JFK Hangar 10 future?

[Hopeful]

JFK Hangar 10 has been on a month to month lease basis. Word is that the A300 B check is coming to an end due to the pending accelerated retirement of the bus. The northeast director who has had in for JFK maintenance since the day he arrived will be giving a parting gift before he retires. That gift is to close the hangar and turn JFK into a Class 2 station.
More good news to help employee morale out.
And before you say this is the rumor mill at work, anything is possible. But consider the fact that AA has never gone to a monthly lease for the hangar. That coupled with the A300 retirement makes sense.

 

[TIME FOR CHANGE]

Sixty AMT's bumping the system and the rest of the workload gets KD due to Class 2 station status.
:huh:

 

[eolesen]

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....

 

[Hopeful]

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....

tell us something we don't already know. And unless you are a mechanic working under said MD, and unless you are a mechanic at JFK having worked under every reject MD that comes to JFK, please spare me how much you know about MD and the JFK mechanics.
Go back and read my initial post on this subject, I have said this is not rumor. Anything is possible.
You have no idea of the disdain this MD has for the JFK maintenance team. He is used to getting his way like he has done with prior stations he oversaw.

 

[eolesen]

I don't question the disdain at all. But unless you've dealt firsthand with real estate issues at AA, please spare me how much you think you know about that part of the business...

They might listen to what the field organization has to say about leasehold issues, but at the end of the day, it's Corporate Real Estate who makes the decisions. And they're usually not known for giving into emotion.

 

[MCI transplant]

I don't question the disdain at all. But unless you've dealt firsthand with real estate issues at AA, please spare me how much you think you know about that part of the business...

They might listen to what the field organization has to say about leasehold issues, but at the end of the day, it's Corporate Real Estate who makes the decisions. And they're usually not known for giving into emotion.

<_< ------- Would down sizing of MCI be an example of this lack of emotion?

 

[aafsc]

<_< ------- Would down sizing of MCI be an example of this lack of emotion?

No emotion. It is strictly business. If the AA hangars at JFK and LAX are indeed shuttered, MCI will have faired better because part of it (the wide body bays) is still open. Since AA has removed hundreds of aircraft from it's fleet, due to the failing economy, AA does not need the narrow body bays at MCI; it makes no sense to renew a lease on an outdated facility that is no longer needed. Since the A-300s will be gone in a few months and these aircraft have their checks done at JFK where, as eolsen points out, real estate costs are the highest in the system, it is very likely that AA won't renew the lease on a hangar it can do without. How old is the AA hangar at JFK?

 

[MCI transplant]

No emotion. It is strictly business. If the AA hangars at JFK and LAX are indeed shuttered, MCI will have faired better because part of it (the wide body bays) is still open. Since AA has removed hundreds of aircraft from it's fleet, due to the failing economy, AA does not need the narrow body bays at MCI; it makes no sense to renew a lease on an outdated facility that is no longer needed. Since the A-300s will be gone in a few months and these aircraft have their checks done at JFK where, as eolsen points out, real estate costs are the highest in the system, it is very likely that AA won't renew the lease on a hangar it can do without. How old is the AA hangar at JFK?

<_< ----- Why aa! With that type of spin, it sounds like you may be bucking for a management job!!!

 

[aafsc]

<_< ----- Why aa! With that type of spin, it sounds like you may be bucking for a management job!!!

Management job? No thanks. I was merely pointing out the obvious. I was also pointing out that it's not only TWA bases getting cut but also nAAtive bases if in fact the hangars at JFK and LAX go. As a side note, I wonder if in fact AA doesn't renew the lease could the New York port authority possibly lease the hangar to AA, DL, and others on an as needed basis as some have said LAX wants to do.

 

[MCI transplant]

<_< ------ aa you've been listening to company rhetoric again? I don't know about JFK, but LAX?------- They've been talking about that expansion for over twenty years! Well it finally happen?------ Maybe! But if you haven't heard, California is bankrupt!!!!----- And L.A. just happens to be part of California!

 

[Bob Owens]

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....

Yea, that makes sense <_<

Why not just ferry the passengers and freight too?


I seriously doubt that AA is getting rid of Hangar 10, they may lease out bits and pieces of it and they may have some technical issues to work out once the Port tears down the cargo building but the fact is the company gets a lot of use out of that hangar. Its not just used for B-checks, but fuel tank work, gear swings, lightning strike inspections, windshield changes, engine changes, etc etc. Plus they wouldnt have anyplace to repair their ground equipment or store their parts. AA has a big operation at JFK, they need to keep a hangar there, I dont know of any similarly sized operation where they dont have a hangar.

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.

Location , location, location. The fact is having hangars in places like JFK saves the company money by keeping aircraft in service. The idea of ferrying aircraft to a remote airport for every job that requires the use of a hangar is absurd, it costs $4000 just for the landing fee at JFK for a 777, never mind fuel, crew costs and opportunity costs. Aircraft are expensive and being able to repair them in a timely manner gives the company huge cost savings.

In 10 years or so, come contract time, we will hear the same rumors, just like we did 10 years back. As far as the B-checks go remember we didnt get the hangar so we could do B-checks, we got the B-checks because we had a hangar. With increased FAA oversight we can expect that the frequency and depth of checks will increase, further increasing the need for a hangar. If AA moves aircraft into JFK to fly the trips that the A-300 now flys then its likely that those aircraft will be the new B-checks and the reason why is because there's a hangar there.

 

[aafsc]

<_< ------ aa you've been listening to company rhetoric again? I don't know about JFK, but LAX?------- They've been talking about that expansion for over twenty years! Well it finally happen?------ Maybe! But if you haven't heard, California is bankrupt!!!!----- And L.A. just happens to be part of California!

I haven't heard one word of "company rhetoric" regarding the hangars at JFK and LAX. All the talk I have heard about these hangars has come from AA AMTs on this board. However, you are correct about California being bankrupt. How this affects the expansion plans at LAX is not very clear. If this very large stimulus package passes, I would think that there would be some money in it for LAX's construction projects.

 

[MCI transplant]

<_< ------ aa do you really believe that? :huh:--------- And Palosi just gave $30 mill. to San Francisco to protect the "wet lands, and the Salt marsh harvest mouse." http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/1...s-mouse-cookie/

 

[aafsc]

<_< ------ aa do you really believe that? :huh:--------- And Palosi just gave $30 mill. to San Francisco to protect the "wet lands, and the Salt marsh harvest mouse." http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/1...s-mouse-cookie/

If the goal of the stimulus package is to create jobs by building/repairing infrastructure, then the money should go to projects like LAX expansion. IMO, they should also build new runways at LGA in order to increase capacity and minimize delays. It is not logical to spend $30 million on a mouse, but you then again can't expect logical thinking from those in congress.

 

[MCI transplant]

If the goal of the stimulus package is to create jobs by building/repairing infrastructure, then the money should go to projects like LAX expansion. IMO, they should also build new runways at LGA in order to increase capacity and minimize delays. It is not logical to spend $30 million on a mouse, but you then again can't expect logical thinking from those in congress.

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