Kaitak744 From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 2256 posts, RR: 3 Posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 3034 times:
According to this photo, it looks like they only plan to build half their terminal and, I guess, keep T8. Well, after phase 2 is finished, will they build the other half of the check in area and do away with T8? Or do they really not have enough money to do even that, and just leave it at this half hearted pathetic job?
FoxBravo From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 2902 posts, RR: 5 Reply 1, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 2962 times:
Quoting Kaitak744 (Thread starter): Or do they really not have enough money to do even that, and just leave it at this half hearted pathetic job?
First of all, to call the tremendous work that has been done so far "pathetic" seems a bit harsh. It was pretty bold of AA to continue with such an ambitious and expensive project after 9/11.
Second, what exactly about this poster indicates that they plan to keep T8 instead of building the other half of the new terminal? I don't see T8 pictured here, do you? Does it say anywhere that Phase 2 will be the final phase?
Has it occurred to you that AA needs to maintain its full JFK operation while completing this project, and that this is why it is being completed in phases? Perhaps if you had thought about it a bit, you might have realized that once Phase 2 is complete, as in the picture, AA will be able to consolidate their operations in the new building, and begin the process of tearing down T8--but until then, T8 continues to provide necessary gate space.
Your question was a perfectly reasonable one, but I would suggest that you work on your tone a bit. It would have been easy to ask the same question without resorting to rude and baseless accusations.
Avatordon From United States of America, joined May 2006, 239 posts, RR: 4 Reply 2, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 2897 times:
I read in a letter to the editor at the New York Times a couple of weeks ago that the glass mural on T8 will be broken up into tiny pieces and made into key chains for AA employees. What a shame - such a beuatiful mosaic, am surprised thet they're not trying to save it somehow - maybe placing it inside the new building.
FoxBravo From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 2902 posts, RR: 5 Reply 3, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 2852 times:
Quoting Avatordon (Reply 2): What a shame - such a beuatiful mosaic, am surprised thet they're not trying to save it somehow - maybe placing it inside the new building.
It's true--there was an article about this in the Times. I think everyone, including many AA employees, agrees that it's unfortunate--however, it would cost over $1 million to save the mosaic, and that's money that AA can't spare right now.
Avatordon From United States of America, joined May 2006, 239 posts, RR: 4 Reply 4, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 2847 times:
A shame - when the Imperial Hotel in Tokyo was torn down in the 60s, they saved the bar, and maintained it intact in the building that replaced it. A shame AA couldn't do that as well. Understand the financial part and all, but it was so much a part of the JFK landscape.
The project when originally launched in 1999 was envisioned as have 55 gates (18 of which for Regional jets), cost $1.1 Billion and be complete by 2006.
The project was scaled back 3 years ago, when complete (Summer '07) it will have 36 gates, 27 gates for large aircraft (737-777s) and 9 for Regional Jets. Of the 27 gates for large aircraft 19 can handle International Arrivals.
The scope of the project from the number of gates and the square footage of the terminal are reduced to reflect new realities and priorities.
T-9 even much smaller than the original plan will still be the largest Terminal at JFK, with 19 International arrivals gates AA will have the same capacity to handle International arrivals as CO does at EWR Terminal C.
In 1999 when AA launched their terminal redevelopment there was no Jetblue, their plans for expanding their Regional Jet operation at JFK were more . Today they are not going to compete head to head with B6 in every domestic market, AA gave up connecting JFK to Buffalo, Albany, Syracuse, Rochester etc. The Domestic operation they do have at JFK is strong and profitble, it makes no sense to chase B6 and DL into every domestic market when they are loosing money. Which is why you will not see AA flying from JFK to Orlando, Ft. Lauderdale or Tampa. AA could easily fill 757s flying from JFK to MCO, but the yields suck thanks to B6 and DL.
Also AA has not shown the comitment to expanding Trans-Atlantic routes with 757s, they have toyed with it but they don't seem too serious.
AA has a enviable operation at JFK, they have the premium traffic to the West Coast, they have London Heathrow and Paris in Europe, Buenos Aires and Brazil, Tokyo in Asia. They have what they need, they know there are higher yielding markets to persue expansion from Miami, ORD, DFW, LAX.
There's only one International Market AA is lacking from JFK, a nonstop to Mexico City which they are prevented from launching. It would be nice to have nonstop A300 service between JFK and MEX again ala Eastern and Pan Am.
Kaitak744 From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 2256 posts, RR: 3 Reply 6, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 2681 times:
I see STT757, thanks for the info. You know, it is so very sad to see this. After TWA and PanAm perished, JFK airport has been left with no good U.S. carrier in a good terminal. America's number one gate way, and AA is giving up.
Are there any plans for the area T8 was in? The road way (the curb side drop off) is already built to the full length. So, it seems the only thing they can do in the area is to build the other half of T9.
Is there any chance that the New York airport authority could just purchase the entire terminal (lease AA's half to AA) and finish the project? They could easily house all the One World carriers there, and AA would financially profit.
STT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16555 posts, RR: 52 Reply 8, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 2588 times:
Quoting Jfk777 (Reply 7): The Port Authority should donate the money.
The Port Authority is spending hundreds of Millions of Dollars right now to build the World Trade Center Memorial, which some estimates put at nearly $1 Billion although they are trying to cut that by half in a new redesign.
The family groups are responsible for raising some of the funds, they are airing commericials Nationally and Locally.
Im not sure the victims families would want the Port Authority spending Millions of dollars to save the stained glass facade of AA's Terminal when they are raising money for the World Trade Center Memorial.
The Stained glass of T-8 is AA's responsibility not the Port Authority's, AA made their decision of what they want to do with the stained glass (key chains). AA said it would cost over a Million Dollars just to take it down, figure another Million to move it and perhaps another million or two to put it back up in the new Terminal.
It's historic but who's going to pay $3-4 Million dollars to move Stained glass, were not talking about a Cathederal. If anyone were to save it has to be AA, they could have a fund raiser.
The news about AA turning the Stained glass facade into Key Chains was announced in the NY Times, Daily News, Newsday etc..
To put it mildly it did not make a ripple, no public groups (outside this forum) or preservationists are crying foul. It's AA's Stained glass, while beautiful it's not like they are tearing down Pennsylvania Station again. They are making room for progress.
Over in the Bronx they just started construction on the new Yankee Stadium across the Street, they are destroying a park and tearing down 100 year old trees in a Borough short on parks and natural beauty to build the new stadium. You can make a bigger argument about saving Macombs Dam Park from a baseball stadium, vs the Stained glass of the AA T-8.
They are tearing down the house that Ruth built to build a new Yankee stadium across the street, Yankee stadium is probably the most famous sports venue in the World and it's being torn down to make room for a new stadium.
So I don't see why AA's T8 stained glass is different, it's making way for progress.
STT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16555 posts, RR: 52 Reply 9, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 2578 times:
Something to keep in mind, the AA Terminal project is over budget an past it's scheduled completion date. It was originally planned to have 55 gates, cost $1.1 Billion and be completed by 2006.
They have already spent over $1.1 Billion for the scaled down 36 gate Terminal, to complete the project to the original plan would cost close another $1 Billion (if not more) given the rising costs of construction materials. The longer time goes by the more expensive it becomes to expand the project back to it's original scope.
What Im saying is that untill AA is ready to comit to another $1 Billion dollar construction project T-8 will remain as it is today.
RJpieces From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 10, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 2520 times:
Quoting STT757 (Reply 5): AA could easily fill 757s flying from JFK to MCO, but the yields suck thanks to B6 and DL.
Indeed. And frankly, there are still lots of passengers who fly B6/DL FLL/PBI/MCO to JFK to connect to international flights on a variety of carriers (including AA). It is fairly easy to do with the airTrain these days. It's a wise move on AA's part to not try to win the unwinnable low-fare battle and instead focus on premium routes.
Avatordon From United States of America, joined May 2006, 239 posts, RR: 4 Reply 11, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 2478 times:
The stained glass at Terminal 8 was, on my part, a simple observation. If it were up to me, and financial resources were available, both Yankee Stadium and the mural would remain. But, as you say, this is progress.
JetBlueAtJFK From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 1687 posts, RR: 3 Reply 12, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 22 hours ago) and read 2454 times:
Well they can make some money on the key chains. How much would one of them run for? Well I think AA has already made a huge improvent to T9. I have passed by and drove through it a lot as well as wondered aroud the terminal and I must say it is very nice. Compared to what it was no one can complain about it. I would like to see all of their JFK gates redone but unless ome big investor comes in and helps them out I think where they are at now is pretty good for the time being.
Commavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 10631 posts, RR: 62 Reply 13, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 21 hours ago) and read 2416 times:
Quoting JetBlueAtJFK (Reply 12): Well I think AA has already made a huge improvent to T9. I have passed by and drove through it a lot as well as wondered aroud the terminal and I must say it is very nice.
Indeed. I agree. While it's unfortunate that in the post-9/11 world, finishing the Terminal 8 to its originally intended glory is not practicle, the work that has been done, and is soon to be done, is -- in my view -- nothing short of remarkable. AA's old Terminal 8/9 complex was the absolutely dumps, one of the most horrendous major-market airport terminals in the U.S., and perhaps the world. The new terminal is huge, light, airy, modern, convenient and uncongested, and once the new International Arrivals area opens in April, and all flights permanently move to the new terminal, AA's customer service delivery to JFK passengers is going to improve dramatically.
Jsnww81 From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 1941 posts, RR: 16 Reply 14, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 20 hours ago) and read 2352 times:
I agree with Commavia and STT757 - it's unfortunate that American won't be completing the terminal to the original specification. However, the good thing to come out of the scaled-down plan is expansion capability - something not too many other carriers at JFK enjoy.
Down the road, if American decides to increase its operation at JFK (or more realistically, if the oneworld carriers to decide to consolidate their ops at the new T8), the additional concourse and the rest of the terminal headhouse can be built.
The half-built terminal will look a little odd, but down the road I'm sure American will be glad to have the flexibility to expand the building as they see fit.