GSP psgr From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 141 posts, RR: 0 Posted (4 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 2533 times:
Quick question for the AA junkies: Around 2000-ish, when American originally announced that they were building a replacement for Terminals 8 and 9, there were a lot more gates, (especially for Eagle) included in the original plan than what they ended up with in what is now Terminal 8. I was wondering if pre-Jet Blue, they were planning on copying what Continental was doing over at EWR and building a full scale hub in that vein? Anyone know?
STT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16261 posts, RR: 52 Reply 1, posted (4 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 2515 times:
Only to the point that they had a bigger role for Eagle, AA dumped a lot of Eagle flying to Manchester, Providence, Albany, Baltimore, Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse, Portland, Columbus, Pittsburgh etc..
OA412 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 4980 posts, RR: 25 Reply 2, posted (4 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 2457 times:
Quoting STT757 (Reply 1): Only to the point that they had a bigger role for Eagle, AA dumped a lot of Eagle flying to Manchester, Providence, Albany, Baltimore, Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse, Portland, Columbus, Pittsburgh etc..
All got the axe.
As I remember it, the gates that were eventually not built were to have been Eagle gates. When the terminal was conceived, B6 did not yet exist so, at the time, it made sense for AA to want to operate a larger hub with a great deal more Eagle flying out of JFK.
MAH4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 31118 posts, RR: 73 Reply 3, posted (4 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 2456 times:
Quoting STT757 (Reply 1): Only to the point that they had a bigger role for Eagle, AA dumped a lot of Eagle flying to Manchester, Providence, Albany, Baltimore, Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse, Portland, Columbus, Pittsburgh etc..
True. Though since those cuts, they have resumed Baltimore, Cleveland, and Pittsburgh.
STT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16261 posts, RR: 52 Reply 4, posted (4 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 2404 times:
Yeah B6 pretty much killed AA's Eagle plans for JFK, the 20 or so gates that are not going to be built were for Eagle.
Looking at my Port Authority flight guide for Nov. 1, 2000 - Jan. 1, 2001 Eagle had the following flights from JFK:
Albany 5 SF3- Baltimore 5 SF3- Boston 6 SF3, 2 ERJ- Buffalo 6 SF3- Cleveland 2 ERJ- Hartford 4 SF3- Montreal 6 SF3- Philadelphia 3 SF3- Pittsburgh 5 SF3- Providence 3 SF3- Raleigh 6 SF3- Rochester 5 SF3- Syracuse 4 SF3- Washington National 10 SF3- Worcester 3 SF3-
Going back to 1999-2000 I think there were a few other Eagle flights from JFK, such as Columbus, Dulles, Manchester, Richmond and Norfolk.
AA had hopes of converting all these flights to ERJs and expanding to even more routes.
STT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16261 posts, RR: 52 Reply 5, posted (4 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 2404 times:
Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 3): True. Though since those cuts, they have resumed Baltimore, Cleveland, and Pittsburgh.
STT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16261 posts, RR: 52 Reply 6, posted (4 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 2340 times:
SHUPirate1 From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 3661 posts, RR: 18 Reply 7, posted (4 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 2183 times:
Question...is there still room for the sixteen missing Eagle gates to be built if American so desires?
Burma's constitutional referendum options: A. Yes, B. Go to Insein Prison!
STT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16261 posts, RR: 52 Reply 8, posted (4 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 2180 times:
Quoting SHUPirate1 (Reply 7): Question...is there still room for the sixteen missing Eagle gates to be built if American so desires?
Sure, but I don't see them needing any more than the 39 gates they will have when all is said and done. AA is more than happy to keep the regional/ Northeast Business routes at LGA.
GayStudPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 421 posts, RR: 7 Reply 9, posted (4 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 1970 times:
What a miss on strategy to build NE presence/share vs aggressive international expansion like DL.
STT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16261 posts, RR: 52 Reply 10, posted (4 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 1748 times:
There are two big decisions that I think AA totally messed up with regards to JFK,
1.) Axing most of the Eagle flying in 2000/2001,
2.) abandoning the plan for Trans-Atlantic 757 flying (Newcastle etc..)
For the life of me I don't see the sound business strategy of turning all those ETOPs capable former TWA 757s to DL, only to have DL launch the majority of the flights with the newly acquired 757s from JFK. That should be AA flying those 757s Trans-Atlantic from JFK, as well as their own RR ETOPs birds.
Jetstar From United States of America, joined May 2003, 1524 posts, RR: 10 Reply 11, posted (4 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 1722 times:
Quoting STT757 (Reply 10): For the life of me I don't see the sound business strategy of turning all those ETOPs capable former TWA 757s to DL,
Just to clarify, AA didn’t turn over the former TWA 757’s to DL, the leases were up and they were returned back to the lessors, it was the lessors who leased them to DL.
Should AA have kept them by releasing them, I think so, especially since they were ETOPS ready, AA’s argument was the cabin was a different layout and they were Pratt powered, unlike the RR powered 757’s the AA has. The engines on the former TWA airplanes were maintained by DL under their maintenance certificate adding to the operating costs of the airplanes.
757’s are very fuel efficient and now with fuel prices the way they are, I think AA is now regretting the decision to let them go, AA could have kept these airplanes and based them out of JFK for over water service, by basing them at JFK, where DL has a maintenance operation, engine maintenance would not have been a problem, unlike in the past when AA flew them around their system.
STT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16261 posts, RR: 52 Reply 12, posted (4 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 1707 times:
Quoting Jetstar (Reply 11): where DL has a maintenance operation
DL does not have a maintenance facilities (hangars) at JFK, where do they do the work outside on the ramp?
DeltaL1011man From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 8590 posts, RR: 8 Reply 13, posted (4 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 1642 times:
Quoting Jetstar (Reply 11): 757's are very fuel efficient and now with fuel prices the way they are, I think AA is now regretting the decision to let them go, AA could have kept these airplanes and based them out of JFK for over water service, by basing them at JFK, where DL has a maintenance operation, engine maintenance would not have been a problem, unlike in the past when AA flew them around their system.
The closest DL hangar is in BOS but DL doesn't have anything other than Line work at JFK. AFAIK the 75s would have to go to ATL anyways because thats where the engine shop is.
"Oh look at the sUGAr falling out of the sky! Look at the sUGAr falling out of the sky!" LM 1922-2011 Go Dawgs! G.A.T.A.
Mirrodie From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 7421 posts, RR: 65 Reply 14, posted (4 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 1609 times:
Having spoken to an engineer who actually worked for the firm that did AA's construction, I can confirm that, in a nutshell, yes, there are many aspects of the new terminal that are scaled down from the original plans.
I'll send him a note and see if he can spare a few more details and photos of hte mock up orignally intended.
Forum moderator 2001-2010; He's a pedantic, pontificating, pretentious bastard, a belligerent old fart, a worthless st
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 141 posts, 
As I remember it, the gates that were eventually not built were to have been Eagle gates. When the terminal was conceived, B6 did not yet exist so, at the time, it made sense for AA to want to operate a larger hub with a great deal more Eagle flying out of JFK.
From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 31118 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
