Frequentflier From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 422 posts, RR: 1 Posted (11 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 2726 times:
According to a report in Crane's, JetBlue's chief David Neeleman said that JetBlue will table its expansion plans at JFK if the Port Authority does not give the airline the go-ahead for a terminal expansion. The report says that the expansion plan would include the former TWA terminal 5, the only vacant real estate at the airport. Standing in the way of an expansion are art preservationist groups that want T5 to be utilized only as a stand-alone terminal. The Port Authority plan is to use T5 as some sort of conference center and a gateway to a new terminal. The whole plan needs FAA approval, which could be hard to find since the FAA, by law, must consider preservationist groups in its decisions. The JetBlue plan would be to link T5 and T6.
Personally, I think that if Neeleman's plan goes forward, it will provide a nice boost to the airport. If, however, JetBlue is not allowed to proceed, T5 could be rotting for years to come.
Cmckeithen From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 617 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (11 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 2628 times:
Some group always has to get in the way of expansion. Its like the EPA having a hissy fit b/c the president wants to drill of oil in Alaska. The art preservationists are putting up a fight b/c TWA terminal 5 has a unique shape to it and they are worried that it will be gone. Well, are there blueprints with the design on it?
Cancidas From Poland, joined Jul 2003, 4112 posts, RR: 11
Reply 3, posted (11 years 1 month 1 week 4 days ago) and read 2563 times:
what do you mean are there blueprints? do you want it rebuilt somewhere else?
i personally think it should stay. it's part of avaition history. i personally have never been in it but have been in the marine air terminal at LGA. however, with no more TWA, it might prove hard to keep the terminal standing.
is it being used currently, and if so, by whom?
"...cannot the kingdom of salvation take me home."
TWFirst From Vatican City, joined Apr 2000, 6346 posts, RR: 51
Reply 8, posted (11 years 1 month 1 week 4 days ago) and read 2337 times:
This whole issue was a feature story on WABC Channel 7 news here in NY the other night. During the story, they showed an aerial view of what jetBlue and the Port Authority propose (by the way, the PA is on jetBlue's side with this)... the new terminal would wrap around the back of T5 in a semi-circle, with 4 linear concourses fingering off the back of the new terminal. I believe the famous "tunnels" of T5 would even still remain, connecting T5 to the new terminal.
The problem is the art preservationists demand that T5 ONLY be used as a terminal (as opposed to a conference center or shopping area, etc). This is their rationale: the structure was designed to function as a terminal, and if it is transformed into something else, then 1) if its new function becomes economically unsustainable, it is more likely to be demolished in the future, and 2) its merit is derived from not only its unique architectural elements, but also the "experiential" aspect of using it as it was intended, thus using it for something else lessens its merit.
The PA and jetBlue are saying bullpucky, and have been trying to convince the preservationists that it cannot function as a modern terminal. They both say it will NOT be torn down, and the proposed plans do show it being preserved essentially as is. As mentioned above, the FAA really has the final say in this.
RayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 8017 posts, RR: 5
Reply 9, posted (11 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 2268 times:
I would like to see the NY/NJ Port Authority turn the old TWA Terminal 5 partially into a museum, and keep most of the original architecture (after all, the main building will definitely NOT be torn down according to any expansion plans! )
I advise against keeping it as a terminal due to the fact that today's Transportation Security Administration (TSA) requirements for passenger check-in would make the original design obselete anyway, because the building's interior was designed back in the days when there was little or no security checks before boarding an international flight.