Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
The Future Of JFK's Terminals  
User currently offlineIcelandairMSP From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 123 posts, RR: 0
Posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 14506 times:

This topic always comes up a lot in the forums because of DL's current cramped predicament and the occasional Port Authority progress PDF claiming there is some momentum to get that new Terminal 2/3 underway. It's a delicate situation to address seeing as the designated terminal layout has proven rigid and difficult to correct with a more versatile layout. I think AA did a great job with their half-terminal in that it uses the limited land in the best possible manner. B6 also filled out their corner efficiently and preserved the one critically-significant terminal of all the original set. But going forward, this seems to be the concensus:

-Both Terminal 4 concourses will be expanded and the west concourse will be, for the most part, taken over by DL, (particularly if any part of 2/3 would remain open during reconstruction) and other carriers consolidated to the east concourse.
-If necessary, DL Int'l will be flown from an expanded Terminal 4 and domestic would take up in the empty Terminal 6.
-Terminals 2/3 would be demolished and rebuilt for Delta and would either connect to Terminal 1 or 4 or both.
-Terminal 6 will stay shuttered but can absorb traffic from whatever changes might go on at other terminals.

Here are the questions/thoughts I have about the scheme:

-Just as a side note, it seems to me as if Terminal 1 was rebuilt a bit too early in the scope of the whole airport, but especially for DL. I secretly think this is one of the reasons there seems to be a problem committing to a replacement for 2/3. No matter how much more efficient/modern/streamlined a new terminal would be in their place, there just doesn't seem to be enough space to really spring for an expensive new terminal the way that there was with Terminal 8/9. I'm aware the airport was very different at the time Terminal 1 was rebuilt. It was necessary and I doubt any of the airlines in the consortium regret doing it. But it stifled the opportunities of the airport as a whole to consolidate the number of terminals at the airport, particularly now for DL who I'm assuming would want a shiny palace like AA's new terminal and would probably use it too.

-If BA/IB are to merge and their relationship with AA is to become much more integrated, why don't they all pitch in the finish the AA Terminal 8 and move out of Terminal 7? CX can come too. This would be long term seeing that BA keeps doing a decent enough job of sprucing the place up regularly but spend a lot of money in the process.
-If Terminal 6 and 7 are vacant, they can redevelop the terminal area in one fell swoop. Neither one of those can last forever and the only drawback I can see is that the Port might have to be the ones to do it as, without BA, I don't know what airline/airlines would take it on. A designated *A terminal? An everything-but-DL skyteam terminal?
-Where gates 1/2 are currently in Terminal 1, it looks possible to build a small 3-4 gate concourse, just for overflow I'm sure, or two solid A380 gates? I don't know, I'm looking at this from the perspective of using every bit of land available for terminals.
-Terminals 2/3? If Terminal 1 weren't in the way, there could be a linear concourse arrangement much like UA's at ORD, but alas, that is moot now. They won't get more than two concourses in. If they want a nice, efficient check-in/baggage/etc. portion of the terminal, they won't have much room for those either. Would it be enough for DL?

As a far-off pipe dream, my last thought:
-Would it be economically viable to extend the AirTrain all the way to LGA? I mean, it would take some pretty awe-inspiring planning to be done (particularly if it continued from 678 to the Grand Central Pkwy, which is the most direct route), but given how fast and efficient AirTrain is, it would seriously cut down on the redundancy of having to have flights to both JFK and LGA. It would promote some reshuffling of flights and airlines. If they could get a trip limited to 25-30 minutes it might mean more efficient flight distributions AND LGA would finally have a simple, rail connection to the subway or LIRR. But that's just a vision. CO and US needn't bother with JFK anymore, DL could give themselves more breathing room and move most domestic or at least Connection to LGA. In any case, this is assuming they could pull off slick operation of such a long AirTrain.

Thoughts? Or perhaps I've just written a summary of everything we know and all the questions still hanging in the air about JFK and there really isn't more to say until there is major movement/definite plans as to the next step.

119 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinecommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11602 posts, RR: 61
Reply 1, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 14497 times:

Quoting IcelandairMSP (Thread starter):
-If BA/IB are to merge and their relationship with AA is to become much more integrated, why don't they all pitch in the finish the AA Terminal 8 and move out of Terminal 7? CX can come too. This would be long term seeing that BA keeps doing a decent enough job of sprucing the place up regularly but spend a lot of money in the process.

I'm sure the PA (and AA) would love that. The problem is I doubt BA would go for it, since they now own T7 and like it that way. They control their customers' experience at JFK - their most important foreign station - and they don't want to give that up. Now, maybe sometime in the future, as AA-BA-IB deepens, maybe. But for now, no.

Quoting IcelandairMSP (Thread starter):
-Would it be economically viable to extend the AirTrain all the way to LGA?

Oh my God would that be amazing. Having a single-seat ride from JFK to LGA, and more importantly from Jamaica to LGA, would be amazing. Sadly, though, I'm not holding my breath: too many entrenched constituencies to pay off and way too much politics involved.


User currently offlineByrdluvs747 From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 2359 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 14473 times:

BA wont be leaving T7 any time soon. The pretty much own that building and lease gates to UA, US, NH, CX, & QF. If they were smart AA/BA would fund an airside tram, similiar to airlink in DFW, to transfer pax between the two terminals. Combine that with finishing T8, and OW will have a huge presence at JFK.

Due to the surrounding taxiways, DL's terminals are limited in terms of expansion. There's no way they can pull off what AA did at T8.



The 747: The hands who designed it were guided by god.
User currently offlinerjpieces From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 14434 times:

Quoting IcelandairMSP (Thread starter):
-If BA/IB are to merge and their relationship with AA is to become much more integrated, why don't they all pitch in the finish the AA Terminal 8 and move out of Terminal 7? CX can come too

In another thread, somebody posted that BA's lease ends in 2015 and they might consider moving into T8 then. Obviously having an exclusive little terminal is nice for BA, but T8 is nicer and newer and BA would be fine moving there (along with IB, CX, etc). If BA were to move, AA or the Port would need to build additional gates at T8, which would be relatively easy.

If T7 was emptied, there would be a lot of space to build a brand new terminal where T6 and T7 currently are. I think Delta would be better off building a new terminal there than trying to build where T2/T3 currently are. Of course it is not this simple though....

JFK is in pretty good shape all things considered. jetBlue's new T5 is FANTASTIC, American's T8 is also great. T1 is holding up well (it is a fairly small facility). T7 is small, but in good shape. T 2/3 are not as bad as most A.netters make them out to be (esp. T2), but it just doesn't work well for the kind of operation Delta wants at JFK.

I actually think T4 is not in top-notch shape. The TSA lines can be horrible during peak hours, the check-in area can be cramped...Last time I landed there from an international flight the concourse leading to FIS seemed like it was already showing its age. Although I still think the area outside FIS is one of the nicest parts of JFK (when you exit FIS back into the terminal). Unfortunately, it was designed in a different era (pre 9/11, and before the huge growth at JFK led many airlines to move to T4).

It really is amazing how space is such an issue at JFK. Compare it with IAD, which has seen a HUGE amount of construction in the past decade...New parking garages, new ATC tower, new concourse, new underground train, new security checkpoint, new runway, etc.

Now that I am done rambling, I will just reiterate that I think BA moving to T8 is a much more attractive option now than it was a few years ago.

[Edited 2010-02-24 16:22:15]

User currently offlinejfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 8370 posts, RR: 7
Reply 4, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 14205 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Terminal 1 was developed by Lufthansa, AF,JAL and Korean because the IAB was in such awful shape. These 4 airlines needed a better experience for their passengers at what is the most important foreign destination for many. Delta could have purchased the terminal 1 site from the Eastern bankruptcy court but didn't for whatever reason, they certainly knew it was there but made the choice not to buy it or lease it.

User currently offlineNYC-air From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 123 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 14098 times:

Since we're talking about pipe dreams, here's mine:

-DL buys LH and ailing JAL out of T1 (more on where they go later). T1 is connected to T2. T4 concourses are connected airside, and connected to T3 too. This creates airside connections all the way from T1 to T4. It lets DL renovate/replace T2 + T3 bit by bit. Provides a big space for SkyTeam.

-B6 joins Star and builds an international section on the site of T6, obviously a T5 expansion, for itself and for Star carriers. LH moves over because, well, they just take the money DL spent buying them out of T1 and reinvest it in the new terminal. UA might also move. Or perhaps it would be connected to T7 airside too. Imagine if they left the sundome check-in area standing - would make for a great customs hall.

-T8 - Oneworld.

I'm iffy about T7. It could be connected to T5, T6 or could continue as a Oneworld satellite.


User currently offlineTymnBalewne From Bermuda, joined Mar 2005, 949 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 13983 times:

Quoting commavia (Reply 1):
I'm sure the PA (and AA) would love that. The problem is I doubt BA would go for it, since they now own T7 and like it that way. They control their customers' experience at JFK - their most important foreign station - and they don't want to give that up. Now, maybe sometime in the future, as AA-BA-IB deepens, maybe. But for now, no.

It's all about money now. I've heard that there are already discussions underway between AA/BA about BA moving to the AA terminal when the lease on T7 expires.



Dewmanair...begins with Dew
User currently offlinecommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11602 posts, RR: 61
Reply 7, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 13956 times:

I posted this is another thread a few weeks back.

My plan - which I know would never happen:

Get American, BA and the PA to work towards finishing out T8, and move all of the airport's oneworld airlines out of T1, T4 and T7 over there. Plus, you could also keep the SA)">AA-aligned but non-oneworld carriers there.

Then, refurbish T6 and build a sterile link between T6 and T7. Consolidate all Star carriers now in T1 and T4 there (United and ANA are already in T7).

Then, with T1 and T4 cleared out of all of its Star and oneworld carriers, completely gut and refurbish the T2/T3 complex into one big terminal, link it with T1 and T4 into one huge complex to handle all SkyTeam carriers (plus unaligned carriers staying in the A concourse of T4).

The final end-state would look like this:

T1: SkyTeam international (AF, AM, AZ, KE, KL, UX)
T2/3: Delta domestic and international
T4: Delta international + JetBlue international arrivals + unaligned carriers
T5: JetBlue domestic and international departures
T6: Star domestic (CO, SA)">UA, US)
T7: Star international (CA, LH, LX, LO, MS, NH, OS, OZ, SA, SK, SQ, TK)
T8: oneworld and SA)">AA-aligned international and domestic (AA, AY, BA, CX, IB, JL, LA, LY, MX, MU, QF, RJ, 9W)

Quoting TymnBalewne (Reply 6):
It's all about money now. I've heard that there are already discussions underway between SA)">AA/BA about BA moving to the SA)">AA terminal when the lease on T7 expires.

Two questions:

1. What lease? I was under the impression that T7 was owned, not leased, by BA, so not really sure what would be "expiring."

2. Who's paying for this? Because yes - it does all come down to money. Lots of it. BA plus the other oneworld members now in T7 (CX, IB, QF) would not all fit in T8. During the evening rush, T8 would not have enough gates - I don't think - for SA)">AA's current schedule + BA (to say nothing of IB and QF). They would have to build out the rest of T8 - the remainder of the B concourse. That's going to cost cash - I'm guessing at least several hundred million.

Now, of course, I can see the attraction for all parties involved. It would dramatically smooth connections at JFK between SA)">AA and oneworld partners. That's good for everyone. If the deal were really done that way, I'm sure BA would pretty much get the entire new end of the concourse to themselves - effectively their own terminal with their own lounge setups, etc. (I'd imagine that would be an absolute non-negotiable for them). The PA would love getting BA out of T7 and freeing up that space - especially considering that T7 isn't all that bad a terminal.

But, again, the question comes down to whether BA would go for it - which I'm still skeptical of - and who would pay for the expansion of T8. SA)">AA sure as h*ll doesn't have the money right now, and really neither does BA.


User currently offlineRoseFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9634 posts, RR: 52
Reply 8, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 13943 times:

UA seems the odd man out in all these plans. They are a smaller airline at JFK, but they still overnight 7-8 airplanes. That is pretty significant even though they only have about 15 mainline departures.


If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlinecommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11602 posts, RR: 61
Reply 9, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 13920 times:

Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 8):
UA seems the odd man out in all these plans. They are a smaller airline at JFK, but they still overnight 7-8 airplanes. That is pretty significant even though they only have about 15 mainline departures.

They RON some planes each night, but they're really a minor issue in the scheme of thing at JFK. Assuming the UAX flights to IAD use their own separate gate, UA mainline to LAX/SFO requires a grand total of 3 gates max - 1 of which can remain empty for almost the entire day. The PA can stick them just about anywhere without much trouble - and they could easily fit into a combined Star terminal complex at T7 (and/or T6). Star is, obviously, by far the smallest of the alliances at JFK.


User currently offlineIcelandairMSP From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 123 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 13890 times:

Quoting commavia (Reply 1):
I'm sure the PA (and AA) would love that. The problem is I doubt BA would go for it, since they now own T7 and like it that way. They control their customers' experience at JFK - their most important foreign station - and they don't want to give that up. Now, maybe sometime in the future, as AA-BA-IB deepens, maybe. But for now, no.

Valid, but Terminal 8 is certainly no dump. If they finish the other half of the main terminal (twice the check-in, amenities, etc.) they'll have another 10-12 gates to work with which should be plenty of room. The only thing to throw a wrench in that would be if BA was set on putting the A380 on JFK, which seems awfully likely. Anyone know for sure? If that were the case, the planned additional gates of T8 (designed for 767/777 for AA) would be heavily compromised by a few A380 spots. Then again, either way it only makes sense to move out of T7 eventually especially if their lease expires in 2015 as someone mentioned.

Quoting rjpieces (Reply 3):
JFK is in pretty good shape all things considered. jetBlue's new T5 is FANTASTIC, American's T8 is also great. T1 is holding up well (it is a fairly small facility). T7 is small, but in good shape. T 2/3 are not as bad as most A.netters make them out to be (esp. T2), but it just doesn't work well for the kind of operation Delta wants at JFK.

It absolutely is. It has been an impressively adaptive airport in the past decade. T5 was a slick way of best utilizing that corner and holding onto the Saarinen terminal. T8 absolutely utilizes its area in the best way possible. Just look at Bing maps bird's eye of the taxiways around it. That thing is built right out to the edge. Like I said before, if Terminal 1 hadn't been rebuilt separately, the T1/2/3 could have become an equally efficient Terminal.

AirTrain has also been an outstanding asset. I suspected it would be plagued with problems, delays, etc. but that thing moves. It took me just under an hour to step on the AirTrain at Terminal 3 to getting to Jamaica, getting on an E-train and stepping out at 23rd and 8th. It made me actually believe they could implement a light transportation system as such to LGA and make the transfer time reasonable enough. They could get standard Interstate right-of-way with a little patience, it's just the part where they have to bare down on the parkway or cut into Flushing Meadows when all the NIMBYs would be out with teeth bared to prevent something useful mar the forlorn stretches of NYC's most melancholy park.


User currently offlinerjpieces From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 13879 times:

Quoting commavia (Reply 7):
Now, of course, I can see the attraction for all parties involved. It would dramatically smooth connections at JFK between SA)">AA and oneworld partners. That's good for everyone. If the deal were really done that way, I'm sure BA would pretty much get the entire new end of the concourse to themselves - effectively their own terminal with their own lounge setups, etc. (I'd imagine that would be an absolute non-negotiable for them). The PA would love getting BA out of T7 and freeing up that space - especially considering that T7 isn't all that bad a terminal.

It would probably be attractive for BA. They would essentially have a "terminal within a terminal", but with more space than they currently have in T7. I don't know what future use T7 (and T6) would have at JFK. If all or most of the T7 carriers can move to an expanded T8, the land where T 6 and 7 are would be great for one large new terminal (perhaps for Delta; or perhaps they can keep T7 & T6 and use it for other airlines displaced by whatever Delta decides to do)

Quoting commavia (Reply 7):
But, again, the question comes down to whether BA would go for it - which I'm still skeptical of - and who would pay for the expansion of T8. SA)">AA sure as h*ll doesn't have the money right now, and really neither does BA.

The Port would obviously need to be a major backer here, as they should be if they want to shuffle airlines around to placate Delta.

Quoting commavia (Reply 9):
They RON some planes each night, but they're really a minor issue in the scheme of thing at JFK.

Yes. They can essentially be put anywhere. It might even make sense to put them in T8 if the Port wants to move a bunch of T4 airlines into T7.


User currently offlinecommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11602 posts, RR: 61
Reply 12, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 13880 times:

Quoting IcelandairMSP (Reply 10):
Valid, but Terminal 8 is certainly no dump.

Of course - in my experience, it's the nicest terminal at JFK today.

Quoting IcelandairMSP (Reply 10):
If they finish the other half of the main terminal (twice the check-in, amenities, etc.) they'll have another 10-12 gates to work with which should be plenty of room.

As I said.

Quoting IcelandairMSP (Reply 10):
The only thing to throw a wrench in that would be if BA was set on putting the A380 on JFK, which seems awfully likely. Anyone know for sure?

BA has said before that the A380 won't be used for JFK - a market where frequency is more important. That being said, though, anything's possible of course.

Quoting IcelandairMSP (Reply 10):
f that were the case, the planned additional gates of T8 (designed for 767/777 for AA) would be heavily compromised by a few A380 spots

I don't know why that would be such a big challenge. The north (unbuilt) end of the B concourse could probably be reconfigured for 1-2 A380 gates without much trouble. In fact, if BA were to actually built out the rest of the concourse, they may well want an A380 gate or two just for flexibility. They'd no doubt also want tons and tons of their own lounge space - which was an original point of contention between them and AA all the way back in 1999 - and they'd want de facto control over the ramp area and office spaces in that wing, which I'm sure AA would be happy to give them at this point. What BA would likely want would be an effectively BA terminal - under their complete control - that just happened to be connected to the AA terminal.


User currently offlinerjpieces From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 13852 times:

Quoting commavia (Reply 12):
Of course - in my experience, it's the nicest terminal at JFK today.

I personally think jetBlue's is nicer, but they are both wonderful and easily the two best at JFK.


User currently offlineNASBWI From Bahamas, joined Feb 2005, 1311 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 13814 times:

Quoting commavia (Reply 7):
T1: SkyTeam international (AF, AM, AZ, KE, KL, UX)
T2/3: Delta domestic and international
T4: Delta international + JetBlue international arrivals + unaligned carriers
T5: JetBlue domestic and international departures
T6: Star domestic (CO, SA)">UA, US)
T7: Star international (CA, LH, LX, LO, MS, NH, OS, OZ, SA, SK, SQ, TK)
T8: oneworld and SA)">AA-aligned international and domestic (AA, AY, BA, CX, IB, JL, LA, LY, MX, MU, QF, RJ, 9W

That actually sounds pretty good, except that with regard to T6, there would be quite a few unused gates. As it is now, US only needs 2-3 gates for their operations throughout the day, and UA may need up to 8 gates for their PS service and IAD flights. Other than that, that leaves quite a bit of empty space (assuming that if T6 were to be rebuilt, that it would still have the same gate capacity). Perhaps having some of the Star members using both T6 and T7 alongside the UA/US operations would be more effecient.



Fierce, Fabulous, and Flawless ;)
User currently offlineByrdluvs747 From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 2359 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 13788 times:

Quoting IcelandairMSP (Reply 10):
Then again, either way it only makes sense to move out of T7 eventually especially if their lease expires in 2015 as someone mentioned.

I don't know where this "BA has to leave in 2015" stuff comes from, but BA would be well within their rights to renegociate a new lease when the old one expires. The PA isnt going to force them out, and most likely BA wont' want to leave.



The 747: The hands who designed it were guided by god.
User currently offlinerjpieces From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 13752 times:

Quoting commavia (Reply 7):
T7: Star international (CA, LH, LX, LO, MS, NH, OS, OZ, SA, SK, SQ, TK)

T7 could not handle this many international carriers.

Quoting commavia (Reply 7):
T8: oneworld and SA)">AA-aligned international and domestic (AA, AY, BA, CX, IB, JL, LA, LY, MX, MU, QF, RJ, 9W)

I don't think an expanded T8 could even handle this many carriers during peak hours.

Quoting NASBWI (Reply 14):
As it is now, US only needs 2-3 gates for their operations throughout the day, and UA may need up to 8 gates for their PS service and IAD flights.

United certainly does not need 8 gates...More like 2-3. They RON a good number of 757s at their hangar, but throughout most of the day they only need 2 gates.


User currently offlineTymnBalewne From Bermuda, joined Mar 2005, 949 posts, RR: 1
Reply 17, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 13733 times:

Quoting Byrdluvs747 (Reply 15):
I don't know where this "BA has to leave in 2015" stuff comes from, but BA would be well within their rights to renegociate a new lease when the old one expires. The PA isnt going to force them out, and most likely BA wont' want to leave.

I don't think anyone is saying BA "has" to leave but the lease does expire in 2015. BA and AA (from what I understand) have had discussions on BA's moving to T8. Whether this comes to fruition is anyone's guess.



Dewmanair...begins with Dew
User currently offlineByrdluvs747 From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 2359 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 13732 times:

Quoting commavia (Reply 7):
T7: Star international (CA, LH, LX, LO, MS, NH, OS, OZ, SA, SK, SQ, TK)

Not going to happen.

Quoting rjpieces (Reply 16):
I don't think an expanded T8 could even handle this many carriers during peak hours.

Definitely not. It would leave AA with little space for expansion when the 787's come and when the economy picks up.



The 747: The hands who designed it were guided by god.
User currently offlineIcelandairMSP From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 123 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 13701 times:

Quoting commavia (Reply 7):
T1: SkyTeam international (AF, AM, AZ, KE, KL, UX)
T2/3: Delta domestic and international
T4: Delta international + JetBlue international arrivals + unaligned carriers
T5: JetBlue domestic and international departures
T6: Star domestic (CO, SA)">UA, US)
T7: Star international (CA, LH, LX, LO, MS, NH, OS, OZ, SA, SK, SQ, TK)
T8: oneworld and SA)">AA-aligned international and domestic (AA, AY, BA, CX, IB, JL, LA, LY, MX, MU, QF, RJ, 9W)

An expanded T8 would get twelve gates at most, only ten if all the gates facing away outward are sized for the 777/747. I think it could fit BA, CX and IB ops, but I'm not so sure about all of those others. Same re: T7. I think Delta could definitely use space in T4, but many of those gates are for 777/747 and most of DL's flights would be 767 leaving a lot of wasted real estate. T8 was designed with the 767/787/330-sized aircraft heavily in mind per the needs of AA. T1 and T4 were planned for 75-80m aircraft.


User currently offlineGayStudPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 453 posts, RR: 7
Reply 20, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 13692 times:

Quoting NYC-air (Reply 5):
Since we're talking about pipe dreams, here's mine:

- DL and AA merge
- DL FINALLY gets a quality terminal at JFK
- oneworld and SkyTeam are merged into a new alliance named OneSky
- DL/AA had to divest a few things... US acquired the assets and got a huge erection, but it turned out to be the little blue pill and the US management team squandered the opportunity with their pilots just before penetration, shot their wad, and US entered BKK once again
- AS remains BFF with DL/AA
- CO and UA merge... see the other thread. The executive team, BOD, bankers and lawyers make a ton of money while shareholders and employees suffer
- WN begins flying to the Caribbean and Europe
- All the Virgins hold hands and join OneSky
- B6 goes it alone but is having a great time in bed with LH... oh those Germans!!
- All others are like those hanging around a bar at last call
- LAX becomes a world class facility and EVERYONE around the world loves it
- airliners.net shuts down because everything is so perfect that posters have nothing to talk about and become bored

[Edited 2010-02-24 21:51:10]

User currently offlineLDVAviation From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 1067 posts, RR: 4
Reply 21, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 13625 times:

Quoting rjpieces (Reply 11):
Yes. They [United] can essentially be put anywhere. It might even make sense to put them in T8 if the Port wants to move a bunch of T4 airlines into T7.

Yeah, there's a thought. Perhaps, AA's and UA's transcons could depart and arrive at adjacent gates.

AA isn't letting United into T8.


User currently offlineLDVAviation From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 1067 posts, RR: 4
Reply 22, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 13598 times:

Quoting Byrdluvs747 (Reply 18):
Definitely not. It would leave AA with little space for expansion when the 787's come and when the economy picks up.

So many possibilities. Some thoughts:

In the future (5 to 7 years), there will be a business case either for AA alone or with the financial cooperation of BA/IB to build out T8.

In the meantime, it makes sense for BA/oneworld to hold on to T7, if for no other reason than that it limits the options of the other alliances at JFK.

I don't think Delta can wait till 2015 for BA to make a decision about any terminal moves.

Other than more Delta to T4, the only other likely move in the next few years is JAL to T8. Selling its share of T1 would help the bottom line.

[Edited 2010-02-24 22:48:03]

[Edited 2010-02-24 22:48:26]

User currently offlineByrdluvs747 From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 2359 posts, RR: 1
Reply 23, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 13565 times:

Quoting LDVAviation (Reply 22):
In the meantime, it makes sense for BA/oneworld to hold on to T7, if for no other reason than that it limits the options of the other alliances at JFK.

Bingo! Which is part of the reason I think AA/BA will remain in both T7 and T8 permanently. OW really needs to figure out a way to make the two terminals work as one. The only way I know is a SkyLink.

In the spirit of jamming up DL, RJ and LA are in T4. While JL and MU are in T1. So I'd like things to stay the same. 



The 747: The hands who designed it were guided by god.
User currently offlineBA174 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2009, 760 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 13406 times:

Regardless of future terminal moves for BA wether they stay in 7 or jump to 8 they will definatley want to keep their OWN facilities e.g. lounges at JFK. I would imagine BA if they did move to T8 would want a concourse or a sub-terminal type thing of their own. It remains to be seen what sort of structure BA will be in and 2015 and whos at the helm of course. I wonder how much BA make by leasing gates to UA etc at T7 if leasing the gates at T7 is a good little pocket money earner for BA then they might want to keep T7.

One thing is for sure however BA would not want to go from an owner of their own terminal to being just another airline under AAs belt in T8 they would definatley want to make part of T8 their own. I wonder if they would buy half of it like UA did with BA in T7 until they sold their share but continued to lease gates.


25 Post contains images Jacobin777 : I would love that as well....but I agree, I don't see that happening. Back in 2001, I did AA ORD-LGA then BA JFK-LHR....even though it was one inexpe
26 rjpieces : Why not? UA would be paying the high lease rates for T8. BA tolerated United operating JFK-LHR from its terminal for years. Perhaps you are right tho
27 contrails15 : Anyway have the drawing for Deltas new terminal. I looked around for it and couldn't find anything. I heard the plans call for a bridge connecting 2 w
28 Post contains images DFWEagle : I think that BA will move into T8 relatively soon after the joint venture with AA is implemented. They only have six daily flights and T8 is underutil
29 BA174 : I can't see that happening Have you any idea how many BA employees work at T7? and the outsourced employees on the ramp from evergreen that are contr
30 FlyCaledonian : Yes, but as things stand operations would still be split at LHR, though the transit system between T5 and T3 airside will help matters. I think what
31 LHCVG : Stupid question: why is there no sterile shuttle service between LGA and JFK? That would seem to be a viable proposition, since some number do taxis
32 DFWEagle : AA and BA themselves have not yet decided on exactly how terminal co-location will work. However, the joint business agreement specifically says that
33 FlyCaledonian : There is the potential that the JBA will open up new flights to/from LHR, and not necessarily on BA metal, so that could be one area AA could keep th
34 Cubsrule : Maybe a bit off-topic, but I was surprised that BA/IB were not players in the ORD Concourse L game; there's plenty of space for BA (IB is already the
35 commavia : Problem with that though is that AA is a horrible ground handler. They just suck - royally. They don't live up to their contracts and don't allocate
36 OA412 : Interesting. You'd think they'd want to do everything they could to hold on to the extra revenue generated by handling the other airlines. Agree with
37 commavia : Of course they would like to hold onto the extra revenue. The problem is they don't want to expend the extra cost. They don't allocate the resources
38 jfk777 : I doubt AA would want to give even their OW partner BA prime terminal 8 space, their own ticket lobby and first and biz lounges, when BA has not even
39 Cubsrule : The problem with IND is that it's getting pretty long for a 752. I think it's doable, but it might behoove AA to get a bit of experience with 75A fli
40 TymnBalewne : Interesting rumor making the rounds at BA...that the BA LON flights will move to T8 and T7 will continue to hold the airlines BA handle, and UA.
41 BA174 : I doubt BA would continue to handle airlines in T7 if they no longer based their operations in it as their ground staff would probably transfer to T8
42 TymnBalewne : Why not? BA have to pay the leasehold until 2015. Ground handling is a profit maker for BA at T7.
43 Commavia : I agree this rumor seems highly implausible. For starters, I doubt BA would move their operations to another location while still maintaining control
44 vv701 : And additionally BA has two daily JFK-LCY flights, BA001/002 and BA003/004. The scheduled times on the ground at JFK for all eight daily BA flights a
45 DFWEagle : Thanks for posting this, its very useful to see the actual schedule/turns. Terminal 8 has 27 mainline aircraft gates, 19 of which are capable of proc
46 Determinist : You are correct that they own the terminal. The Wikipedia article on JFK has a cast iron reference for that info.
47 AA787 : Just remember that all of this will probably change post-ATI
48 BA174 : BA could get more frequencies after ATI as more people fly BA JFK-LHR than AA mainly for ease for connections at T5 but they have a huge fewquent fly
49 cslusarc : So let's confirm: BA leases the land that Terminal 7 sits upon, but BA owns the building and fixtures inside.
50 Lufthansa411 : I just don't see Star condensing into terminal 7 for a couple of reasons. In terms of CA, OS, TK and LH, they would need a facility that at least is
51 STT757 : The logistics involved with that border on the absurdly complicated. In the early '90s the Port Authority developed a plan called "JFK 2000", the pla
52 Post contains images Commavia : This is going to take lots of money - no question about that. If, hypothetically, this were to shake out in roughly the way we're talking about, lots
53 vv701 : You say that LH would not move out of T1 because they have just built yet you quite happily suggest that BA should simply write off the very much lar
54 Lufthansa411 : I am merely taking what many on this board have stated so far in this thread mainly.... With the ATI BA will probably have many more connecting pax t
55 Byrdluvs747 : Its funny how everyone is speculating that BA will dump their investment in T8 based on 2015, and ATI. Everyone of these arguments fails to consider t
56 AA787 : That's a pretty large distance. You have to go over the belt parkway.
57 Byrdluvs747 : It's would be no longer than it takes to transfer between terminals at DFW. From a passenger perspective it would be a very convenient sterile transf
58 JFKLGANYC : I always chuckle when I read about some of the posts about JFK. There are a lot of dynamics at the airport . . . and very few of them have to do with
59 Post contains images Byrdluvs747 : In a way there already is.
60 vv701 : No. You are not "merely taking on board" what others "have stated so far in this thread". Only you have suggested that BA should totally write off an
61 IcelandairMSP : Why wouldn't there be a reason for a large AA-type terminal where T2/T3 are for DL? If DL want a hub operation at JFK, those terminals need much bett
62 STT757 : The Port Authority has in their 10 year capital plan a plan to replace T-6 with a "domestic terminal", this would theoretically be for airlines that
63 Revelation : Thanks for your perspective, in particular: From the perspective of team alliances these airlines are strange bedfellows, but your post makes perfect
64 Byrdluvs747 : What do you mean acquire from them? If BA has no interest in selling, the PA can't just take it away from them. Take a look at google map. There isnt
65 IcelandairMSP : And if the PA wants T7 redeveloped enough, they could make BA an offer that they would find attractive enough to move to T8. I didn't say they were j
66 exFATboy : BA owns the building, but not the land under it. My understanding is that their lease on the land ends in 2015, and at that point the PA can decline
67 Lufthansa411 : I do not know where you are getting that I said to just have BA DONATE the building to the PA so they can rip it down, which it seems is what you are
68 STT757 : It's not just the infrastructure constraints, it's the slot issue. If DL wants to add International flights it has to sacrifice Domestic capacity and
69 jfk777 : Terminal 6 should be a Star alliance terminal. There is enough service from current Star airlines to JFK even with Continental at Newark. The Star al
70 STT757 : But none of the Star Carriers want to spend money to build a new terminal at JFK, it's just really not a priority. They use JFK for O&D traffic,
71 vv701 : I am sorry but I am obviously not making myself clear. Your proposal was for LH to stay in T1. You argued they would not move because of their invest
72 Lufthansa411 : That was not my argument at all. First, I argued that: The quote was in response to commavia whose idea was to have Star move into T7 and BA into T8.
73 jfk777 : JFK might only be O & D for Star airlines but it LOTS of O & D. Its New York not the 13th US city for international traffic.
74 STT757 : Also by moving they would be helping competitors, so why move?.
75 Lufthansa411 : It just depends on whether they are helping themselves at the same time. If they are moving for the sake of moving, then it really has no benefit. Bu
76 STT757 : Why do they need a new terminal, is Terminal One some how inadequate for 3 daily LH flights?.. If Star wanted to build a new Terminal to create more
77 Revelation : And that's the hard part of all the pipe dreams we find here. They all cost a lot of money, both to give reluctant airlines a good reason to move (it
78 Lufthansa411 : Thats my point, Terminal 1 is fine for 3 LH flights. It is relatively new and has a lot of space. My only point was that in my view, the only way LH,
79 jfk777 : Sure terminal 1 is excellent for 3 LH flights daily, but that is just a very minor reason for a Star terminal. Lufthansa is the first airline among S
80 m11stephen : Exactly! Anyone connecting on the east coast on Star is going to connect through either EWR, IAD, or PHL. There is no need to group all Star carriers
81 justplanenutz : Although I have no knowelege of the BA lease with the PA, it has been stated here that it expires in 2015. Assuming that that is true and the lease c
82 FlyCaledonian : Slightly different, as China was never prepared to extend the "lease" on the New Territories, and Hong Kong Island and the Kowloon Peninsula could no
83 Revelation : And who do you suggest would be putting up the money for such a deal? It'd have to be a pretty substantial sum, no? From what I've read, JFK has two
84 STT757 : If Star is putting up money for new terminals in the US they should start with UA's concourse C at IAD.
85 JFKLGANYC : "I could see JetBlue going ahead with a replacement for T6 that would tie into T5 and provide space (and immigration/customs) to allow it to move its
86 jfk777 : The Star terminal at JFK IS NOT about the people going to FRA on Lufthansa, while it would be nice for the JFK to FRA passengers. Its NOT about the p
87 STT757 : You know most Star carriers are at EWR: TAP, SAS, LH, CO, US, UA, AC, Lot Polish, Swiss etc.. The ones that only serve JFK could be moved to EWR, and
88 Post contains images Commavia : And then when Continental and United merge, they could shift the p.s. transcons, and the majority of the international Star flying in the New York ar
89 STT757 : Or just squat on them.
90 Revelation : I guess the simplest reply to these ideas is: SHOW ME THE MONEY!
91 NYC-air : All this talk about a Star terminal at JFK is really quite hilarious. Unless Jetblue joins Star I don't see how or why that would occur. If Jetblue jo
92 DeltaCTO : The best two posts of this whole thread
93 jfk777 : Jetblue has one of two futures, it joins Star and does what is has been doing. OR another airline buys it for its JFK slots and JFK terminal, Delta c
94 Revelation : Ya know, in a perverse way, that makes some sense. DL would instantly get a new terminal (albeit built for A320 and E195 sized planes), lots of slots
95 STT757 : Just as with the LGA slot swap, the Feds would require DL divest a sizable portion of B6's slots at JFK and LGA before allowing the airline to be acqu
96 mysterzip : Not to add fuel to the fire, but there may have been talks about JFK AA talking to JFK BA about expanding T8 (finishing it, actually), BA investing in
97 FlyCaledonian : I still think a lot will depend on what AA/BA do with the LHR-JFK operation post-ATI. Past ATI applications were based in part on being able to effec
98 rjpieces : I'm sorry, but this is not correct. United, US Airways, Air China, Asiana, Austrian, Egyptair, LOT, Lufthansa, South African, Singapore, Swiss, and T
99 DFWEagle : If JAL is going to move terminals at JFK, they would surely move to Terminal 8 considering their future antitrust immunity and transpacific joint bus
100 DFWEagle : Well, let’s remember that DL had only one daily JFK-CDG flight operated with a 757. AA has five daily JFK-LHR flights, all operated by 777’s so t
101 Cubsrule : True, but that was because of a previous decision for AF to focus on JFK while DL focused on ATL, ostensibly for product consistency reasons. For wha
102 nyc2theworld : Everybody seems to have forgotten who owns 19% of B6 and had a board seat (that would be LH). Goodbye DL or anybody else purchasing B6 at a reasonable
103 FlyCaledonian : Well I'm not opposed to AA moving into T5, but given that the JBA is meant to reduce costs unless AA moved all its LHR flights into T5 at LHR then it
104 Byrdluvs747 : LH's paltry 19% would not prevent a purchase if all the other shareholders agreed. If that were the case, LH's holdings would be worthless as I'm sur
105 Commavia : I'm sorry - but it is. I took the Star schedule out of JFK this summer - domestic and international - and fit it into T7's gates, without a single sc
106 nyc2theworld : Owning 19% of any company (even a public one) is not "paltry". When you're purchasing a company you don't ignore the one shareholder that holds that
107 jfk777 : A 767 please, Delta would never have a 757 to Paris from JFK.
108 rjpieces : As far as I know, not all of T7's gates are capable of handling international flights, plus there is simply not room to park more than 6 or 7 widebod
109 DFWEagle : Huh? DL had indeed downgraded JFK-CDG to a 757 before they left the market in 2008.
110 Cubsrule : ...and also flew the 757 to Frankfurt, another important O&D ex-NYC, for some time.
111 AA787 : Thats because it's STEVE JOBS.
112 nyc2theworld : Actually its becaused he was the former owner of Pixar and Disney paid him with stock or a stock/cash combo. Not because he's some awesome figure. Ho
113 Post contains links mayor : This article might shed some light on DL's plans for JFK. http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20100307/FREE/303079969/1072
114 STT757 : Some problems with the article, first they claim DL could use PFC's. They cannot, PFC's are for common use facilities. Second the article states DL i
115 Post contains links JFKLGANYC : That link doesn't work. This does http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20100307/FREE/303079969
116 mayor : The original works for me.
117 Revelation : It also says: Whereas we know that T4 is managed by the Schiphol Group. The most relevant quotes in the whole piece are: Sadly the article really didn
118 rjpieces : Same old, same old...
119 Blueman87 : i think it is nessary to demolish 2/3 i try avoiding delta at all cost because there terminal sucks really bad they need a new 1 or 2 terminals worse
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...
The Future Of LBC Airport posted Wed Feb 3 2010 05:47:50 by DouglasDC10
The Future Of <70 Seat Aircraft posted Thu Jan 21 2010 12:14:07 by Joost
The Future Of Regionals posted Tue Jan 12 2010 11:40:19 by Alias1024
The Future Of PHX? posted Wed Nov 25 2009 20:07:55 by AirStairs
The Future Of CO At IAH? posted Sun Oct 18 2009 20:03:17 by Deltaflyertoo
What Is The Future Of "Yananyi Dreaming" posted Fri Oct 16 2009 12:46:03 by SXDFC
The Future Of PER posted Tue Sep 22 2009 04:06:45 by Ben175
The Future Of LCC Codesharing And Alliances posted Wed Aug 19 2009 12:11:44 by OP3000
The Future Of Super Sonic Transportation... posted Wed Aug 12 2009 15:22:12 by Swa4life
A Little Competition On The Future Of Etihad posted Tue Jul 21 2009 23:18:30 by Kleinsim