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

[eolesen]

Hot on the wires.... UA closing down its operations at JFK, and moving all PS service over to EWR. DL is apparently either buying up UA's slots or trading them for facilities/slots elsewhere.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-06-16/nyc-california-flight-duel-expands-as-united-adds-flat-bed-seats

 

[1AA]

Are you baiting WT to another topic of discussion? You're a sneaky little devil. I give him less than 24 hours before his first comment here.

 

[eolesen]

Nah, there are two topics here... closing down JFK is really separate from the whole competitive issue, and really has nothing to do with DL.

I'll guess there are a couple hundred UA employees at JFK. Will be interesting to see how many just leave NYC vs. getting absorbed at LGA or EWR.

It also begs the question of what becomes of the space in T7. Maybe AA can finally co-locate some of their LHR service with BA, and free up space in T8?

 

[MetalMover]

Nah, there are two topics here... closing down JFK is really separate from the whole competitive issue, and really has nothing to do with DL.

I'll guess there are a couple hundred UA employees at JFK. Will be interesting to see how many just leave NYC vs. getting absorbed at LGA or EWR.

It also begs the question of what becomes of the space in T7. Maybe AA can finally co-locate some of their LHR service with BA, and free up space in T8?

The first thing you will see after UA vacates the premises is Terminal 7 get an overhaul.

 

[WorldTraveler]

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.

It is hard to believe that one of the world's largest airlines won't be at one of the world's busiest airports but UA clearly is not trying to be all things to all people in NYC.

and it is also notable that neither AA or DL fly transcon from EWR.

UA was using its best product from its weakest NYC station while allowing JFK to be the epicenter of a premium transcon strategy among several airlines which UA did not participate in from EWR.

 

[ThirdSeatHero]

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.

It is hard to believe that one of the world's largest airlines won't be at one of the world's busiest airports but UA clearly is not trying to be all things to all people in NYC.

and it is also notable that neither AA or DL fly transcon from EWR.

UA was using its best product from its weakest NYC station while allowing JFK to be the epicenter of a premium transcon strategy among several airlines which UA did not participate in from EWR.

 
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.

 

[WorldTraveler]

60 mechanics is well in excess of what is necessary to support that many flight. Other groups may or may not be but 300 people for a dozen and a half flights is a whole lot of employees and likely a large reason why the station could not make money from a cost side.

the competitive situation is part of it but UA's costs at JFK appear to be well above normal for a station of that size - likely a holdover from UA's position there before that for some reason or another they had not been able to or did not correct as the operation shrank.

 

[ThirdSeatHero]

60 mechanics is well in excess of what is necessary to support that many flight. Other groups may or may not be but 300 people for a dozen and a half flights is a whole lot of employees and likely a large reason why the station could not make money from a cost side.

the competitive situation is part of it but UA's costs at JFK appear to be well above normal for a station of that size - likely a holdover from UA's position there before that for some reason or another they had not been able to or did not correct as the operation shrank.

 
60 mechanics is well in excess of what is necessary? - And just what is your maintenance background, and just what is it you think you know about UALs PS operations?
 
As someone who WORKS for UAL and has WORKED the PS operation on the SFO end I can tell you obviously know nothing.
 
 
As for your amateurish critique that ...
 
"300 people for a dozen and a half flights is a whole lot of employees and likely a large reason why the station could not make money from a cost side."
 
You are truly laughable - if "excess" employees were "a large problem" there would be no need to swap slots with your beloved Delta, we could just trim the staffing.
 
BTW 270 isn't 300.

 

[WorldTraveler]

60 mechanics to work an average of 12.3 flights/day is excessive.

there simply is no justification for that much maintenance work to support that few flights.

If they are doing other work beyond maintenance for the aircraft that serve those routes, that might change things a little bit but having a station with that much maintenance for so few flights is excessive - whether you understand or accept it.

And 200 non-maintenance people for 12 757 flights is still excessive.

you can argue otherwise, but UA and every other airline factors in costs and revenues and when there were that many employees for such a small station, generating revenues would have been a very tough act to pull off.

And considering that UA was competing against a half dozen other airlines in the premium cabin offering from JFK while not offering that product from EWR says they were undoubtedly losing customers from their prime hub.

It was the right move strategically and the costs at JFK undoubtedly made the decision even more necessary.

sorry if that isn't what you want to hear.

 

[ThirdSeatHero]

60 mechanics to work an average of 12.3 flights/day is excessive.

there simply is no justification for that much maintenance work to support that few flights.

If they are doing other work beyond maintenance for the aircraft that serve those routes, that might change things a little bit but having a station with that much maintenance for so few flights is excessive - whether you understand or accept it.

And 200 non-maintenance people for 12 757 flights is still excessive.

you can argue otherwise, but UA and every other airline factors in costs and revenues and when there were that many employees for such a small station, generating revenues would have been a very tough act to pull off.

And considering that UA was competing against a half dozen other airlines in the premium cabin offering from JFK while not offering that product from EWR says they were undoubtedly losing customers from their prime hub.

It was the right move strategically and the costs at JFK undoubtedly made the decision even more necessary.

sorry if that isn't what you want to hear.

 
Allow me to expose your ignorance -
 
Among major metropolitan areas UAL maintenance has set points.
 
SFO Point = SFO - OAK - SJC - SMF
 
LAX Point = LAX - SNA - ONT - BUR - LGB
 
NYC Point = JFK - LGA - EWR
 
Maintenance assigned to these points travel amongst them when required.
 
It isn't just maintenance at JFK is maintenance at the NYC point as well 
 
The staffing was adequate for their assignments - whether you understand or accept it.
 
I'm sorry if that isn't what you want to hear.

 

[WorldTraveler]

does UA maintenance at JFK handle EWR? if not, and I can't understand why any union, let alone the company would expect JFK mechanics to have to also cover EWR.

even if they also covered LGA (does UA have maintenance at LGA?) then that is still a lot of mechanics for a small operation EVEN ON A COMBINED LGA/JFK basis.

UA, not me, is closing JFK. You can argue it was all market and revenue related but UA's staffing for an operation of that size appear to way out of line with other stations.

 

[ThirdSeatHero]

does UA maintenance at JFK handle EWR? if not, and I can't understand why any union, let alone the company would expect JFK mechanics to have to also cover EWR.

even if they also covered LGA (does UA have maintenance at LGA?) then that is still a lot of mechanics for a small operation EVEN ON A COMBINED LGA/JFK basis.

UA, not me, is closing JFK. You can argue it was all market and revenue related but UA's staffing for an operation of that size appear to way out of line with other stations.

 
And you can argue the inane position that it was largely excessive employee staffing - exposing that you know next to nothing about our operation ... which you have done.

 

[WorldTraveler]

except I didn't say that staffing was the reason the station was closed - but 300 people even if you say that 60 of them cover LGA and JFK - is excessive.

UA made the right strategic decision based on a number of factors; staffing had to help seal the decision.

and you still didn't answer if UA JFK mechanics had to also cover EWR and/or LGA.

 

[ThirdSeatHero]

except I didn't say that staffing was the reason the station was closed - but 300 people even if you say that 60 of them cover LGA and JFK - is excessive.

UA made the right strategic decision based on a number of factors; staffing had to help seal the decision.

and you still didn't answer if UA JFK mechanics had to also cover EWR and/or LGA.

 
You most certainly inferred it ...
 

300 people for a dozen and a half flights is a whole lot of employees and likely a large reason why the station could not make money from a cost side.

 
And again - What do you know about UALs operation at the NYC point?  You obviously don't have a clue when it comes to our maintenance operations, what makes you think you have any sort of valid insight to our Premium service - Customer Service - Ramp Service - Facilities?   
 
"Excessive" is that code for Delta doesn't staff at those levels so it must be excessive? 

 

[WorldTraveler]

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.