American 767 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 3318 posts, RR: 14 Posted (13 years 4 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 2353 times:
Hi everyone,
I have just received my latest mileage statement from American Airlines and enclosed to that there is always sort of a little newspaper showing the latest news at American along some advertisement.
Today's news on the first page was about the new terminal at JFK:
As some of you probably know, American has invested $1,3 billion to build a new terminal at JFK. American is strongly present at JFK with over 100 daily departures. Destinations include Paris, London and Frankfurt in Europe...quite a few destinations in Latin America as well as many flights to the West Coast. Three-Class service is offered on transcon flights from JFK to LAX(no less than 8 flights a day!)and SFO (5 flights a day). Other destinations, which are served with two-class service flights, in the West Coast include San Diego, San Jose CA and Seattle. It is also one of American Eagle's hubs with 12 small cities served.
The new terminal will have three levels, the lower level being the arrivals floor with all the baggage claim areas, the middle terminal being the departure floor and the top terminal including an Admiral Club as well as special lounges for First Class passengers and Platinum members.
I think that if American is investing so much for a new terminal at JFK, they expect to be very strong at that major airport. Do you think they will be one day as strong as Delta? I think it's very likely. I think that Iberia, Sabena and Swissair will be in that new terminal as well. British Airways, probably not because they already have their own terminal. From JFK, American will probably develop its international network more than the domestic network. The domestic network will consist mainly of the West Coast and Miami.
I said in an other post, the one about AA's hubs, that JFK, LGA and EWR all three combined was considered as a hub for American. Well, I'm strongly convinced about that. La Guardia has 90 daily departures, Newark has 33, with Kennedy having more than a 100, that makes all three New York airports with over 200 daily departures a day.
The new terminal is expected to be completed in 6 years from now.
Ben Soriano
Brussels Belgium
"Aimer jusqu'a l'impossible, c'est possible". Tina Arena.
747-600X From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 2742 posts, RR: 17 Reply 1, posted (13 years 4 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 2199 times:
Sounds good to me! I wonder what it'll look like. I know when United opened the Terminal For Tommorow at ORD it was a total takeoff on normal terminal building, but that's typical given that it was designed by Helmut Jahn who is in love with glass (too in love). It's a really neat terminal, where the others are just kind of buildings. Anyway, keep us informed!
"Mental health is reality at all cost." -- M. Scott Peck, 'The Road Less Traveled'
FirstClass! From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 4, posted (13 years 3 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 2175 times:
I have a hypothetical question: Would there be any chance of American transferring the LGA operations to JFK in the future? When the new terminal is complete(@ JFK), CO, DL, and US will have been set their mega-RJ expansions at LGA, turning LGA into a New Yorker's worst gridlock nightmare.
Here's hoping that CO does transfer those unnecessary operations at LGA over to EWR, where it belongs. Otherwise, the bell tolls over LGA (for the frequent flyers of AA, and AA itself @ LGA).
On a side note, that terminal looks mighty fine. Anyone note the RJ operations? Kinda tricky, but you have to look really deep in the photo to find them.
Klwright69 From Saudi Arabia, joined Jan 2000, 1786 posts, RR: 3 Reply 5, posted (13 years 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 2159 times:
What's wrong with CO having a large RJ presence at LGA? And that they should go to EWR "where they belong." Dream on, that won't happen. Excuse me, but CO has every right to be there as AA, DL and anyone else. What I'm hoping is that by the time AA's terminal will be open, CO's EWR hub will be twice as large as it is now, which is what they have said they're shooting for. They plan on servicing almost 30 cities in Europe in the not so distant future. CO's own 1 billion dollar expansion and improvements at EWR will have been long finished. Furthermore CO will expand operations at JFK in addition to a CO Express hub in LGA. I like to see other carriers beside the "Big Three" command more market share and respect. Just my opinion.
NYC Int'l From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 6, posted (13 years 3 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 2150 times:
I think I will have to agree with FirstClass on this one, they should keep their Rj's in newark where they belong. continental have made a hub for themselves in newjersey at an relativly small airport they have made congested. co claims to be the New York airline even though they are really the airline of the New York suburbs, you can tell this because if they knew anythink about New York they would know that the RJ charge they have ignited at LGA is going to make an already well congested, even smaller airport more congested and is appreciated by noone except perhaps for a few co fans out west.
Lance,
An Actual, Honest to goodness, board certified, card carrying New Yorker
Klwright69 From Saudi Arabia, joined Jan 2000, 1786 posts, RR: 3 Reply 7, posted (13 years 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 2148 times:
Thanks for the comments. It's just that CO can be anywhere it wants just like AA,UA, DL, or anyone else. Who would say AA should move all their operations out of EWR, they "belong" at Kennedy? "They're the airline of Long Island not the suburbs." Or by saying all transatlantic flights "belong" at JFK and should be discontinued from EWR. Maybe AA should move operations to Midway since ORD "belongs" to UA. It's a truly asinine thing to say. Someone else would've made EWR a massive hub if CO hadn't. So what if EWR is very busy, it's well utilized and people have plenty of choices, which is what people usually want. The facilities are very modern there as well, because of the traffic and CO's comittment. Besides CO does VERY well financially there, so it only made sense. Private companies act in their own best interests and don't "belong" anywhere. It doesn't seem too mind boggling. If CO thinks they can do well building up at LGA and JFK so be it! If it doesn't work, O.K. , they're free to develop anywhere they want, just like anyone else.
FirstClass! From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 8, posted (13 years 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 2145 times:
>If CO thinks they can do well building up at LGA and JFK so be it! If it doesn't work, O.K. , they're free to develop anywhere they want, just like anyone else. <
Ask USAirways what happens when you open three hubs within the same city. Increased competition, greater supply than demand, higher fares eventually due to delays, overall a nasty mess.
Klwright69 From Saudi Arabia, joined Jan 2000, 1786 posts, RR: 3 Reply 9, posted (13 years 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 2145 times:
Where has US attempted three hubs in one city? My point if a company doesn't "belong" somewhere, that'll be clearly determined by the traveling public. Besides I don't believe CO desires to duplicate their EWR hub at LGA and JFK. AA and UA have transcon service from both EWR and JFK, and they don't suffer from that duplicative service, so I predict CO will do the same. If they can profitably double their sixe in EWR as they've said they want to over the next couple years, so be it.
FirstClass! From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 10, posted (13 years 3 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 2139 times:
US has attempted this at IAD, DCA, and BWI. IAD was the MetroJet expansion which only made UA stronger.
Manhattan businesspeople find it convenient to use EWR for transcon flights, hence UA, CO, and AA on the route. The transcon flights from JFK are mainly for those who travel to/from Europe who need West Coast access. Unless CO was looking to add flights from JFK to Europe(which I think IMHO is silly), the transcon routes are not necessary.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined May 1999, 3318 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Saudi Arabia, joined Jan 2000, 1786 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
