about supposed "generalities" when you - who made the ridiculous assumption that started this thread tangent - have yet to provide anything specific to substantiate your own initial statement.
 
YOU made the statement - YOU back it up

 

[eolesen]

WT's post quoted by 3SH: "and neither E, 700, or I work for or ever have worked for United Airlines"

Not entirely accurate --- I haven't looked thru my files to verify it, but am pretty sure my CO employee number is 20562. I've also worked at JFK and EWR at different times in my career spanning four decades.