Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Why Isn't JFK A Major Transfer Hub  
User currently offlineAquablue From United States of America, joined Oct 2009, 94 posts, RR: 0
Posted (4 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 8262 times:

Why can't JFK have higher passenger figures like LHR? Why can't it position itself as a major transit hub connecting Europe to North America, North America to Africa, Europe to Mexico, Europe to North Western South America, Hawaii, etc. How come passenger figures are so low compared to LHR, Frankfort, Paris. How come there is not enough incentive for AA or DL to buy Jetblue or one of eachother to expand their presence?

Why doesn't one airline like DL or AA begin to use larger aircraft to increase pax numbers on international flights instead of wasting so many slots on small RJ destinations?

Why are slots so restricted, why are movements so low in comparison to LHR or Frankfurt, with a similar runway situation. How come JFk can't prcess flights as efficiently as these airports?

Why doesn't it make sense to make JFK the major hub airport, rather than EWR? JFK has more runway capacity than all those airports, and it should be able to handle more aicraft movements than LHR given its 4 runways, no?

52 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30584 posts, RR: 84
Reply 1, posted (4 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 8200 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

In the past, JFK used to be a primary gateway city, but with expansion and deregulation, new major departure gateways like ORD, IAD and ATL rose to take much of the traffic that used to funnel through JFK.

User currently offline747fan From United States of America, joined Jun 2007, 1185 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (4 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 8197 times:

One reason is that JFK has an inefficient terminal layout for transfer traffic. Its design with multiple smaller terminals (most have less than 20 gates) is much better suited to O&D traffic, compared to an airport such as HKG with a mega-terminal or large terminals for particular airlines such as LHR, and airports such as ATL and DEN with multiple midfield concourses.
Of course the fact that JFK isn't dominated by a single airline such as CO at EWR is a big factor.


User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 24868 posts, RR: 22
Reply 3, posted (4 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 8182 times:

JFK's multiple-terminal design makes it an unattractive connecting hub, even worse than LHR. Most people I know travelling from Europe to the U.S. prefer to connect almost anywhere except JFK.

User currently offlinePlunaCRJ From Uruguay, joined Nov 2007, 574 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (4 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 8142 times:

Plus, the complications of transitting through the US make it decidedly unattractive to passengers flying between two non-US cities (such as Latin America- Europe, etc...)

User currently offlineAquablue From United States of America, joined Oct 2009, 94 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (4 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 8123 times:

But isn't that a mega failure on the part of the NY authorities. To lose traffic to IAD and ATL? JFK should have done everything to configure their airport to reap the most possible benefit of economic return from a large hub airport.

I.e, as of now, the airport could reconfigure itself into a transfer hub. If one airline was to buy or trade slots with another (i.e, AA or DL buying each other out, or one buying Jetblue), there would be enough slots to have a Heathrow like BA operation I believe.

If this were to occur, given slot restrictions and lower compeition, larger planes could funnel people into JFK from european destinations and the pax figures would go through the roof. There would then be ample connections onward.

There seems to be enough capacity, but I still don't know why JFK's movements can't reach LHR's given we have 4 runways...not enough demand?

The most important thing JFK could do now is to consilidate terminals for each alliance. This would result in easy transfer. And for intra-alliance or non-alliance transfers, the best thing would be a new airside airtrain system behind security to make transfers a breeze..


User currently offlineAquablue From United States of America, joined Oct 2009, 94 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (4 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 8117 times:

Quoting PlunaCRJ (Reply 4):



Quoting PlunaCRJ (Reply 4):

They should really change this, its hurting us economically in aviation.... Surely they could find a way to reconfigure the terminals to allow sterile transfers without immigration. We would need a new system of exiting and entry airside of course.

[Edited 2009-10-11 16:24:02 by aquablue]

User currently offlineSurfandSnow From United States of America, joined Jan 2009, 2854 posts, RR: 30
Reply 7, posted (4 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 8105 times:

American airports are not international transit hubs - they are really just gateways to the cities they serve or the U.S. in general. Besides, these airports are already plenty busy as it is...would you really want even more congestion with pax in int'l transit?


Flying in the middle seat of coach is much better than not flying at all!
User currently offlineAquablue From United States of America, joined Oct 2009, 94 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (4 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 8079 times:

Yes, because of the potential economic return. I think the US is missing out on this market. And JFK should do better to make itself into a domestic hub for incoming international arivals. New terminal entry/exit requirements and sterile zones would be required. Terminals could be reconfigured, combined by alliance, and a new intra terminal sterile train built. All pax exiting the sterile zone would have to go through immgration/customs thus rendering the transfer zone appropriate for transiting intl pax. I.E, get off the intl flight, go to a transfer zone, go through security, go to check in desks, enter airside sterile zone, shop/dine, board new flight in same terminal or take train to another sterile terminal. Domestic pax exiting flights would need to show a US passport on exiting the airport. Seperate levels would be created for internaionl and domestic, to prevent the incoming intl transit passenger from hoping onto a domestic flight without cleaning customs.

Certain airports like JFK would grow and profit if terminals and laws were changed to allow easy transit without all the fuss

Of course when you say gateways, i assume you include major transfer hubs like ATL, ORD, etc.. in that cat.

[Edited 2009-10-11 16:30:17 by aquablue]

[Edited 2009-10-11 16:32:36 by aquablue]

[Edited 2009-10-11 16:35:30 by aquablue]

[Edited 2009-10-11 16:37:19 by aquablue]

User currently offlineCospn From Northern Mariana Islands, joined Oct 2001, 1605 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (4 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 8021 times:

Some people outside NY/NJ may not know the Port Authority of NY and NJ is the owner and operator of JFK-LGA-EWR,and SWF, so its not really a problem if an an airline like SQ wants to use JFK or EWR or both..the money all goes the same place...

CO spent millions on upgrades at EWR , but if another airline wanted to make such and investment I am sure the Port Authority would be all for it....especially SWF or JFK


User currently offlineAquablue From United States of America, joined Oct 2009, 94 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (4 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 8013 times:

My whole point is that: the system should change, and terminals and laws created to allow special zones for transiting pax (intl-intl). We shouldn't be averse to entering such a lucrative market. Europe to Latin America could be a boon for pax, with an EK like approach at Dubai for the Europe - India - Oz routes.

LAX would be helped by Asia-Latin America connections.


User currently offlineRFields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 32
Reply 11, posted (4 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 7965 times:

I'm not really sure the geography on this side of the Atlantic works as well for JFK as it does for LHR.

One huge advantage for LHR is that a lot of smaller nations can feed to the international section of LHR, and vice versa.

On this side of the Atlantic, there are basically three nations to feed that hub, and all three offer distinct advantages to fly direct. Flying to JFK to transit to YYZ would be dumb. So would flying to JFK to transit to MEX.

But because cities like ORD, CLT, IAD, BOS, ATL, even DFW, IAH, DEN, SFO, SEA, LAX - are all within the US, the flexibility of direct travel makes the idea of transit through New York unattractive.

Even transit to Central and South America through JFK does not make a lot of sense with the range of today's aircraft.

But I will also say, there are a lot of people on this side of the Atlantic who will do everything they can to avoid LHR and use CDG, AMS, FRA, ZRH etc.


User currently offlineEtoile From United States of America, joined Jun 2009, 114 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (4 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 7923 times:

It already is the busiest U.S. airport for international routes. And as already noted in the thread, terminal design and US Customs and Border "Protection" are limiting factors. Finally, passengers would rather fly point-to-point. The answer to most of your questions is basically that no one wants to do it.

User currently offlineAirNz From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (4 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 7899 times:



Quoting Aquablue (Reply 8):
Yes, because of the potential economic return. I think the US is missing out on this market. And JFK should do better to make itself into a domestic hub for incoming international arivals.

Economic return for whom? I have been most interested in your posts in the thread but yet, with respect, I feel that you are largely involved more in wishful thinking as of how you would 'like' to see it, and especially as you repeatedly mention LHR. JFK is not LHR, nor ever will be. Unfortunately, the days when JFK was the gateway to the US are long gone, and I can't see them ever returning. For one thing, to calmly suggest that AA or DL should simply buy each other out, buy JetBlue or reconfigure the whole airport overnight is simply not facing reality......for one thing, where is the money suddenly coming from to do any of these things? JFK is essentially an O&D destination, and there are other more conveniently located hubs at which to make transfers., if that is required. Personally, if I'm going to have to transfer somewhere in the US from Europe, why would I need to do it specifically at JFK? There is no reason whatsoever to do so. Another important factor is that, essentially, nowhere in the US is important as a transfer point for international traffic to/from anywhere. If I'm travelling somewhere in the world from Europe (LHR if you choose), besides a US city, where would I possibly be going to where I would need to transfer flights in the US?

Quoting Aquablue (Reply 5):
If this were to occur, given slot restrictions and lower compeition, larger planes could funnel people into JFK from european destinations and the pax figures would go through the roof. There would then be ample connections onward.

Why would they go through the roof? Currently, if pax want to fly to JFK they can easily do so, and nothing whatever to stop them. as there is ample availability. As already stated, there are more convenient airports in which to transfer and there are, most certainly, ample connections from any of them. Again, the question you need to ask is what compelling reason is there to transfer at JFK?

Quoting Aquablue (Thread starter):
Why can't JFK have higher passenger figures like LHR? Why can't it position itself as a major transit hub connecting Europe to North America, North America to Africa, Europe to Mexico, Europe to North Western South America, Hawaii, etc

There is nowhere in North America that I can't get to by simply transiting through more convenient airports. As a European, why would I go through the hell of transiting through the US (let alone JFK) to get to Mexico or South America when I can either fly directly from LHR, or very easily transit through Madrid?


User currently offlineAquablue From United States of America, joined Oct 2009, 94 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (4 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 7900 times:

Well, JFK dropped the ball....they could have been a major domestic hub for the NE to europe at least. With the range of flights and airlines not available in smaller US cities and even larger hubs, a large connecting hub -- Eastern USA ---> Eur/Africa/Milddle East would have been a great idea. JFK would have become like a smaller Atlanta or Chicago with a more international emphasis, instead of a primarily O/D airport.

I can see this happening if; Delta or AA prevail, one buys the other's slots, Jetblue is bought over, terminals are consolidated by alliance.

and a better way of getting domestic transfers around the airport without re-screening.


User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 24868 posts, RR: 22
Reply 15, posted (4 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 7890 times:



Quoting Aquablue (Reply 10):
Europe to Latin America could be a boon for pax, with an EK like approach at Dubai for the Europe - India - Oz routes.

You are overlooking that Europe-Latin America via JFK is in most cases much further than nonstop routings, and there is plenty of capacity between Europe and the major markets in Latin America. Mexico and Central America is about the only part of the Latin America region where a routing via JFK would be relatively competitive in terms of distance.

You also have to consider that traffic to/from/within Latin America only accounts for about 2 to 3% of global air traffic.

Another factor that makes it difficult for JFK to work as effectively as a major connecting hub as LHR relates to its geographical location. LHR has dozens of transatlantic flights, and many flights from Asia, arriving starting between 5 and 6 AM, and flights are quite evenly spaced throughout the day to many parts of the world, ending with many flights to distant points in Asia (HKG/SIN/BKK etc.) leaving late at night.

About the only flights that can arrive early in the morning at JFK are a few redeye flights from the west coast, plus flights from South America, and a small number of flights from Asia or Africa. Those routes aren't very frequent. Transatlantic flights can't arrive much before noon due to the time difference and airport curfews at the other end, and nobody would want to leave Europe at 4 AM to arrive at JFK around 7 or 8 AM.

The location of Europe in the middle of many longhaul air routes permit flights to be spread more evenly through the day and thus make better use of runway capacity. I would expect the least busy time at JFK is early to mid-morning and I can't see that changing very much as where would flights come from at those times with passengers wanting to connect to points beyond?


User currently offlineAirNz From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (4 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 7858 times:



Quoting RFields5421 (Reply 11):
But I will also say, there are a lot of people on this side of the Atlantic who will do everything they can to avoid LHR and use CDG, AMS, FRA, ZRH etc.

Am not exactly sure what your point is there but, equally, there are an awful lot of people on this side of the Atlantic who will do everything they can to avoid both JFK and LAX.

Quoting Aquablue (Reply 10):
We shouldn't be averse to entering such a lucrative market. Europe to Latin America could be a boon for pax,

But it's not a lucrative market, because no-one wants to do it when there are already easier ways. How could Europe-Latin America be a boon for pax.......we can fly it without having to go near the US, so why on earth even think about going through JFK??? With all due respect, you seem to be arguing for an artificial market where simply none exists.

Your argument is interesting, in itself, but it's simply not going to happen nor is there any reason for it to do so.


User currently offlineAquablue From United States of America, joined Oct 2009, 94 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (4 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 7821 times:

Well, JFK should have done a better job at turning itself into a better domestic-international point at least -- the problem is there is too much compeition. The fact that so many airlines and destinations are available at JFK than at other US hubs could have made it a great transfer point if only the facilities were configured correctly and pleasantly.

I.E, some-one from Cleveland going to Cairo or Dubai could transfer at JFK rather than London, or Chicago if JFK had made itself into a pleasant connecting hub.

I still think the possibilies of a nice Delta hub is there --- when they connect and build a their future terminal to Terminal 1 (where many SkyTeam carriers are housed), and if they manage to get some more slots over time, more people will look to use JFK in the North East / MidWest.

The key would be to somehow link the terminals airside with a transit system, and reconfigure T4 to allow for all the shopping to be behind security.

[Edited 2009-10-11 17:23:45 by aquablue]

User currently offlinePITrules From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 3131 posts, RR: 4
Reply 18, posted (4 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 7813 times:

I'm not sure JFK isn't already a major transfer hub. 3 airlines call the airport a hub; I believe the only airport in the US with that distinction, other than perhaps DEN if you wanna call WN's operation there a hub, which it is.

The terminals for these 3 hub carriers have in fact been redeveloped, or are in the planning stages for better hubbing operations. These are T5, T8, and the planned T2/3 redevelopment.

As far as passenger numbers, in 2000 JFK had 33 million passengers. In 2008 they had 48 million passengers. That is a HUGE increase considering events in the airline business over that period. LHR on the other hand only increased from 65 million to 67 million during that time.

On the matter of runway capacity, JFK cannot be fully utilized because of airspace conflicts with LGA. There was a thread a few months ago on the merits of closing LGA so that JFK's runways can be fully utilized.

[Edited 2009-10-11 17:23:48]


FLYi
User currently offlineRFields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 32
Reply 19, posted (4 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 7817 times:



Quoting AirNz (Reply 16):
Am not exactly sure what your point is there but, equally, there are an awful lot of people on this side of the Atlantic who will do everything they can to avoid both JFK and LAX.

The OP seems to feel that generating massive transit traffic for JFK would be an economic advantage.

My view is that LHR and to some extent JFK and LAX have grown with the point that they discourage transit traffic. I firmly believe there is a point which an airport can reach where the hassle of transit and dealing with slots, etc - exceeds the flexibility of multiple connections.

One reason I never use LHR if possible is that even BA almost always wants to book me into LHR from Dallas, but out of Gatwick to the continent.

Conversely, AA wants to book me into EWR or LGA and out of JFK.

I find ORD or ATL on this side of the pond and FRA or CDG much easier to deal with.


User currently offlineNYC2theworld From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 662 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (4 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 7790 times:



Quoting Aquablue (Reply 8):
Yes, because of the potential economic return. I think the US is missing out on this market. And JFK should do better to make itself into a domestic hub for incoming international arivals. New terminal entry/exit requirements and sterile zones would be required. Terminals could be reconfigured, combined by alliance, and a new intra terminal sterile train built. All pax exiting the sterile zone would have to go through immgration/customs thus rendering the transfer zone appropriate for transiting intl pax. I.E, get off the intl flight, go to a transfer zone, go through security, go to check in desks, enter airside sterile zone, shop/dine, board new flight in same terminal or take train to another sterile terminal. Domestic pax exiting flights would need to show a US passport on exiting the airport.

Couple things:

1-Would the economic benefit outweigh the cost of rebuilding an entire airport? I don't think that's the case. As pointed out before, P2P flights are becoming more and more common, reducing the need for ITI transfers. The cost of rebuilding JFK would be quite substantial and who would foot the cost of this?

2-Issuing passports to the US population. - Proven before, the State Department cannot handle a crush of passport applications. The number of passports that would be required would be substantial.

3-Logistical travel nightmare. - If a customer is flying SFO-DEN-ATL but their flight is diverted to JFK what happens to the customer? S/he is now stuck at the airport because they originally thought they wouldn't need their "passport". Only way around this would be to reconfigure all airports to require passports for all travel.



Always wonderers if this "last and final boarding call" is in fact THE last and final boarding call.
User currently offlineAquablue From United States of America, joined Oct 2009, 94 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (4 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 7766 times:

What is the max capacity of JFK now given Laguardia? Flights movements / year? I know that with 2 runways LHR can handle nearly 500,000 movements. JFK should be able for more, but I see that LGA is holding that back, yes? If LGA were not there, what would it be per anum?

I think perhaps JFK could be reconfigured to compete better as a transfair point with ORD//EWR/IAD and the european hubs for mainly northern and eastern passengers to Europe/Africa/India/Middle East if it were built properly with superior facilities to those other us hubs. Delays however are another problem with JFK.

[Edited 2009-10-11 17:33:20 by aquablue]

User currently offlineBA From United States of America, joined May 2000, 11153 posts, RR: 59
Reply 22, posted (4 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 7765 times:



Quoting Aquablue (Reply 14):
Well, JFK dropped the ball....they could have been a major domestic hub for the NE to europe at least.

EWR is a good domestic hub for the Northeast U.S. to Europe/Middle East/Africa traffic. There is no need to replicate this role at JFK which serves the very large New York area O&D market. New York airspace is already among the most congested in the world with all the air traffic serving JFK, LGA, and EWR.

You also need to understand that there are other airports in the U.S. that are better suited for domestic connections such as IAD and ORD, both in terms of airport design and geographic location.

As others have mentioned, a U.S. airport serving as an international hub is out of the question unless there is a change in U.S. immigration policy. Also, for geographic reasons, a U.S. airport wouldn't be very lucrative as an international hub. You can't compare JFK or any other U.S. airport to LHR or any other European airport. European airports have an inherent geographic advantage for international connections, plus their airports are designed for it with a separate quarantined area for international flights.

You seem to be suggesting that JFK can serve as a hub for Europe to Latin America traffic, but this is a long detour that is not very attractive, especially since there are many lucrative options from within Europe to Latin America.



"Generosity is giving more than you can, and pride is taking less than you need." - Khalil Gibran
User currently offlineEtoile From United States of America, joined Jun 2009, 114 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (4 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 7765 times:



Quoting Aquablue (Reply 14):
Well, JFK dropped the ball....they could have been a major domestic hub for the NE to europe at least. With the range of flights and airlines not available in smaller US cities and even larger hubs, a large connecting hub -- Eastern USA ---> Eur/Africa/Milddle East would have been a great idea. JFK would have become like a smaller Atlanta or Chicago with a more international emphasis, instead of a primarily O/D airport.

Great idea. Drop Richard Anderson and Larry Kellner a note suggesting that DL and CO use JFK and EWR as hubs to feed transatlantic flights from northeastern U.S. airports.


User currently offlineAquablue From United States of America, joined Oct 2009, 94 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (4 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 7742 times:

Why in the world is EWR better than JFK as a transfer point. If JFK had one major airline operation (say Delta), it would have more capacity than EWR and more foreign carriers to feed a domestic operation. Also, EWR has dingy terminals and has no plans to modernize the old design from the 70's. While Delta plans a brand new building sometime soon.

Anyone know the figures that I asked for on capacity before?

[Edited 2009-10-11 17:38:17 by aquablue]

25 EwRkId : Aside from the fact that looks of the terminals are most important, The flights that fly out of those dingy terminals are a big factor also. CO has s
26 Aquablue : delta needs to merge w/ b6 -- it needs more slots as aa will never ever give their assets up. oh, does anyone know where i may find the slot list for
27 Reality : Do transit passengers really add much to the local economy? It seems to me that they just make the airport more congested. Why would you want more tr
28 Aquablue : To fund airport investment -- > transit passengers consume and buy at airport retail shops... this could lead to extra money for new terminal upgrades
29 AznMadSci : That will be the day! But even if DL gets the slots and starts a massive expansion campaign both domestically and internationally, how would you expl
30 PPVRA : They can't even handle today's pax loads. They don't need more people.
31 Aquablue : JFK should be a superhub, yes...for transiting pax on delta to europe. NYC needs the prestige and the economic power that a hub would bring. If jfk wa
32 Luckyone : Why are you focusing on Delta + JFK?? More than one airline hubs at JFK. And having said that, it's already a hub. Delta had a shot in the 90's when J
33 Aquablue : Non-stop to Cario from Milwaukee, from Raleigh to Amman, from Boston to Delhi? Sorry, not going to happen.... JFK has those flight connections, and if
34 JasonCRH : Have you actually been to Dubai? Have you actually transited Dubai? Yes, it's a palatial terminal, but walk through there. even with the new terminal,
35 Maverick623 : I don't think you know or understand the history of "transit zones". The US has always been and will continue to be a domestically-oriented market be
36 Luckyone : According to what logic? A connection is a connection. Slam all those flights into an AIRFIELD, not airport, but an air field ill equipped to handle
37 ExFATboy : Since BA's slot dominance at LHR is cited as the main reason for not allowing ATI for AA/BA, why would DOJ allow it to be duplicated on this side of
38 Igneousrocks : Wow, this is one serious troll. NYC already has all the 'prestige' it is ever going to muster...a $20, $30, $60 billion overhaul of JFK isn't going to
39 Maverick623 : I had an even longer post typed out, but finding that blew me away. You clearly have no understanding whatsoever of anything remotely airline related
40 RobertS975 : What is your fixation about this? Much of what you write is a pipedream! How much money should be spent trying to convert "JFK into the most beautifu
41 NYC-AIR : My prediction is that JFK will eventually, slowly configure itself into three connected, sterile terminal areas for the three major alliances. Right n
42 Aquablue : First of all, I'm not a troll, thank you. Second of all, not everyone can overfly NYC on their way to Europe.... Most smaller markets have no connecti
43 Tommy767 : Actually they already have. Terminal B is getting there in a modernized expansions for the baggage claims, customs, and shopping and food which expan
44 Aquablue : Pity EWR is basically done and can't expand. OH, NYC has some problems to sort out if it wants to keep in the game. SWF? Give me a break.
45 Lightsaber : This was the first thing I thought of when I read the thread title. But all three could be expanded to be better transfer hubs. LAX could have built
46 AznMadSci : So are we now proposing that DL just be the sole mega-carrier to JFK? No other airline, including alliance member should be allowed to JFK? PANJNY sh
47 AirlineCritic : ... because no one in their right minds wants to transfer at JFK, if it can be avoided? Seriously, I've been in that situation myself for dozens of ti
48 DTWLAX : Dude.... why in the world are you so obsessed with JFK??????? According to you in the above post, ORD and ATL are miserable places. In the post below,
49 DTWLAX : People are appalled at your obsession with JFK. You talk about upgrading the aesthetic nature of our airports but want only JFK to be upgraded. Have
50 Jetbluefan1 : Terminal bus stations? JFK has some of the nicest terminals in the country. Terminals 1 and 4 (the international airlines' terminals) are absolutely
51 Cospn : New York has CO at EWR I think the terminal C is fine, and they are working on the other ones.. CO has spent millions at EWR is CO biggest Intl Hub (w
52 ManuCH : As the original poster doesn't seem to accept any explanation given by the other users, and this thread is now running in circles without going anywhe
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Why Wont JetBlue Call JFK As Their Hub? posted Wed Aug 12 2009 15:10:09 by JetBlue777
Why Isn't There A Hub At MAN? posted Mon Jul 9 2007 13:17:01 by HUYguy
Why Isn't ABQ Ever Considered For A Hub? posted Tue Mar 7 2000 21:24:58 by ABQ757
Why No "Major"Alliance For Emirates? posted Wed Sep 3 2008 19:19:40 by BoeingFever777
Why Isn't BA Interested In OS, AZ Or SN? posted Thu Aug 28 2008 01:36:01 by AIR MALTA
Why Isn't BA Interested In LHR-BEY? posted Mon Aug 18 2008 08:55:57 by OD-BWH
Why Isn't AA Hedged? posted Wed May 28 2008 11:03:46 by Travelin man
EgyptAir- A330-200 - Why No JFK Service? posted Fri Apr 4 2008 14:25:19 by SXDFC
Why Isn't Air One In Star Alliance? posted Mon Mar 24 2008 20:40:13 by BOStonsox
JFK Passenger Transfer Vehicles, Question posted Thu Oct 25 2007 08:59:53 by USADreamliner