STT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16261 posts, RR: 52 Posted (3 years 3 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 15105 times:
At today's monthly Port Authority board meeting the board approved Port Authority plans to demolish six cargo buildings and 5 hangars at JFK, they will also demolish T-6 to make way for a future expansion of T-5 to accommodate B6's International arrivals currently housed at T-4.
n7190jr From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 96 posts, RR: 0 Reply 1, posted (3 years 3 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 14932 times:
So will B6's new extension be called T6 or will we see a new concourse on 5 and a possible smaller terminal eventually put in what space is left, or have they not gotten that far yet?
m11stephen From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 1206 posts, RR: 1 Reply 3, posted (3 years 3 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 14706 times:
Is T6 an architectural marvel like the TWA T5 is?
My opinions, statements, etc. are my own and do not have any association with those of any employer.
phatfarmlines From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 1322 posts, RR: 1 Reply 5, posted (3 years 3 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 14491 times:
Hmmm.....B6 said they would never expand beyond 200-odd flights at JFK. With their current gate setup (26 gates, not including T4 ops), if B6 utilized the gates like WN's 10-flight average per gate per day, then theoretically B6 could operate up to 260 flights, however, given the current operational challenges @ JFK, I doubt B6 can pull something off like that.
LDVAviation From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 754 posts, RR: 5 Reply 6, posted (3 years 3 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 14262 times:
Quoting STT757 (Thread starter): At today's monthly Port Authority board meeting the board approved Port Authority plans to demolish six cargo buildings and 5 hangars at JFK, they will also demolish T-6 to make way for a future expansion of T-5 to accommodate B6's International arrivals currently housed at T-4.
Any news on what the PA is or is not doing for Delta?
Also, was there any discussion of the proposal the PA made to AA/BA? Did they offer financing for the move and construction?
jfklganyc From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 2664 posts, RR: 5 Reply 7, posted (3 years 3 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 14261 times:
Well this is no surprise. B6 wants to move its Int'l ops to T5 from T4. One terminal with an int'l wing for itself and possibly partners.
T6 is obselete and is a space taker. They need a simple concourse with customs beneath it that can accomodate 10 or so gates. Connected to the spacious T5 check-in and baggage claim and you are good to go.
Might I add that the PA has a scheme here to that is visionary. Move Jetblue to the T5/6 area with an expansion there. Move BA to the T8 area with and expansion there. T4 int'l airlines can go to intl T7. T4 has a lot more space for Delta and its expansion.
kiwiandrew From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 8435 posts, RR: 14 Reply 8, posted (3 years 3 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 14225 times:
Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 7): Well this is no surprise. B6 wants to move its Int'l ops to T5 from T4. One terminal with an int'l wing for itself and possibly partners.
But what happens to the future terminal plans at JFK when B6 launches its much anticipated bid to take over AA ?
BTW , it's rather sad that I have to say this ... but yes , I am joking .
Moderation in all things ... including moderation ;-)
PITrules From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 2690 posts, RR: 3 Reply 9, posted (3 years 3 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 14216 times:
JetBlue has all along stated the current T5 is phase I, with Phase II being a hockey stick shaped international concourse extending westward from T5 over the T6 site.
Quoting m11stephen (Reply 3): Is T6 an architectural marvel like the TWA T5 is?
jfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 7348 posts, RR: 7 Reply 10, posted (3 years 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 13806 times:
Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 7): Might I add that the PA has a scheme here to that is visionary. Move Jetblue to the T5/6 area with an expansion there. Move BA to the T8 area with and expansion there. T4 int'l airlines can go to intl T7. T4 has a lot more space for Delta and its expansion.
Terminal 4 is huge, BA's terminal 7 is much smaller and can't take all airlines operating from T4. Delta's solution to its "WorldPort" Pan AM era terminal is to build on that sight. With Jet Blue expanding to the terminal 6 sight with an FIS the best soltuion is for all of BA and OW to move to an expanded terminal within a terminal at AA'sTerminal 8. That would allow for a new building on teh current BA T7 sight for a Star alliance terminal, which should be part of a Jet Blue complex. That would allow for JB & Star to have a massive space on what is currently terminal 5-7. Star needs its own JFK terminal whatever happens with Continetal at Newark, its not as if Lufthansa will stop flying to JFK and move all its New York flights to Newark. Termnal One would become a SKYTEAM terminal as part of a greater Delta complex.
tharanga From United States of America, joined Apr 2009, 1778 posts, RR: 1 Reply 11, posted (3 years 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 13712 times:
Quoting PITrules (Reply 9): JetBlue has all along stated the current T5 is phase I, with Phase II being a hockey stick shaped international concourse extending westward from T5 over the T6 site.
If an intl extension was planned all along, then it should be easier to implement now. Are there any sketches of what it will look like, and how it will be situated?
cokepopper From United States of America, joined May 2008, 1093 posts, RR: 9 Reply 12, posted (3 years 3 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 13631 times:
Quoting LDVAviation (Reply 6): Any news on what the PA is or is not doing for Delta?
Yes at a Crane's meeting in NY(wed 4/28) Chis Ward, Executive director stated the agency is committed to a solution for the New York-JFK terminal facility and considers the project among its highest priorities.
rjpieces From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 14, posted (3 years 3 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 13434 times:
Very interesting....Does anybody know what cargo buildings they are referring to that are not used and being knocked down?
Quoting STT757 (Reply 2): It will be an extension of T-5, so it will be T-5.
T5 is the nicest terminal at JFK, so this is good news.
Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 7): T6 is obselete and is a space taker. They need a simple concourse with customs beneath it that can accomodate 10 or so gates. Connected to the spacious T5 check-in and baggage claim and you are good to go.
Yup. Might be a slightly long walk. Will be interesting how they design the expansion.
STT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16261 posts, RR: 52 Reply 15, posted (3 years 3 weeks 4 days ago) and read 13306 times:
Quoting LDVAviation (Reply 6): Any news on what the PA is or is not doing for Delta?
Quoting LDVAviation (Reply 6): Also, was there any discussion of the proposal the PA made to AA/BA? Did they offer financing for the move and construction?
No news on either of those fronts, I think it's going to be a while before anything specific is announced. As jfklganyc pointd out, the Port Authority is working on a solution that makes the most sense. It's a logistical challege that is not going to be accomplished as quick as many would like, the clues have been drips here and there, the announcement that BA is possibly moving to an expanded AA T8 and now this announcement that they are planning to expand T-5 in order to move B6's international arrivals out of T-4.
Burried in the board meeting minutes regarding the T-6 demolition is the caveat that the Port Authority reserves the right to use at anytime with short notice the demolished T-6 site as a hard stand parking area for aircraft diplaced from other areas due to airport construction.
werdywerd From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 487 posts, RR: 1 Reply 17, posted (3 years 3 weeks 4 days ago) and read 13231 times:
Few Points :
This New International wing being added to T5, is referred to as "T5i" internally. The "i" is for, of course, international. Not sure if this name will stick after it is built.
The number of gates being added is anywhere between 4 and 6. (last I heard)
T5i would strictly be for our international flights since this wing would also have U.S. Customs.
The current T5 was built with T5i (or Phase II) in mind already. So T5 is was built ready to add an extension from gate 27.
Yes, it is very plausible that Aer Lingus, Lufthansa, and other future wide body partners would use T5i as well. But right now these are just rumors. (Yes that means that T5i would possibly be built to handle more than just A320's and E190's)
ScottB From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 6364 posts, RR: 34 Reply 18, posted (3 years 3 weeks 4 days ago) and read 13180 times:
Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 7): Well this is no surprise. B6 wants to move its Int'l ops to T5 from T4. One terminal with an int'l wing for itself and possibly partners.
T6 is obselete and is a space taker. They need a simple concourse with customs beneath it that can accomodate 10 or so gates. Connected to the spacious T5 check-in and baggage claim and you are good to go.
The big issue, IMO, is whether an international concourse added to T5 would be cost-effective given the constraints on expansion JetBlue faces due to slot restrictions at JFK. They're even giving up a dozen slot pairs to AA in exchange for access to DCA.
Quoting jfk777 (Reply 10): That would allow for a new building on teh current BA T7 sight for a Star alliance terminal, which should be part of a Jet Blue complex. That would allow for JB & Star to have a massive space on what is currently terminal 5-7. Star needs its own JFK terminal whatever happens with Continetal at Newark, its not as if Lufthansa will stop flying to JFK and move all its New York flights to Newark.
It's not entirely clear that Continental/United would be terribly happy with a cross-town competitor in Star Alliance, and JetBlue may be moving toward an alliance with AA. Or they could be moving to a model more like Alaska Airlines where they cooperate with many partners. With ATI between CO and LH, I think we will indeed see more LH capacity shifted to EWR from JFK.
rjpieces From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 19, posted (3 years 3 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 12901 times:
Quoting werdywerd (Reply 17): The current T5 was built with T5i (or Phase II) in mind already. So T5 is was built ready to add an extension from gate 27.
I don't know, it doesn't make sense to me to only build 4-6 internationally capable gates. Building out from Gate 27 will result in a weird shape and a long walk for passengers once they clear security.
Ideally, the Port would take care of moving T7 airlines to T8, and build a new terminal where T7 is that can connect to T5. The result would be one large air-side connected terminal that can house a wide assortment of airlines. The current T7 is not the best use of space. If they were re-designing a terminal for the land where T6 & T7 are, they could put a lot more gates in then are currently there. This could free up some space in T4 for Delta to move in there.
Blueman87 From United States of America, joined Aug 2009, 535 posts, RR: 0 Reply 20, posted (3 years 3 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 12417 times:
I think its a smart idea now if they made room for a new Delta terminal
tharanga From United States of America, joined Apr 2009, 1778 posts, RR: 1 Reply 22, posted (3 years 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 10731 times:
Quoting werdywerd (Reply 17): (Yes that means that T5i would possibly be built to handle more than just A320's and E190's)
what's the largest plane that can be accommodated by the current T5 gates?
Lufthansa411 From Germany, joined Jan 2008, 691 posts, RR: 1 Reply 23, posted (3 years 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 9799 times:
Quoting ScottB (Reply 18): With ATI between CO and LH, I think we will indeed see more LH capacity shifted to EWR from JFK.
Almost all of LH's capacity at JFK is O&D. Shifting that to EWR would not gain them anything, and perhaps might even loose some market share as many pax prefer JFK over EWR. I know I do when travelling through NY.
That being said, I think what we have the potential to see is more focus to secondary German cities through EWR, and also possibly changing many of the US codeshares out of BOS to the new UA out of EWR. With UA and LH revenue sharing across the atlantic, it would make more sense then the current arrangement to use US out of Boston, which does not have a revenue sharing agreement between the two carriers.
Nothing in life is to be feared; it is only to be understood.
ScottB From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 6364 posts, RR: 34 Reply 24, posted (3 years 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 9447 times:
Quoting Lufthansa411 (Reply 23): Almost all of LH's capacity at JFK is O&D. Shifting that to EWR would not gain them anything, and perhaps might even loose some market share as many pax prefer JFK over EWR. I know I do when travelling through NY.
That being said, I think what we have the potential to see is more focus to secondary German cities through EWR
Adding flights to secondary German cities from EWR would likely take passengers that had been flying XXX-FRA-JFK. But moving flights to EWR would also allow LH to offer a more attractive schedule with a greater number of flights. I doubt they would completely dump JFK, but the long-term LH presence at JFK might look more like their presence at EWR prior to ATI with CO.
25 beeweel15: Over the years with all the destruction and rebuild of terminals for some reason Terminal 2 always seams to be left out. If they get rid of that build
26 aviateur: That's the old National Airlines building. Designed by I.M Pei. You had Pei and Saarinen right next to each other. Those were the glory days for airpo
27 jfk777: While smaller Star alliance airline may move their New York flights to Newark, SAA for example, many will continue to fly to JFK as well as EWR. ANA
28 ramzi: I'm not sure I agree: The terminal is also the winner of two awards in the 1970s. See here. My thoughts exactly. I find it very disappointing this bu
29 707lvr: I guess in aviation-years, T-6 is obsolete. Doesn't seem that long to me. It was actually designed for efficiency in moving lots of people back in the
30 PITrules: One man's junk is another man's treasure. I'm not arguing either way in regards to T-6; but at this time I don't believe T-6 is protected like T-5 wa
31 WA707atMSP: I agree 100%. I think the "land" side of T6 is still beautiful, and gives a wonderful sense of flight. It's a tragedy that the stained glass window a
32 tharanga: For all the beauty and splendor of those pictures, T6 hasn't aged well, and it isn't adequate for today. In real life two years ago, the round space p
33 rjpieces: I feel the same way. I will be sad to see T6 go. I have many memories of flying from there on TWA, America West, Carnival, and, of course, jetBlue.
34 incitatus: The buildings referred to in this document as about to be demo'd are: Buildings 123, 124, 125, 138, 204 and 260 and Hangars 3, 4, 5, 7 and 12. Is the
35 STT757: So far this is the best one I could find; http://www.panynj.gov/air-cargo/jfk-map.html
36 STT757: Hangars 3,4,5 are the triple hangars FedEx used to use. Hangar 12 is the huge former TWA hangar, right now it's full of items recovered from the Worl
37 707lvr: Very interesting site. I knew JFK did a lot of cargo .,. but Wow.
38 rjpieces: Wow, this really saddens me!!! I will cry when this building goes....
39 PacificClipper: Completely agree. Thanks for posting those wonderful photos. Sad to see the historic, award winning and never to be replicated pieces of Amerca's gat
40 werdywerd: Jetblue will also have Hardstands and De-Icing at the old T6 (New T5i) Site.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16261 posts, 
From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 8435 posts, 
From Bahamas, joined Feb 2005, 1254 posts, 
From Germany, joined Jan 2008, 691 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
