Print from Airliners.net discussion forum
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/5453367/

Topic: Traffic Way Down At JFK?
Username: jfklganyc
Posted 2012-04-30 19:05:40 and read 7072 times.

Does anybody know if air traffic is way off at JFK?

At first I thought it was a fall/winter thing, but even as of late, the airport's taxiways and runways have been very quiet.

How many flights has DL cut with the LGA expansion?

How many flights is AA down with BK?

B6 has stopped all growth at the airport and is either flat or slightly down in terms of flights.

Topic: RE: Traffic Way Down At JFK?
Username: AS739BSI
Posted 2012-04-30 19:13:07 and read 7017 times.

I would suggest looking at statistics. JFK cannot grow except outside of peak hours due to slot restrictions and of course those peak hours are when airlines want to run their aircraft. JFK will not grow until NextGen is fully deployed if they decide to reduce delays to the 15 minute standard which isn't expected to happen until 2020. A new runway will not happen in Jamaica Bay without fighting the feds and NYC residents to where it is infeasable politically. In order to build a new runway, the Eastern Cargo area would have to be relocated but Nextgen would have to be deployed in order to not lose capacity at LGA.

Topic: RE: Traffic Way Down At JFK?
Username: LAXintl
Posted 2012-04-30 19:21:39 and read 6975 times.

Yes movements at JFK are down – peaked at about 444,000 in 2007, with 2011 down to 410,000.

Though passenger volumes have been almost unchanged at about 47mil for the last 5-years at JFK.

Part of this is likely the revised and stricter FAA slot program which limited movements to 82-83/per hour compared to earlier allowance of almost 100.

However even with the stricter limits, JFK still continues to sit in the bottom half of national ontime statistics, though it did improve from almost the bottom spot to a bit more middle of the pact.

Topic: RE: Traffic Way Down At JFK?
Username: FSDan
Posted 2012-04-30 21:47:55 and read 6690 times.

Quoting jfklganyc (Thread starter):
How many flights has DL cut with the LGA expansion?

Not that many, actually. They have moved some destinations completely to LGA (e.g. PWM) and have reduced frequencies on quite a few regional routes (like JFK-BUF and JFK-RIC), but at the same time they are adding the following:

JFK-AUS, JFK-MCI, JFK-MSY, JFK-MKE, JFK-DAY, JFK-JAX, JFK-CHS, JFK-GSO, and JFK-ELM

They've also added frequency to JFK-SFO, JFK-LAX, JFK-STI, JFK-SDQ, and JFK-SJU.

All told, there should be between 180 and 190 daily DL flights from JFK this summer.

Topic: RE: Traffic Way Down At JFK?
Username: jfklganyc
Posted 2012-05-01 05:22:29 and read 6333 times.

I'm glad to hear that DL hasn't cut as much as I have thought. I liked the well rounded hub approach they have taken over the last 5 years as opposed to the intl hub approach they had through much of the 90s. IE: JFK will always be an intl connecting hub, but it would be nice if it was used for the first 8 hours of the day.

That said, much of my observations are based on last year vs this year. Not 2005/6 to now.

Topic: RE: Traffic Way Down At JFK?
Username: STT757
Posted 2012-05-01 05:37:22 and read 6275 times.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 2):
Yes movements at JFK are down – peaked at about 444,000 in 2007, with 2011 down to 410,000.

It's crazy that EWR has more movements than JFK, 415,000 to 410,000, yet JFK handles 13 million more passengers per year.

Topic: RE: Traffic Way Down At JFK?
Username: tsnamm
Posted 2012-05-01 06:07:07 and read 6172 times.

Quoting STT757 (Reply 5):
It's crazy that EWR has more movements than JFK, 415,000 to 410,000, yet JFK handles 13 million more passengers per year.

JFK has many more wide body flights...a lot of the movements at EWR are UA/CO Express flights...

Topic: RE: Traffic Way Down At JFK?
Username: jfklganyc
Posted 2012-05-01 08:00:10 and read 5918 times.

"JFK has many more wide body flights...a lot of the movements at EWR are UA/CO Express flights..."

It is true. LGA as well.

A few years ago, the DOT or FAA was thinking of imposing a size restriction at LGA...they should have.

Imagine how much more economic impact for the area if you could get an extra 13 million passengers per year through an airport with less flights then you currently have.

Now granted, that is comparing an International-Heavy airport (JFK) with a Domestic-Heavy airport (EWR). But still, it is a relevant point. With the excpetion of a few underserved, small markets, the smallest thing landing at JFK/LGA/EWR should be 70 seats.

And the PANYNJ should also step in and RAISE fees on RJs less then 50 seats while REDUCING fees on aircraft over 70 seats

Topic: RE: Traffic Way Down At JFK?
Username: STT757
Posted 2012-05-01 08:04:33 and read 5909 times.

Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 7):
It is true. LGA as well.

A few years ago, the DOT or FAA was thinking of imposing a size restriction at LGA...they should have.

Imagine how much more economic impact for the area if you could get an extra 13 million passengers per year through an airport with less flights then you currently have.

Now granted, that is comparing an International-Heavy airport (JFK) with a Domestic-Heavy airport (EWR). But still, it is a relevant point. With the excpetion of a few underserved, small markets, the smallest thing landing at JFK/LGA/EWR should be 70 seats.

And the PANYNJ should also step in and RAISE fees on RJs less then 50 seats while REDUCING fees on aircraft over 70 seats

I also support the idea of size restrictions, with some caveats so places like Ithaca, Binghamton, Elmira, Harrisburg etc.. can get 30-50 seat prop/regional jet service.

Topic: RE: Traffic Way Down At JFK?
Username: corinthians
Posted 2012-05-01 09:23:08 and read 5797 times.

Traffic levels at JFK seem to be the same compared to last year. In 2010, it handled a little under 400,000 movements, but much of that was because the bay runway was closed and airlines voluntarily reduced their flights. Last year, it handled about 410,000 movements. As of February of this year, movements are up by 3%. Overall passenger numbers seem to be up by 6%. So, JFK’s doing just fine. This is all from the PA’s website.

Quoting AS739BSI (Reply 1):
I would suggest looking at statistics. JFK cannot grow except outside of peak hours due to slot restrictions and of course those peak hours are when airlines want to run their aircraft. JFK will not grow until NextGen is fully deployed if they decide to reduce delays to the 15 minute standard which isn't expected to happen until 2020. A new runway will not happen in Jamaica Bay without fighting the feds and NYC residents to where it is infeasable politically. In order to build a new runway, the Eastern Cargo area would have to be relocated but Nextgen would have to be deployed in order to not lose capacity at LGA.

The PA and RPA are conducting research on adding new runways at JFK and EWR. Some include Jamaica Bay land reclamation and others propose removing the northern cargo area. EWR’s plans are really ambitious and involve demolition of some of the terminal buildings. Expanding LGA was essentially ruled out and I think they finally gave up on that stupid idea of SWF being a reliever airport.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 2):
Part of this is likely the revised and stricter FAA slot program which limited movements to 82-83/per hour compared to earlier allowance of almost 100.

One thing I never got was how LHR and FRA, which have similar if not worse flight restrictions, handle more flights to any of the NYC airports. FRA was capped at 80 movements an hour before they got the new runway, yet it consistently handled about 480,000 movements a year. FRA didn’t have the best runway configuration either, but it never had bad delays. Do they just have a better ATC system there?

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 2):
However even with the stricter limits, JFK still continues to sit in the bottom half of national ontime statistics, though it did improve from almost the bottom spot to a bit more middle of the pact.

JFK’s delays are nowhere near as bad as they were in the past. It’s really only delayed now when the weather is really, really bad. Even LGA’s performance has improved. EWR still has problems.

Quoting STT757 (Reply 5):
It's crazy that EWR has more movements than JFK, 415,000 to 410,000, yet JFK handles 13 million more passengers per year.

Yup…and that’s a grand total of 13 more flights a day.

Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 7):
It is true. LGA as well.

A few years ago, the DOT or FAA was thinking of imposing a size restriction at LGA...they should have.

Imagine how much more economic impact for the area if you could get an extra 13 million passengers per year through an airport with less flights then you currently have.

Now granted, that is comparing an International-Heavy airport (JFK) with a Domestic-Heavy airport (EWR). But still, it is a relevant point. With the excpetion of a few underserved, small markets, the smallest thing landing at JFK/LGA/EWR should be 70 seats.

And the PANYNJ should also step in and RAISE fees on RJs less then 50 seats while REDUCING fees on aircraft over 70 seats

JFK, EWR and even LGA don’t have THAT many planes with less than 50 seats. This is especially the case with JFK. Sure, EWR and LGA have a lot of RJ’s, but most are over 70 seats. Even if you place size restrictions, I doubt it will make much difference or do much good. Just look at LHR. You’d be hard-pressed to find anything smaller than an A319 there, yet their delay problems are much worse than anything in NYC. Bigger planes don’t necessarily equate to a smother traffic flow or even fewer flights.

Topic: RE: Traffic Way Down At JFK?
Username: daviation
Posted 2012-05-01 10:13:12 and read 5721 times.

Quoting corinthians (Reply 9):
that stupid idea of SWF being a reliever airport

Not to start another SWF vs JFK/EWR/LGA war, but why is it a stupid idea? The Port Authority is investigating adding new runways to JFK and/or EWR. How many billions will that cost? When would it be completed? Probably not in my lifetime!

We all know that the rail line cannot be feasibly hooked up to SWF. What about express bus service? SWF sits right at the intersection of two interstates (84 & 87). The bus ride, using the bus-only lanes at the Lincoln Tunnel, would have you in midtown Manhattan in 90 minutes. As you know, during rush hour, it can take 90 minutes or more to get to JFK/EWR by car. And there is no public transport to LGA.

For a fraction of the cost, Port Authority could run a free bus service and utilize a fantastic airport with two runways (one of them 12,000 feet), and a newish terminal that will soon undergo renovation.

I don't think it's a stupid idea at all.

Topic: RE: Traffic Way Down At JFK?
Username: Polot
Posted 2012-05-01 10:30:33 and read 5674 times.

Quoting corinthians (Reply 9):
JFK, EWR and even LGA don’t have THAT many planes with less than 50 seats. This is especially the case with JFK. Sure, EWR and LGA have a lot of RJ’s, but most are over 70 seats. Even if you place size restrictions, I doubt it will make much difference or do much good. Just look at LHR. You’d be hard-pressed to find anything smaller than an A319 there, yet their delay problems are much worse than anything in NYC. Bigger planes don’t necessarily equate to a smother traffic flow or even fewer flights.

It is also important that the terminals themselves can handle the extra passengers. With EWR (especially A2) and LGA, I am not so sure that is the case.

Topic: RE: Traffic Way Down At JFK?
Username: threeifbyair
Posted 2012-05-01 11:10:37 and read 5594 times.

Quoting daviation (Reply 10):
We all know that the rail line cannot be feasibly hooked up to SWF. What about express bus service? SWF sits right at the intersection of two interstates (84 & 87). The bus ride, using the bus-only lanes at the Lincoln Tunnel, would have you in midtown Manhattan in 90 minutes. As you know, during rush hour, it can take 90 minutes or more to get to JFK/EWR by car. And there is no public transport to LGA.

AirTrain + LIRR doesn't take 90 minutes, though. SWF is always 90 minutes away.

Quoting corinthians (Reply 9):
JFK, EWR and even LGA don’t have THAT many planes with less than 50 seats. This is especially the case with JFK. Sure, EWR and LGA have a lot of RJ’s, but most are over 70 seats. Even if you place size restrictions, I doubt it will make much difference or do much good. Just look at LHR. You’d be hard-pressed to find anything smaller than an A319 there, yet their delay problems are much worse than anything in NYC. Bigger planes don’t necessarily equate to a smother traffic flow or even fewer flights.

  

Moreover, many 50 seat RJs will be retired over the next 5 years. The problem will almost solve itself, unless people start complaining about those stupid 70 seat RJs...  

Topic: RE: Traffic Way Down At JFK?
Username: mogandoCI
Posted 2012-05-01 11:26:19 and read 5565 times.

Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 7):
Now granted, that is comparing an International-Heavy airport (JFK) with a Domestic-Heavy airport (EWR). But still, it is a relevant point. With the excpetion of a few underserved, small markets, the smallest thing landing at JFK/LGA/EWR should be 70 seats.

And the PANYNJ should also step in and RAISE fees on RJs less then 50 seats while REDUCING fees on aircraft over 70 seats

Or just charge flat-rate landing *and takeoff* fees during peak hours, not just by weight. The same $ XYZ price for both a Beechcraft and the A380. Reduce fees to very low during the slow noon hours.

Everyone wins in this scenario :

1. Incentivize airlines to upgauge instead of frequency abuse. (reducing pollution and congestion)
2. For those freq-obsessed biz pax, they would have no trouble paying a premium for high-freq RJ service (increasing revenue).
3. Small destinations are not compromised since they can always run their RJs at 11am and 2pm. (maintaining connectivity)
4. Long-haul international flights that must depart around noon or midnight (due to time zone changes) would have their fees lowered, thus enticing more international carriers.

Topic: RE: Traffic Way Down At JFK?
Username: lightsaber
Posted 2012-05-01 11:40:36 and read 5505 times.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 2):
Yes movements at JFK are down – peaked at about 444,000 in 2007, with 2011 down to 410,000.

Though passenger volumes have been almost unchanged at about 47mil for the last 5-years at JFK.

Thank you for the numbers. Very interesting.

Quoting corinthians (Reply 9):
As of February of this year, movements are up by 3%. Overall passenger numbers seem to be up by 6%. So, JFK’s doing just fine.

Also interesting. So a return to growth. I assume all peak time slots are spoken for? (Note, I'm asking.) What fraction are being 'squatted on' with RJs?

Quoting daviation (Reply 10):
The Port Authority is investigating adding new runways to JFK and/or EWR. How many billions will that cost?

But those would pay off in the long run. SWF has a small amount of potential. A BUR vs. LAX. It is simply too far off the 'beaten path' to be a significant reliever. International traffic requires connections to be viable, so I doubt one could force long haul there...

Due to the location, it would appeal to Spirit or Allergiant, but not any high yielding airlines.

Airports have a reduced 'catch' of passengers more than 60 minutes away. We already see DL service at SWF. If there was a larger market, it wouldn't be DL branded RJs, but rather mainline. Unless SWF is connected to Metro-North, its growth will be slow. To be blunt, without easier connections to SWF (which only Metro North will really provide) will the airport serve as a reliever.

Once the airport grows to 2 or 3 million passengers per year, than bus service could be used to further grow the airport. But it will be a chicken and egg scenario. The bus will be empty until passenger numbers increase dramatically and thus uneconomical.

But the real money would be to expand EWR or JFK to further enable their use as an international hub. Billions spent on either would be paid back through increased fees and taxes. SWF? I doubt the current service would survive a large fee increase. Also, SWF is unlikely to be expandable past 15 million pax/year.

Quoting threeifbyair (Reply 12):
Moreover, many 50 seat RJs will be retired over the next 5 years. The problem will almost solve itself, unless people start complaining about those stupid 70 seat RJs...

   I expect as the MAX and NEO enter service, the relative economics of the RJ will fall apart further accelerating the removal from the fleet.

Lightsaber

Topic: RE: Traffic Way Down At JFK?
Username: rwy04lga
Posted 2012-05-01 12:08:11 and read 5444 times.

Quoting daviation (Reply 10):
And there is no public transport to LGA.

Oh yeah? I don't walk or drive to work! NY city buses Q33, Q47, Q48, Q72, and the M60 ALL go to LGA for $2.25 or LESS! Transport is more than just trains and planes!  

Topic: RE: Traffic Way Down At JFK?
Username: mogandoCI
Posted 2012-05-01 12:16:15 and read 5422 times.

Quoting rwy04lga (Reply 15):
Oh yeah? I don't walk or drive to work! NY city buses Q33, Q47, Q48, Q72, and the M60 ALL go to LGA for $2.25 or LESS! Transport is more than just trains and planes!  

Good luck getting to LGA reliably at friday 5pm with those unless you leave home super early. Few desire a mode of transport in which the level of uncertainty is high.

Topic: RE: Traffic Way Down At JFK?
Username: daviation
Posted 2012-05-01 13:21:10 and read 5340 times.

Quoting rwy04lga (Reply 15):
NY city buses Q33, Q47, Q48, Q72, and the M60 ALL go to LGA

Now honestly! You're a native New Yorker. I was born & raised in NYC too, but I wouldn't even have a clue how to take the city bus to LGA. Do you think a business person, tourist, or other out-of-towner is going to attempt to reach LGA by city bus?

Look, I'm just throwing out an idea about the express bus from SWF - I'm sure some politician has already beaten me to it. But new runways, especially in the political climate of New York, just aren't going to happen. It took ten years to get the new World Trade Center started. I think the bus service to SWF is an easy short-term solution. Of course, Lightsaber is correct that SWF will never be a hub airport. I think it could serve more like a Gatwick-type solution.

Topic: RE: Traffic Way Down At JFK?
Username: mogandoCI
Posted 2012-05-01 13:27:24 and read 5318 times.

Quoting daviation (Reply 17):
Look, I'm just throwing out an idea about the express bus from SWF - I'm sure some politician has already beaten me to it. But new runways, especially in the political climate of New York, just aren't going to happen. It took ten years to get the new World Trade Center started. I think the bus service to SWF is an easy short-term solution. Of course, Lightsaber is correct that SWF will never be a hub airport. I think it could serve more like a Gatwick-type solution.

At least LGW has a 30-40 minute Gatwick Express from Victoria station, which is very close to city center.

Topic: RE: Traffic Way Down At JFK?
Username: daviation
Posted 2012-05-01 13:27:40 and read 5319 times.

One more thing: "off the beaten path" is relative over a period of time. When I was growing up in New York City, Suffolk County (Long Island) and Orange County (Hudson Valley) were considered part of the other side of the world! People would go there for the summer.

Now, these are considered just more suburbs. A 90-minute commute is hardly unheard of these days. My own commute is 100 miles roundtrip every day.

Topic: RE: Traffic Way Down At JFK?
Username: daviation
Posted 2012-05-01 13:31:33 and read 5305 times.

Quoting mogandoCI (Reply 18):
At least LGW has a 30-40 minute Gatwick Express from Victoria station

Yes, I know, I've been to London. And London has better public transport in general than New York will ever have. I've taken the tube several times to LHR. Easy as pie. When I go to EWR, JFK, or LGA, I don't dare take public transport. I don't know the routes, and it's just easier to navigate by car, but still an awful ride.

Topic: RE: Traffic Way Down At JFK?
Username: STT757
Posted 2012-05-01 13:37:18 and read 5285 times.

Quoting corinthians (Reply 9):
and I think they finally gave up on that stupid idea of SWF being a reliever airport.
Quoting daviation (Reply 10):
Not to start another SWF vs JFK/EWR/LGA war, but why is it a stupid idea? The Port Authority is investigating adding new runways to JFK and/or EWR. How many billions will that cost? When would it be completed? Probably not in my lifetime!

The Port Authority made a big mistake taking over SWF, it's never going to be a "reliever" airport. It's too far from the major population centers in the City, Long Island and Northern New Jersey. It's too far from passengers, it's too far for cago operations. All funds should be concentrated into EWR and JFK.

Quoting daviation (Reply 10):
We all know that the rail line cannot be feasibly hooked up to SWF. What about express bus service? SWF sits right at the intersection of two interstates (84 & 87).

There aren't enough flights to justify dedicated shuttle bus service. What I think the Port Authority should do is try to develop SWF into a NYC verison of Sanford (Orlando). The Port Authority is planning on building an FIS, they could develop SWF into an international charter airport for both European charters and US charters to Mexico, Caribbean etc.. Tie those charters into dedicated buses arranged by those companies.

Topic: RE: Traffic Way Down At JFK?
Username: aquablue
Posted 2012-05-01 17:48:52 and read 3825 times.

I agree. JFK is underutilized. It has similar or perhaps more land area than airports like LAX, which manage to squeeze a better higher capcaity runway configuration in there. Perhaps JFK needs to reconfigure its cargo and terminal complex to fit in more runways on its current footprint if the bay expansion option is out for good. There is plenty of room for more runways if buildings were moved around. One could even have 4 parallel runways on the current land if the terminal complex was rebuilt in a different configuration. Cargo could be moved to Stewart for instance, and the current circle of terminals could be rebuilt into a linear terminal with midfields allowing more space for runways. That is one idea that the RPA didn't examine.

Topic: RE: Traffic Way Down At JFK?
Username: tommyy
Posted 2012-05-01 17:49:27 and read 3825 times.

I fully disagree with the assement on SWF, I live in Rockland County, which is 20 miles north of NYC and I fly every week to either ATL or MEM and I wish I could fly out of SWF but the flights out of SWF are always a couple of hundred dollars more expensive then even LGA, it just does not make any sense, they will never get traffic to SWF if the flights out of there are consistently more expensive, there is a very large population of business travellers who live in CT or Westchester who would much rather go to SWF then fighting NYC traffic but not when the fares are so much higher, just go to Delta.com and search flights to ATL from either LGA or even HPN and you will see SWF is considerably higher them both of them

Topic: RE: Traffic Way Down At JFK?
Username: corinthians
Posted 2012-05-01 19:18:48 and read 3363 times.

Quoting aquablue (Reply 22):
I agree. JFK is underutilized. It has similar or perhaps more land area than airports like LAX, which manage to squeeze a better higher capcaity runway configuration in there. Perhaps JFK needs to reconfigure its cargo and terminal complex to fit in more runways on its current footprint if the bay expansion option is out for good. There is plenty of room for more runways if buildings were moved around. One could even have 4 parallel runways on the current land if the terminal complex was rebuilt in a different configuration. Cargo could be moved to Stewart for instance, and the current circle of terminals could be rebuilt into a linear terminal with midfields allowing more space for runways. That is one idea that the RPA didn't examine.

JFK has the runway capacity. It has four runways, which is the same as LAX. The configuration isn't even all that bad - certainly no worse than what they have at ORD. The problem is the airspace surrounding JFK - LGA hogs up much of airspace over Queens and Brooklyn, pretty much handicapping which runways JFK can use and how they can be used. LGA even prevents two runways from being used all that efficiently at JFK. The best solution would be close down LGA to allow JFK to be used to its full potential, but that ain't gonna happen.

So, without a change in the airspace or some really big advance in ATC technology that allows JFK to use its four runways more efficiently, building another runway to allow another departure or arrival flow would help immensely. And they probably can build another one where the north cargo area is. That's something they're researching, among other things.

Topic: RE: Traffic Way Down At JFK?
Username: STT757
Posted 2012-05-02 06:47:24 and read 3215 times.

Quoting corinthians (Reply 24):
The best solution would be close down LGA to allow JFK to be used to its full potential, but that ain't gonna happen.

The best solution would be to close TEB and LGA and put all the resources into two NYC airports, EWR and JFK. There would be huge savings for everyone involved, the FAA, Homeland security, Port Authority etc.. Rebuild the Terminals, expand the runway/taxiways, build real one seat rides to both airports directly (no Airtrain connection) to Manhattan.

The FBO business could be divided up between HPN, Morristown, Farmingdale/Republic, Essex County/Caldwell, Monmouth Executive.

Topic: RE: Traffic Way Down At JFK?
Username: corinthians
Posted 2012-05-02 08:18:55 and read 3145 times.

Quoting STT757 (Reply 25):
The best solution would be to close TEB and LGA and put all the resources into two NYC airports, EWR and JFK. There would be huge savings for everyone involved, the FAA, Homeland security, Port Authority etc.. Rebuild the Terminals, expand the runway/taxiways, build real one seat rides to both airports directly (no Airtrain connection) to Manhattan.

The FBO business could be divided up between HPN, Morristown, Farmingdale/Republic, Essex County/Caldwell, Monmouth Executive.

I won’t argue with you there. But considering all the investment they’re going to do at LGA, that’s not likely to change. Aren’t they supposed to replace the entire CTB?

As for the one-seat rides, I don’t think the current setup with the Airtrains at EWR and JFK are all that bad. It takes about 30 minutes to get to Penn from both airports and that’s reasonable.

Topic: RE: Traffic Way Down At JFK?
Username: mogandoCI
Posted 2012-05-02 08:29:35 and read 3162 times.

Quoting corinthians (Reply 26):
But considering all the investment they’re going to do at LGA, that’s not likely to change. Aren’t they supposed to replace the entire CTB?

They need to do way more than that. It's highly inefficient to have 4 small and disjoint terminals like that. Concourse A and C of CTB looks rotten, and I can't imagine B/D be any better.

The only saving grace is the US Airways Terminal looks acceptable, but that's a very low bar to pass.

Topic: RE: Traffic Way Down At JFK?
Username: STT757
Posted 2012-05-02 08:36:27 and read 3140 times.

Quoting corinthians (Reply 26):
But considering all the investment they’re going to do at LGA, that’s not likely to change. Aren’t they supposed to replace the entire CTB?

They're soliciting bids right now to replace the CTB with a new $3 Billion dollar terminal, should be an announcement by this Fall. It would be a joint public/private endeavor like T-4 and T-1 at JFK. They are also soliciting bids for a new Terminal A at EWR using the same type of partnership, that's projected to be a $2 Billion dollar project.

Topic: RE: Traffic Way Down At JFK?
Username: corinthians
Posted 2012-05-02 08:58:37 and read 3088 times.

Quoting mogandoCI (Reply 27):
They need to do way more than that. It's highly inefficient to have 4 small and disjoint terminals like that. Concourse A and C of CTB looks rotten, and I can't imagine B/D be any better.

The only saving grace is the US Airways Terminal looks acceptable, but that's a very low bar to pass.

They should just get rid of that airport and use the area for housing or whatever. I never understood the draw and in this case, perception is stronger than reality. I lived in Jackson Heights for many years and I had a lot of fun spotting at Planeview Park, but using the airport was a different matter. It’s an embarrassment. And with the awful traffic and poor public transportation options, it takes a long time to get there from Manhattan. Even taking the bus from Flushing is a chore. I don’t even think they’re planning to build a rail connection there. How can they do that anyways? Too many people live between Roosevelt Ave. Station and the airport, so can’t build a rail extension from there.

I do agree that the US Air (now Delta, I guess) terminal is nice.

Quoting STT757 (Reply 28):
They're soliciting bids right now to replace the CTB with a new $3 Billion dollar terminal, should be an announcement by this Fall. It would be a joint public/private endeavor like T-4 and T-1 at JFK. They are also soliciting bids for a new Terminal A at EWR using the same type of partnership, that's projected to be a $2 Billion dollar project.

I heard about it, but never saw the plans. You have a link with a pic? What about Terminal A at EWR?

Topic: RE: Traffic Way Down At JFK?
Username: STT757
Posted 2012-05-02 09:28:18 and read 3037 times.

Quoting corinthians (Reply 29):

I heard about it, but never saw the plans. You have a link with a pic? What about Terminal A at EWR?

I posted the Port Authority board video about a year ago where they showed what the new Terminal A would look like. I'll try to dig it up, it looks like a bigger (45 gates) version of the Jetblue Terminal at JFK. It would be built over the current P-1 and P-2 parking lots as well the UPS facility. The Port Authority just signed a short term lease with UPS so that they could have that land available in two years for the new Terminal. The Port Authority will relocate UPS to a different part of the airport.

The UPS lease agreement is on page nine:

http://www.panynj.gov/corporate-info...pecial_ops_minutes_apr_26_2012.pdf

Topic: RE: Traffic Way Down At JFK?
Username: mogandoCI
Posted 2012-05-02 09:58:55 and read 3010 times.

Quoting corinthians (Reply 29):
I heard about it, but never saw the plans. You have a link with a pic? What about Terminal A at EWR?

Even though EWR T-A is a bit outdated, it's light years ahead of what LGA is. EWR is definitely low on the priority list if funding is constrained.

Topic: RE: Traffic Way Down At JFK?
Username: jfklganyc
Posted 2012-05-02 11:17:31 and read 2944 times.

Agreeed.

Terminal A at EWR was built for the 70s and updated for the 80s and 90s.

The CTB was built for Orville and Wilbur.

Seriously, it was late 50s/early 60s construction and is way outdated for what needs to be done.

The sad thing about LGA is that it doesn't need a new CTB...it needs a new everything. And while the PA had that vision in the 1950s, it just doesn't today, so it will likely not be done.

The Terminal D is akin to a temporary 80s structure that DL has done their best to keep going.

Terminal C is the "modern" one at the airport from 1992. That is a lifetime ago in avaition.

Think of AUS as the perfect terminal setup for the new LGA:

A single long terminal without alleyways
Plenty of ramp space
Starts where the DL terminal currently is and swings right around to where the AA hangars are now.
Central Check in starting near the TWA Hangar and swinging over to mid CTB now.
Train station outside the front door
70-80 gates.
No overly long walks because it is an O and D airport.

AA on side closest to runway 4
DL on side closest to the current DL Terminal.
Everyone else fits in between in current order.
Easy for mergers (just swap gates), alliances, etc


A simple, streamlined, standardized airprot. Something NYC/Newark has never had.

It would be great.

Instead they are going to pour in billions (just like they did at JFK) to rebuild the same flawed design:

Multiple terminals connected through patch work walkways.

Topic: RE: Traffic Way Down At JFK?
Username: Blue100
Posted 2012-05-02 11:59:56 and read 2894 times.

A bit off topic but I flew out of EWR Terminal B in December for the first time in a very long time. I was surprised by the amount of construction that was going on inside the building. Is the project intended to modernize the check-in area in B? The BA check-in area located on the arrivals level was quite nice since it was isolated from the other airline check-in spots. I also noticed that there is very little to do in Terminal B post-security besides plane spot of course.   I've enjoyed my experiences flying out of JFK terminals 5, 7 and 8 quite a bit more.

I will have the chance to fly DL from the "infamous" terminal 3 this July. Does anyone have an idea as to how crowded T-3 typically gets during the summer? I know DL splits flights between T-2, T-3 and T-4. I'll just have to remember not to feed the pigeons while I'm there.   

Topic: RE: Traffic Way Down At JFK?
Username: STT757
Posted 2012-05-02 12:17:52 and read 2856 times.

Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 32):
A single long terminal without alleyways
Plenty of ramp space
Starts where the DL terminal currently is and swings right around to where the AA hangars are now.
Central Check in starting near the TWA Hangar and swinging over to mid CTB now.
Train station outside the front door
70-80 gates.
No overly long walks because it is an O and D airport.

AA on side closest to runway 4
DL on side closest to the current DL Terminal.
Everyone else fits in between in current order.
Easy for mergers (just swap gates), alliances, etc

Or even something that looks like MIA's North Terminal or DTW's McNamara.

Topic: RE: Traffic Way Down At JFK?
Username: corinthians
Posted 2012-05-02 12:43:29 and read 2823 times.

Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 32):
Agreeed.

Terminal A at EWR was built for the 70s and updated for the 80s and 90s.

The CTB was built for Orville and Wilbur.

Seriously, it was late 50s/early 60s construction and is way outdated for what needs to be done.

The sad thing about LGA is that it doesn't need a new CTB...it needs a new everything. And while the PA had that vision in the 1950s, it just doesn't today, so it will likely not be done.

The Terminal D is akin to a temporary 80s structure that DL has done their best to keep going.

Terminal C is the "modern" one at the airport from 1992. That is a lifetime ago in avaition.

Think of AUS as the perfect terminal setup for the new LGA:

A single long terminal without alleyways
Plenty of ramp space
Starts where the DL terminal currently is and swings right around to where the AA hangars are now.
Central Check in starting near the TWA Hangar and swinging over to mid CTB now.
Train station outside the front door
70-80 gates.
No overly long walks because it is an O and D airport.

AA on side closest to runway 4
DL on side closest to the current DL Terminal.
Everyone else fits in between in current order.
Easy for mergers (just swap gates), alliances, etc


A simple, streamlined, standardized airprot. Something NYC/Newark has never had.

It would be great.

Instead they are going to pour in billions (just like they did at JFK) to rebuild the same flawed design:

Multiple terminals connected through patch work walkways.

Remember JFK 2000? That was supposed to put everything under one roof. The airlines nixed it because they didn’t want to pay and they didn’t want passengers transferring to their competitors for connecting flights. Back then, there were a lot more airlines and none of them ever considered mergers and there weren’t any alliances. The PA was ahead of its time with that one.

I agree with you about LGA, though. The thing is that if you change the whole design now, you’d shut down most of the gate space wile reconstructing everything and they can’t do that since it’s a really busy airport. And while all its terminals need lots of work, they need to fix the runway configuration more than anything. Of course, that will never happen.

Topic: RE: Traffic Way Down At JFK?
Username: rwy04lga
Posted 2012-05-02 17:41:28 and read 2657 times.

Quoting mogandoCI (Reply 16):
Quoting daviation (Reply 17):

You said 'there is NO public transportation'. I merely pointed out that, in fact, there IS. How good, convenient, or whatever.. is subjective. When heading to work at 4AM, it suits me fine and only takes 20 minutes!

Topic: RE: Traffic Way Down At JFK?
Username: mogandoCI
Posted 2012-05-02 17:53:24 and read 2642 times.

Quoting rwy04lga (Reply 36):
You said 'there is NO public transportation'. I merely pointed out that, in fact, there IS. How good, convenient, or whatever.. is subjective. When heading to work at 4AM, it suits me fine and only takes 20 minutes!

No one said "no public transportation" , but i said no *reliable* one - the one that can give you a rather safe estimate of travel and arrival time, even during peak hours with unpredictably bad traffic jams on BQE and L.I.E.. Rail is reliable, bus is not.

Whatever travel time I save by the shorter distance to city center is offset by the increased buffer I need to pad in to account for delays.

Topic: RE: Traffic Way Down At JFK?
Username: jfklganyc
Posted 2012-05-02 20:43:01 and read 2471 times.

"I will have the chance to fly DL from the "infamous" terminal 3 this July. Does anyone have an idea as to how crowded T-3 typically gets during the summer? "

Enjoy it! If you're an aviation buff, you won't have a bad thing to say about the place.

BTW, dress lightly, AC stinks!  

LGA Public Transport: M60 is actually pretty cool and quick. Lot's of people use it

Still need a train though

Topic: RE: Traffic Way Down At JFK?
Username: STT757
Posted 2012-05-03 03:42:31 and read 2326 times.

Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 38):
LGA Public Transport: M60 is actually pretty cool and quick. Lot's of people use it

Still need a train though

N train right to the front of the new CTB, similar to DCA, would be perfect.

Topic: RE: Traffic Way Down At JFK?
Username: rwy04lga
Posted 2012-05-03 11:03:47 and read 2109 times.

Quoting mogandoCI (Reply 37):
No one said "no public transportation"

I wasn't referring to you but to 'daviation'. In reply 10, second paragraph, last sentence...'daviation' does indeed say 'There is no public transportation to LGA'. I maintain that there IS public transportation. Copy?

Topic: RE: Traffic Way Down At JFK?
Username: mogandoCI
Posted 2012-05-03 11:12:03 and read 2091 times.

Quoting rwy04lga (Reply 40):
I wasn't referring to you but to 'daviation'. In reply 10, second paragraph, last sentence...'daviation' does indeed say 'There is no public transportation to LGA'. I maintain that there IS public transportation. Copy?

Then you've quoted the wrong line. In reply 36 you quoted his reply 17 instead of 10.

COPY ??!!!

Topic: RE: Traffic Way Down At JFK?
Username: rwy04lga
Posted 2012-05-03 11:44:01 and read 2045 times.

In reply 37, YOU said 'no one said there was no transportation', I showed that in reply 10 'davation' said exactly that. That's why I referenced your post.

Topic: RE: Traffic Way Down At JFK?
Username: aquablue
Posted 2012-05-03 16:25:25 and read 1889 times.

Quoting rwy04lga (Reply 40):

That would never happen. You would be destroying a neighborhood. Think of another solution.

Topic: RE: Traffic Way Down At JFK?
Username: rwy04lga
Posted 2012-05-03 16:45:08 and read 1868 times.

What would never happen?

Topic: RE: Traffic Way Down At JFK?
Username: jetbluefan1
Posted 2012-05-04 09:51:25 and read 1684 times.

Quoting STT757 (Reply 39):
N train right to the front of the new CTB, similar to DCA, would be perfect.

Absolutely. Take the current track at 31st Ave. and Queens Blvd and have the train run along the GCP a mile or two until it reaches LGA. It's probably the most cost effective solution and would be wildly popular with Queens, Brooklyn, and Manhattan residents. I could envision express trains starting at Coney Island with a stop in Williamsburg, Financial District, 14th Street, 42nd Street, 59th Street, Queensboro, Queens Blvd, and then head straight to LGA.

30 minutes from Brooklyn, 20 minutes from Manhattan, 10 minutes from Queens. Can't beat it.


The messages in this discussion express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of Airliners.net or any entity associated with Airliners.net.

Copyright © Lundgren Aerospace. All rights reserved.
http://www.airliners.net/