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

[WorldTraveler]

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.

high profile has nothing to do with it unless you want to argue that it takes 5 stores to support 12 flights/day at any station of that size or that UA is comfortable with cancelling flights at other stations because it doesn't have the right support or doesn't have maintenance there.

Does it take having stores in a station with 12 flights in order for UA to operate there? GSE for 12 flights?

No.

UA had a station and maintenance structure that reflected its previously larger size and never cleaned it up.

they have to close the station in order to get rid of functions and personnel that should have been cut years ago.

Cranky notes what UA was at JFK not that long ago - which shows how much the industry has changed since 9/11.

He also correctly notes how much larger UA was and the strategic aspects of the deal were market and competitive driven

 

[700UW]

You are clueless on how maintenance operates, totally inept.

 

[WorldTraveler]

this comes from someone who advocates for a union but has no FAA maintenance licenses?

honestly.

Just tell us how many stores and mechanics are at other stations that have 12 or fewer domestic narrowbody flights.

any airline.

 

[700UW]

You dont have to have a license to be in the mechanic and related classifications.
 
You are ignorant and clueless.
 
Just ask DL, they have thousands of non-licensed, non-American citizens, overhauling and modifying their planes.

 

[WorldTraveler]

just a list of stations on any airline with a dozen or fewer narrowbody domestic flights and 60 mechanics/related employees.

that's all.

thanks.

 

[700UW]

Clueless.

 

[WorldTraveler]

because I have asked you and others who have argued that UA's staffing is acceptable to provide evidence of similar staffing?

I think I am being totally MENTAL - as in using my mind - to look at the evidence.

The strategic and competitive issues are obvious and multiple people have validated that UA is making the right decision although most agree that it is hard to believe that UA can't make JFK work given that UA is one of the largest airlines in the world and JFK is one of the busiest airports in the world.

I suggested that UA's staffing was excessive for a dozen domestic narrowbody flights.

If you or someone else can provide evidence that the staff you and others noted is the norm for UA or other US airlines, it would be great and we could resolve this one remaining issue which is the focus of the discussion.

 

[FrugalFlyerv2.0]

because I have asked you and others who have argued that UA's staffing is acceptable to provide evidence of similar staffing?

 
So if we accept your premise that the UA staffing model at JFK is wrong, can you enlighten us on what the proper staffing level should be?
 
Yeah, I thought so.

 

[WorldTraveler]

there are plenty that have made the statement that UA's JFK staffing is normal.

They should be the ones that can show that what UA staffing is at JFK is normal at other stations.

I have said it is not.

I have provided my proof in noting there are no other stations that I know of with similar staffing for so few narrowbody domestic flights.

 

[FrugalFlyerv2.0]

No.  You were the first to state, without any evidence that UAs staffing is out of whack.
 
TSH (UAL mtc. employee, I presume), eolesen, GC pointed out why the foundation(s) you are using to draw your conclusions are incorrect.
 
Now when you're challenged to back up / provide proof, you weasel your way out.
 
I'm gonna go out on a limb here and state that you probably couldn't provide the staffing numbers for a station where your beloved DL operates 12 B757 flights - that's how ignorant you are.  Pathetic.
 
As they say, one can't have an intelligent business discussion with a person that doesn't have the mental horsepower to grasp the issues.
 
Spin away!

 

[WorldTraveler]

yes, I do have the evidence.

Here is the list of stations that I know of at either UA or any other US legacy carrier that has over 250 employees including stores and mechanics to support a dozen narrowbody flights per day.









You however can't provide a list of cities that contradicts mine so you call me a liar.


the only spin is your childish unwillingness to admit that I am right and UA's staffing was excessive for the size of operation it had.

 

[FrugalFlyerv2.0]

So if we accept your premise that the UA staffing model at JFK is wrong, can you enlighten us on what the proper staffing level should be?
 
Yeah, I thought so.

 

[WorldTraveler]

just the list of stations that show I was wrong.

that's all.

 

[700UW]

What you dont understand is how maintenance and its staffing and workload occur.
 
Third shift for maintenance is usually staffed the largest, yet there are usually no live flights to work, yet they usually have the biggest workload.
 
But hey since you are a legend in your own mind, you would already know this concept.

 

[eolesen]

Enough already....

This thread was started to discuss the displacements of active employees, not an industry outsider's view of productivity.

I'll suggest that everyone else just move along and ignore WT's typical sideshow to divert/deflect a discussion into whatever he wants to focus on...