M&E reductions announced

[eolesen]

Again, you're all assuming widebody domination on the Transcons....

UA's actually done OK with their p.s. config'd 757s on the transcons. Their problem is too few airplanes and too few frequencies to compete.

The need for time sensitive containerized cargo is also falling as fuel prices go up and get passed along to shippers. Add to that the 762 fleet is getting very long in the tooth.

Today, AA's schedule at JFK has 10 757's, 7 DC9's, and no 738's.

There are 12 A300, 7 777 and 29 767's.

All of the 777 departures are easily routed to ORD or DFW via LHR. No brainer.

Of the 767 departures, 4 are to the Caribbean (one 762), 17 are to domestic cities (all except SAN with 762), and 8 are to Europe. All of the 767 routings can be routed to ORD, DFW, or MIA for B checks via Europe or the west coast.

There's nowhere left to get more 767 lift into JFK unless AA starts pulling out of South America and Europe, and I don't see that happening.

So I would expect many of those 12 A300 departures to be replaced by 757 and 738 flying. Period. 757s and 738's are already the norm on transcons aside from JFK-LAX and JFK-SFO and a few tag flights beyond MIA to LAX.

IF AA decides to put down the 762 fleet anytime soon, I think it's safe to say widebody departures out of JFK could feasibly be down from the 50 or so today to around 15 or so.

And that's going to greatly reduce the need for widebody hangar space on both coasts.

This isn't a threat or a contract ploy. It's facing the reality of fleet planning and the price of fuel. Widebodies cost a lot to operate, and it's harder and harder to justify using them between domestic city pairs.

 

[Crapdog]

Again, you're all assuming widebody domination on the Transcons....

UA's actually done OK with their p.s. config'd 757s on the transcons. Their problem is too few airplanes and too few frequencies to compete.

The need for time sensitive containerized cargo is also falling as fuel prices go up and get passed along to shippers. Add to that the 762 fleet is getting very long in the tooth.

Today, AA's schedule at JFK has 10 757's, 7 DC9's, and no 738's.

There are 12 A300, 7 777 and 29 767's.

All of the 777 departures are easily routed to ORD or DFW via LHR. No brainer.

Of the 767 departures, 4 are to the Caribbean (one 762), 17 are to domestic cities (all except SAN with 762), and 8 are to Europe. All of the 767 routings can be routed to ORD, DFW, or MIA for B checks via Europe or the west coast.

There's nowhere left to get more 767 lift into JFK unless AA starts pulling out of South America and Europe, and I don't see that happening.

So I would expect many of those 12 A300 departures to be replaced by 757 and 738 flying. Period. 757s and 738's are already the norm on transcons aside from JFK-LAX and JFK-SFO and a few tag flights beyond MIA to LAX.

IF AA decides to put down the 762 fleet anytime soon, I think it's safe to say widebody departures out of JFK could feasibly be down from the 50 or so today to around 15 or so.

And that's going to greatly reduce the need for widebody hangar space on both coasts.

This isn't a threat or a contract ploy. It's facing the reality of fleet planning and the price of fuel. Widebodies cost a lot to operate, and it's harder and harder to justify using them between domestic city pairs.

767 just pulled out of the desert is at DFW right now. More to come.

 

[MCI transplant]

767 just pulled out of the desert is at DFW right now. More to come.

<_< ------ Just curious! How many 767's does AA have parked in the desert? And are they 300's, or 200's? Or are they even AA's?

 

[777 fixer]

<_< ------ Just curious! How many 767's does AA have parked in the desert? And are they 300's, or 200's? Or are they even AA's?

There all -200's parked in the desert. How many is listed in the Plans Book section of the M&E site.

 

[boeing767mech]

There all -200's parked in the desert. How many is listed in the Plans Book section of the M&E site.

All the 767's parked in Roswell are beercans the only one to live was 308 which went to ABX. As for the 767 quoted as coming back for the desert in DFW that was 352 and it was in Roswell in the paint shop getting it's wings striped for a new ECO. There is a maintainence newsletter out about it On the M&E web page.

David

 

[Bob Owens]

The JFK lease issue wouldn't surprise me. I'm told that space has been tagged as the only remaining option for terminal expansion, since it's along the AirTrain. There's not much room on the south side of the Van Wyck extension, but there certainly is between the AA freight/hangar complex and what used to be Cargo City.

If that happens, it looks like the guys at Tower Air were about 15-20 years ahead of their time and/or on the wrong side of the freeway...

Not much room on the south side? The side that used be be occupied by TWA, Pan Am and Tower?

It doesnt seem like there is much of a need for more termnal expansion at JFK anyway. The Port would rather send more stuff to the still underutilzed Newark Airport-which is closer to Manhattan before building more terminals at JFK.

The TWA terminal has been out of service for years and the AA terminal is still only 2/3s complete. The Tower terminals been vacant, TWA Hangar and offices vacant, Pam Am used by the Port and other more suitable buildings left vacant. I would guess that overall there's a 20% vacancy rate at JFK. Hanagar 10 is one of the few places that can hold anything that flies into JFK. I dont see AA getting rid of it but they've done dumb things before.

 

[eolesen]

EWR is pretty much landlocked for expansion. Both the Port and Delta have wanted to do something about T2 and T3, and replacing it where it stands is not practical given their proximity to T1 and T4.

The T5 TW terminal has been replaced by the Jetblue terminal, if you didn't notice. I suspect they plan to fill it up pretty quickly, although there's not much discussion of what they plan to do about T6. But assuming that T6 does wind up in someone's hands, JFK's totally out terminal capacity.

The majority of the vacant unoccupied real estate sits between TW and the Jet Center. The TW and FF parcels are too narrow to be useful as a terminal, and you wind up with a taxiway bottleneck due to the proximity to 13R. Likewise for the Jet Center's parcel, plus it is too far off the Airtrain guideway.

Take the plots between AA cargo and what used to be Evergreen way back when, leaving the dual taxiway where it is, and you wind up with a footprint as large as what AA's terminal sits on right now, and slightly larger than the T4 site including hardstands. Put a different way, you could fit the entire LGA terminal area minus the hangars into that site. Twice.



I'm not saying it will happen, Bob. But this comes from someone a lot closer to the Port than me. I never stepped foot into the TW complex, but I'd think that it should be capable of handling a 744.

 

[Bob Owens]

I'm not saying it will happen, Bob.

No you're just fanning the flames for the company.

There is plenty of space left at JFK and much of it, as well as EWR are underuntilzed. The Port uses most of the former TWA and Pan Am space for things that could be done anywhere, they dont need access to the AOA for their offices, to store 9-11 wreckage, junked vehicles and snow plows. Sure if you go JFK at certain times of the day its busy but miday its pretty quiet. LGA is small, the entire airport ccould fit in the terminal area of JFK but if I recall correctly LGA handles more flights a day than JFK.

Spreading rumors of doom and gloom around contract time is nothing new. AA has a 99 year lease at LGA, so I dont see them being torn down and the amount of hangar space at JFK is already limited, hangar 10 is one of the larger ones left and considering that its an International hub and makes a good emergency stop for anything from anywhere in the US going to Europe its unlikely that AA is going to dump its hangar at JFK.

 

[eolesen]

Fanning flames for the company? Right. That's it....

In case you haven't noticed, the fleet mix is changing. That's not a contract negotiation ploy -- it's reality.

Here's another reality check for you --- disposing of excess real estate isn't easy when you're locked in for 10, 20 or 99 years.

If there's an opportunity to reduce the leasehold, and the space is truly no longer necessary, CRE is going to walk away from it regardless of what is going on with the TWU contract. I've never said there won't be a hangar at JFK. But I think you'd be a fool to assume that it's always going to be Hangar 10.

 

[NewHampshire Black Bears]

Fanning flames for the company? Right. That's it....

In case you haven't noticed, the fleet mix is changing. That's not a contract negotiation ploy -- it's reality.

Here's another reality check for you --- disposing of excess real estate isn't easy when you're locked in for 10, 20 or 99 years.

If there's an opportunity to reduce the leasehold, and the space is truly no longer necessary, CRE is going to walk away from it regardless of what is going on with the TWU contract. I've never said there won't be a hangar at JFK. But I think you'd be a fool to assume that it's always going to be Hangar 10.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Got to agree + Disagree with you "E" !

I'll agree with you, that since AA has NEVER opted for the 747, and I don't see them going for the A-380,..........then sure,..........the Largest AA bird to ever see Hanger-10, will be the Largest 777.

But the "Taj Mahal" was built (for among) other things, contract work.

Imagine for a second if AA and BA get "VERY FAMILIAR",......then Hanger-10 would look very Inviting to those BA.."Queens of the Sky"
(Not to mention ANY other contract work that might come AA's(JFK) way)

SO,

"In a photo finish",...I'm going with Bob Owens,...in that...Hanger STAYS !!!

 

[Bob Owens]

huh ? (i'm scrathing my head) say what?

Back in 1995 the TWU and the company used fear tactics to ram through a concessionary contract after the crisis had passed. The workers were jammed with six year contract that saw their real incomes decline while the company, and the rest of the country enjoyed record growth and profits. TWU members saw their real pay decline by at least 12%. Now with oil on the decline the company and the union are trying to do the same thing again, lock in more concessions as the crises starts to ease.

 

[Bob Owens]

Fanning flames for the company? Right. That's it....

Thats right.

In case you haven't noticed, the fleet mix is changing. That's not a contract negotiation ploy -- it's reality.

The fleet mix is always changing. In case you havent noticed we dont see too many DC-10s or 727s any more.

Here's another reality check for you --- disposing of excess real estate isn't easy when you're locked in for 10, 20 or 99 years.

If there's an opportunity to reduce the leasehold, and the space is truly no longer necessary, CRE is going to walk away from it regardless of what is going on with the TWU contract. I've never said there won't be a hangar at JFK. But I think you'd be a fool to assume that it's always going to be Hangar 10.

Perhaps, but I think its safe to say there will be a hangar at JFK as long as AA has major operations here.

 

[eolesen]

Imagine for a second if AA and BA get "VERY FAMILIAR",......then Hanger-10 would look very Inviting to those BA.."Queens of the Sky"

Perhaps, but BA have flown 747's to JFK for over 30 years. So have LH, KL, JL, AF, and several other carriers. I don't see their name on any real estate.

DL is one of the three largest carriers at JFK and has been for over 15 years.

Have you seen the oversize garage that Jetblue has? JFK's their largest station....

Again, I'm not arguing whether or not AA should keep a hangar at JFK. Frankly, I don't care. But it's pretty clear they have too much space based on their future fleet plans.

Bottom line.... PANYNJ owns the building, not AA. They ultimately decide what happens, not AA or the TWU. If the Port takes back the building and offers AA Hangar 12, would that be the worst thing in the world?

And Bob, thanks for the tip on Hangar 17. I had no idea they had that much WTC stuff still stored over there. If it isn't open to the public, it should be...

 

[Hopeful]

Perhaps, but BA have flown 747's to JFK for over 30 years. So have LH, KL, JL, AF, and several other carriers. I don't see their name on any real estate.

DL is one of the three largest carriers at JFK and has been for over 15 years.

Have you seen the oversize garage that Jetblue has? JFK's their largest station....

Again, I'm not arguing whether or not AA should keep a hangar at JFK. Frankly, I don't care. But it's pretty clear they have too much space based on their future fleet plans.

Bottom line.... PANYNJ owns the building, not AA. They ultimately decide what happens, not AA or the TWU. If the Port takes back the building and offers AA Hangar 12, would that be the worst thing in the world?

And Bob, thanks for the tip on Hangar 17. I had no idea they had that much WTC stuff still stored over there. If it isn't open to the public, it should be...

Hangar 12 is all but falling down,,, the Port Authority parks winter vehicles in there. Also, right outside the hangar is a deicing tent....the port built two years ago...hangar 12 will be coming down in the near future.

As for the WTC remnants, it leaves one with quite an uneasy and sad feeling...and even eerie given the magnitude of the event.

 

[Tx_Amt]

Hangar 12 is all but falling down,,, the Port Authority parks winter vehicles in there. Also, right outside the hangar is a deicing tent....the port built two years ago...hangar 12 will be coming down in the near future.

As for the WTC remnants, it leaves one with quite an uneasy and sad feeling...and even eerie given the magnitude of the event.

A base is closing!!! AFW and MCIE most likely both! AFW won't bend over and take it, so RUMOR has it that if AFW doesn't "work together" then their will be no AFW! 4/10's are going away! Mgmt states that 5/8 and 4/10 do not mix together! Well if they thought morale was bad before what do they think they are going to get now!

The Ramano mobster gang gets what they want and they have Steve L. in their pocket so get ready everyone, concessions and a base closure!