Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
JFK Terminal Assignments  
User currently offlinenycdave From United States of America, joined Aug 2010, 547 posts, RR: 1
Posted (3 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 10703 times:

With the talks of BA/IB moving to Terminal 8, and the possibility of LH moving in next to B6 when T5-International is built, AND DL taking over most of T4 in the next few years, I was wondering what other A-netters think should happen with the arrangement of airlines in the terminals. Currently there's no small number of alliances and codeshares that are split up among several terminals, and as we know, transferring between terminals at JFK ain't easy (I've often wondered why they don't use the old mobile lounges to run more air-side transfer shuttles). How would you have things arranged?

Some questions to consider:

-Should LH move in with B6, or with its Star partners? Or, since its Star partners have such a small presence at JFK, maybe they should all move in with B6? Could they even, if they wanted to?
-T1 was built and (i believe) run by a consortium including AF and LH. What would happen if they moved to other terminals?
-Should T4 become essentially DL/SkyTeam, with the unaffiliated airlines perhaps shifting over to T1 or T7?
-What should happen to the T7 space if BA and IB move over to an expanded T8?

60 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineTWFirst From Vatican City, joined Apr 2000, 6346 posts, RR: 52
Reply 1, posted (3 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 10478 times:

Quoting nycdave (Thread starter):
and as we know, transferring between terminals at JFK ain't easy

Why do you say that? With the AirTrain I think it's pretty easy.

Quoting nycdave (Thread starter):
-Should LH move in with B6, or with its Star partners

I'd say Star partners... T7 should become the (primary) Star Terminal once BA moves to T8, although T7 isn't a great facility. Wonder if T7 can handle all Star flights though. Once T6 is demolished and T5 international is built, perhaps there can be a connector built w/T7?

Quoting nycdave (Thread starter):
-Should T4 become essentially DL/SkyTeam, with the unaffiliated airlines perhaps shifting over to T1 or T7?

IMO, yes. I think unaffiliateds should go to T1.

Quoting nycdave (Thread starter):
-What should happen to the T7 space if BA and IB move over to an expanded T8?

See above.



An unexamined life isn't worth living.
User currently offlinenycdave From United States of America, joined Aug 2010, 547 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (3 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 10458 times:

Quoting TWFirst (Reply 1):
Why do you say that? With the AirTrain I think it's pretty easy.

I gotta disagree. While AirTrain is a big improvement over bus shuttles (like at LAX or LGA), the lack of air-side transfers necessitates going through security over again -- which can be pretty inconvenient at JFK (particularly T4). Even without considering that, AirTrain does require a bit of a hike -- sometimes outside (T2/3) to and from the terminal.


User currently offlineTWFirst From Vatican City, joined Apr 2000, 6346 posts, RR: 52
Reply 3, posted (3 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 10420 times:

Quoting nycdave (Reply 2):
I gotta disagree. While AirTrain is a big improvement over bus shuttles (like at LAX or LGA), the lack of air-side transfers necessitates going through security over again -- which can be pretty inconvenient at JFK (particularly T4). Even without considering that, AirTrain does require a bit of a hike -- sometimes outside (T2/3) to and from the terminal.

Granted it's not ideal, but it is much better than several other airports I can think of where you must reclear security to transfer between terminals. Tons of airside shuttles would be an operational hinderance though, don't you think? Anyway, if a connector could be built between the T5 addition and T7, that could solve the problem.



An unexamined life isn't worth living.
User currently offlineflySFO From United States of America, joined Apr 2011, 112 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (3 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 10343 times:

My terminal assignments (feel free to tear through them!):
T1: International SkyTeam (AF, etc.)
T2/T3: Delta
T4: International non-affiliates
T5: B6
T6: Will be torn down right? Can someone provide more information about this T5-International Terminal? I had never even heard about it until now.
T7: Star Alliance (UA, LH, etc.)
T8: Oneworld (AA, BA, etc.)


User currently offlineexFATboy From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 2974 posts, RR: 9
Reply 5, posted (3 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 10309 times:

Given that JFK has a much lower rate of connection than most international gateways, I'm not sure that having alliance partners in the same terminal is as high a priority as it might seem, particularly for LH since Star's US side is so weak at JFK.

That said...

Quoting nycdave (Thread starter):
I've often wondered why they don't use the old mobile lounges to run more air-side transfer shuttles

Given the way passengers have always complained about them at IAD, I think it's just that they're not very popular with passengers. And international arrivals have to go through security again anyway, so that limits their usefulness.

I'm surprised JetBlue hasn't considered experimenting with them for some domestic passengers connecting to AA, at least.

Quoting nycdave (Thread starter):
Should LH move in with B6, or with its Star partners? Or, since its Star partners have such a small presence at JFK, maybe they should all move in with B6? Could they even, if they wanted to?

I don't think so - given JetBlue's recent moves toward being the "Alaska of the East" and entering multiple partnership agreements, I'm not sure it'd want to be seen as cozying up toward Star.

Also depends on how big the new T6* is - JetBlue will want it for its own international flights (and there could be more, depending on JetBlue's slot availability).

I do see non-alliance partner Aer Lingus moving to join JetBlue, though.

* - I'm really hoping that that "T-5i" moniker goes away, it's grating to the ear and, more importantly, is going to lead to customer confusion, I can just see an elderly couple getting off the SkyTrain now..."honey, is our flight from T-5 or T-5-eye?"

Quoting nycdave (Thread starter):
T1 was built and (i believe) run by a consortium including AF and LH. What would happen if they moved to other terminals?

Presuming there was a push to move to be with your alliance partners, I can see a few different scenarios:

* LH buys out the other partners (presuming T1 became the Star terminal)
* The partners agree to find a new investor to buy them all out
* The partners agree to have someone else manage the terminal and keep it as a passive investment

Quoting nycdave (Thread starter):
-Should T4 become essentially DL/SkyTeam, with the unaffiliated airlines perhaps shifting over to T1 or T7?
Quoting nycdave (Thread starter):
What should happen to the T7 space if BA and IB move over to an expanded T8?

Depends on what the PANYNJ decides to do about T7 should BA and IB (and presumably QF and Cathay Pacific as well?) move to T8. That'd just leave the two small Star tenants (UA, US) and Iceland Air at T7. T7's getting pretty long in the tooth, so the PA might be inclined to close it, if there's enough space created between the expansion of T4 and T8 to absorb everybody.

I could see a "restack" leading to T1 being Star, T4 (and the eventual replacement for T2) Skyteam, T5 and T5i/T6/whatever taking in JetBlue's non-alliance international partners, and an expanded T8 being OneWorld, with the remaining non-alliance international carriers scattered to the remaining available international-appropriate space.

This presumes that the ownership issues could be sorted out and that T8 is expanded enough to take in the OneWorld carriers currently at other terminals.

Quoting TWFirst (Reply 1):
Why do you say that? With the AirTrain I think it's pretty easy.

Well, it's easier than it used to be. But the way the AirTrain is positioned makes it a bit of a jaunt for some terminals, particularly T5.


User currently offlinemogandoCI From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (3 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 10298 times:

Star should rebuild T6 and link it to T7 (both air-side)... park the smaller planes at new T6 (like UA's ps) but park the larger ones at T7 (as small as it looks, T7 handles 744 and 77W routinely)

Although i'm not sure T8 itself can handle BA, QF, CX, IB all at once


User currently offlinenycdave From United States of America, joined Aug 2010, 547 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (3 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 10298 times:

Quoting flySFO (Reply 4):
My terminal assignments (feel free to tear through them!):
T1: International SkyTeam (AF, etc.)
T2/T3: Delta
T4: International non-affiliates
T5: B6
T6: Will be torn down right? Can someone provide more information about this T5-International Terminal? I had never even heard about it until now.
T7: Star Alliance (UA, LH, etc.)
T8: Oneworld (AA, BA, etc.)

Only prob there is that T3 is being demolished, and DL is moving into a big expansion of T4, including and RJ pier! Re: T6, I believe they've already started prep work to take it down. B6 is planning on building an extension of T5 to accommodate their international traffic, so that it's all under one roof, instead of having non-pre cleared flights go to T4.


User currently offlineB6JFKH81 From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 2891 posts, RR: 7
Reply 8, posted (3 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 10242 times:

Quoting mogandoCI (Reply 6):
Star should rebuild T6 and link it to T7 (both air-side)... park the smaller planes at new T6 (like UA's ps) but park the larger ones at T7 (as small as it looks, T7 handles 744 and 77W routinely)

Not going to happen. As mentioned in this thread and numerous other threads, T6 is being torn down to become T5i for B6.

~H81



"If you do not learn from history, you are doomed to repeat it"
User currently offlinejfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 8390 posts, RR: 7
Reply 9, posted (3 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 10243 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting flySFO (Reply 4):
My terminal assignments (feel free to tear through them!):
T1: International SkyTeam (AF, etc.)
T2/T3: Delta
T4: International non-affiliates
T5: B6
T6: Will be torn down right? Can someone provide more information about this T5-International Terminal? I had never even heard about it until now.
T7: Star Alliance (UA, LH, etc.)
T8: Oneworld (AA, BA, etc.)

There are many changes going on at JFK.

Terminal 1 could go to Star or go Skyteam, I don't see Air France or Korean Air moving out so LH would probably move.

T2/T3- soemthing new and wonderful will be built there and DL will probably be part of it as they will control half of T4, unaligned airlines need to go someplace.

T4- will be half Delta and half the Emirates and Aviancas of the world.

T5/T6(T5 International)- Jetblue and Star alliance -some of the JB alligned airlines could use this; Aer Lingus, Lufthansa.

T7 - should be torn down and this scould be a Star terminal connected to T5 - International.

T8- AA new terminal looks like its going to be the OW JFK terminal, BA and its A380, Cathay's 77W's, LAN , JAL and other OW airlines. A huge connector bridge to the T7 sight for the overflow and a new T7 would be awsome, if T7 does NOT become the JFK star alliance terminal.


User currently offlineAABB777 From United States of America, joined Oct 2007, 566 posts, RR: 7
Reply 10, posted (3 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 10221 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting mogandoCI (Reply 6):
Although i'm not sure T8 itself can handle BA, QF, CX, IB all at once

QR is moving operations to T8 in a couple weeks.


User currently offlineexFATboy From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 2974 posts, RR: 9
Reply 11, posted (3 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 10151 times:

Quoting mogandoCI (Reply 6):
Star should rebuild T6 and link it to T7 (both air-side)

Can't, PANYNJ has already assigned that space to the T5 expansion for JetBlue.

(Sidebar - anyone know if the demolition date for T6 has been set yet? It's been authorized, but AFAIK there's no timetable, although PANYNJ likely has a contingency plan to have bulldozers in place in a day or two if the city were to start the process for a landmark designation, as was apparently being proposed by some groups last year.)

Quoting mogandoCI (Reply 6):
Although i'm not sure T8 itself can handle BA, QF, CX, IB all at once

Depends on how big the t8 expansion is - I believe the deferred portion of the original T8 design would be enough to handle the OneWorld carriers, especially since some of them (QF, for example) are only one flight a day.


User currently offlineML86 From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 45 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (3 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 10017 times:

Quoting flySFO (Reply 4):

My terminal assignments (feel free to tear through them!):
T1: International SkyTeam (AF, etc.)
T2/T3: Delta
T4: International non-affiliates
T5: B6
T6: Will be torn down right? Can someone provide more information about this T5-International Terminal? I had never even heard about it until now.
T7: Star Alliance (UA, LH, etc.)
T8: Oneworld (AA, BA, etc.)

I think this is very practical. With regards to T-6, I wonder what the economics of refurbishing the terminal and connecting it via sterile connector to T-7 are? If feasible, T-7 could host the Star Alliance international arrivals and departures and T-6 could be used for domestic UA and US operations.


User currently offlineexFATboy From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 2974 posts, RR: 9
Reply 13, posted (3 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 9973 times:

Quoting ML86 (Reply 12):
I wonder what the economics of refurbishing the terminal and connecting it via sterile connector to T-7 are? If feasible, T-7 could host the Star Alliance international arrivals and departures and T-6 could be used for domestic UA and US operations.

UA and US really don't have enough operations at JFK to justify a facility the size of the existing T-6. The baggage claim level is a dump (JetBlue did all it could short of a gut-renovation, but that's what it'd take to make it un-dumplike) and the security areas are far too small to retrofit nude-o-vision into.

Besides, where would JetBlue put the international arrival facility they so badly need if not in the space currently occupied by T-6?


User currently offlinejfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 8390 posts, RR: 7
Reply 14, posted (3 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 9826 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting exFATboy (Reply 13):
Besides, where would JetBlue put the international arrival facility they so badly need if not in the space currently occupied by T-6?

Terminal 6 was built for National Airline which was primarily a Florida to New York airline, not an international airline from JFK, so the terminal never had an FIS; a major deficiency at JFK. IT was nice in 1970 and really needs to be torn down. Airport terminals are not musems and should not be preserved because Aero Saaren or IM Pei built them. Tear it Down.


User currently offlineN623JB From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 703 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (3 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 9745 times:

I think that JetBlue would want to have a terminal of their own for International flights and not other airlines. One reason is because there would be widebodies in jetBlue colors(JetBlue does have intention of starting flights to Central and South America). It would require them to use bigger planes for destinations in the regions.


Bring JetBlue To Mexico City! (TLC and/or MEX would be great)
User currently offlineBOACCunard From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 864 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (3 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 9680 times:

I'd like to see this:

Terminal 1 and
Terminal 4W

SkyTeam and partners
Aeroflot
Aerolineas Argentinas
AeroMexico
Air Europa
Air France
Alitalia
China Airlines
China Eastern
Czech Airlines
Delta
KLM
Korean Air
Saudi Arabian

Terminal 4E
Non-aligned
Aer Lingus
AeroSvit
Air Jamaica
Arik Air
Caribbean Airlines
Cayman Airways
Emirates
Kuwait Airways
Meridiana Fly
PIA
Royal Air Maroc
Sun Country
Transaero
Uzbekistan
Virgin America
Virgin Atlantic
all others

Terminal 5
JetBlue

Terminal 7
Star Alliance & partners
Aerogal
Air China
Air India
ANA
Asiana
Austrian
Avianca
Copa
EgyptAir
Lacsa
LOT
Lufthansa
Qatar Airways
Singapore Airlines
South African Airways
Swiss
TACA
Turkish Airlines
United
US Airways

Terminal 8
oneworld and partners
Air Berlin
American
British Airways
Cathay Pacific
El Al
Etihad
Finnair
Iberia
JAL
LAN
Qantas
Royal Jordanian

Of course, alliances, partnerships, etc. could change.



Getting There is Half the Fun!
User currently offlinenycdave From United States of America, joined Aug 2010, 547 posts, RR: 1
Reply 17, posted (3 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 9446 times:

Quoting BOACCunard (Reply 16):
I'd like to see this:

I like that -- especially putting Star partners in T7 (which itself could use a serious re-make). Only thing I'd change is making T1 for unaffiliated and making T4 all SkyTeam and partners, with a new airside connection between the East and West concourses.


User currently offlineBasilFawlty From Netherlands, joined Jun 2009, 1328 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (3 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 9365 times:

With several people making lists, here's my view:

T1: Star Alliance: CA, AI, NH, OZ, OS, AV, CM, MS, LO, LH, SQ, SA, LX, TA, TAM, TK, UA, US

T2: Will be connected to T1 and become part of it.

T3: Will be demolished. Space will be used for remote stands and possible future expansion of T1 and/or T4

T4: SkyTeam: SU, AM, UX, AF, AZ, CI, MU, DL, KL, KE, SV

T5-domestic: B6
T5-international:: B6, EI

T6: Will be demolished to make room for T5-international.

T7: 2K, VV, W3, BW, JM, KX, LY, EK, EY, 9W, KU, IG, PK, QR, AT, SY, UN, HY, VS, VX, XLF

T8: Oneworld: AB, AA, BA, CX, AY, IB, JL, LA, QF, RJ

[Edited 2011-04-25 19:05:46]


'Every year donkeys and mules kill more people than plane crashes'
User currently offlinegoldenargosy From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 124 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (3 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 9302 times:

What ever became of the old Tower Air terminal? If it's still around, I wonder if the port authority would ever reopen it for another airline?

User currently offlineN623JB From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 703 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (3 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 8980 times:

Quoting BasilFawlty (Reply 18):

Now, how the heck are you going to fit all those airlines in one small near-cube shape Terminal? Well..its not small but it aint big like T3 or T5.



Bring JetBlue To Mexico City! (TLC and/or MEX would be great)
User currently offlinejetblueatjfk From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 1687 posts, RR: 3
Reply 21, posted (3 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 8571 times:

I feel like LH and EI would gravitate towards moving in with B6 definitely. They have better connections with B6 at JFK then others to warrant staying in T1/4. I feel like they would definitely move into T5 Int'l

B6jfk



When You Know jetBlue, You Know Better
User currently offlineLufthansa411 From Germany, joined Jan 2008, 692 posts, RR: 1
Reply 22, posted (3 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 8479 times:

I hate to rain on the parade, but almost all of these theoretical terminal assignments will only exist in the wet dreams of A-nutters. As has been mentioned, JFK is an O&D airport. Forget new buildings, just re-organizing airlines by alliance and terminal would cost tens of millions of dollars-at least. Then you get to the practical side. Why would you spend that money putting OZ, SA and LH together when none of them codeshare out of JFK anyway? It is a waste of money. Even reorganising into seemingly logical pairings does not play out when you take a closer look. Just look at TK. They may have about 10 maybe on a busy day 15 connecting pax, most travelling on with DL or AA, not UA or US. Same with LH. Just as many pax connect with AA or DL as with B6. What is the benefit of moving (high cost) for a negative return on investment.

Plus, a terminal is not just where pax board and deboard. Airlines have offices, operations centres, etc. Many airlines that have a large presence have custom built offices to suit specific needs. What is the benefit for an airline like LH to move to Terminal 7 and adapt BA's office space to fit its operation when T1 was built specifically with LH's operation in mind? The only difference I see with Terminal 7 is because of the age of the terminal, BA might find it worthwhile to construct a new satellite at T8 with AA. But idk whether UA and US would feel the same way about moving to other terminals. Why spend the money when T7 fits just fine?

Nevermind the fact that T1 and 4 are the only terminals with A380 ready gates at JFK. With AF, EK, LH and come August KE operating the A380 into JFK- and I'm sure others will join in the next couple of years- moving these airlines out from where they already are is just not feasible. I doubt B6 would construct a couple of A380 gates just so partner LH can operate the 380 during the summer.

Quoting exFATboy (Reply 5):
The partners agree to have someone else manage the terminal and keep it as a passive investment

It is already set up that way. The terminal is not managed by the partner airlines themselves, but by the Terminal One Group which is an entirely separate entity removed from the partner airlines. In this way the terminal can seem more equal to other tenant airlines. Each of the partners does exert major influence, but they do not call the shots on their own.



Nothing in life is to be feared; it is only to be understood.
User currently offlineAmricanShamrok From Ireland, joined May 2008, 2909 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (3 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 7965 times:

Quoting BasilFawlty (Reply 18):
T5-domestic: B6
T5-international:: B6, EI

Remember, Aer Lingus no longer has to arrive at international gates at JFK as all immigration/customs is now undertaken before departure at Dublin T2 and Shannon.



Shannon-Chicago
User currently offlinejfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 8390 posts, RR: 7
Reply 24, posted (3 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 7529 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting BasilFawlty (Reply 18):
T4: SkyTeam: SU, AM, UX, AF, AZ, CI, MU, DL, KL, KE, SV
Quoting BasilFawlty (Reply 18):
T7: 2K, VV, W3, BW, JM, KX, LY, EK, EY, 9W, KU, IG, PK, QR, AT, SY, UN, HY, VS, VX, XLF

Terminal 4 took over from the old IAB, its job is to house orphan airlines, DL can NOT take over the whole thing. The PANYNJ won't let it happen.

Terminal 7 will be torn down and something new will be built there, 3 options are Star alliance terminal, part of JB complex and new addition to AA terminal 8 ( i know there is a highway between AA T8 & BA T7).


25 N623JB : My wish is it would be torn down for the space to be a part of the new T5-I,especially for jetBlue widebodies.
26 WA707atMSP : The correct spelling of T5's original architect is Eero Saarinen.
27 ATLflyer : Any idea When the new T5I may begin or T8 expansion?
28 jfklganyc : " T7's getting pretty long in the tooth, so the PA might be inclined to close it, if there's enough space created between the expansion of T4 and T8 t
29 Post contains links nycdave : Um, actually, as pointed out in my original post, some of these changes are more than just the idle speculation of enthusiasts. There has been seriou
30 ML86 : Is/will T-7 be A380 capable? With BA expecting deliveries in the next few years, I would think JFK would be a route.
31 N623JB : I think the B787 would be used on the JFK routes to England not the A380. It would make sense to use the B787s.
32 nycdave : I'd imagine this is probably part of the reason BA is in talks to move into T8 once their lease expires. While I'm sure you could set up a gate for 3
33 B747forever : It isnt like there is only 5 flights each day to LHR. I do believe that pax rather wants frequency (several 787s) rather than a handful of A380 depar
34 B6JFKH81 : Why would it be a handful? Look at the BA departures this afternoon (as per FlightAware). A 787 would be a HUGE decrease in ASMs, and throwing a few
35 dartland : Agreed. I love T7 just the way it is! Historically, this is correct. Putting alliances together has not been a high priority at places like JFK and c
36 Lufthansa411 : Hence why in my post I specifically mentioned that: As right now it is not certain but BA has come out to mention that that option is on the table. M
37 B6JFKH81 : Everyone is referencing when T6 becomes T5i, which (based on design concepts) can fit the big boys that have partnerships with B6....
38 goldenargosy : Wouldn't any terminal changes create headaches and cost lots of $$$$ by having to design and build/retrofit new lounges/clubs?
39 web500sjc : How about a double sized gate? Have a set of gates that could function as 1 widebody gate or two narrow body gates. Would that be feasable?
40 Post contains links VV701 : Here is an extract from Slide 117 at the BA Investor's Day Meeting in early May 2010 that was part of a presentation made by Craig Keeger, AA's Senio
41 Post contains links Revelation : Thanks for the most solid info on this topic I've seen so far. I'd like to see that happen. In the following thread: The Future Of JFK's Terminals (b
42 VV701 : I'm not sure either. What has happened in the past when the land lease has expired is that BA have made a proposal to the Port Authority about reneva
43 exFATboy : Entirely possible, but the gate space for A380s issue is a major stumbling block.
44 STT757 : First the T-5 expansion onto T-6 known as T-5I will be an expansion of T-5, not a new terminal. Thus it will be built to accommodate B6, the gates wil
45 N623JB : In regards to T5-I, I think its wise to build a extension that can accomodate bigger planes, just in case jetBlue DOES decide to order bigger planes,
46 apodino : This thread indicates what many terminals at one airport instead of one big terminal with many concourses and gates (Think ATL, MCO, DEN, etc) brings
47 flySFO : I don't think T4, even post expansion, has the space for Delta Mainline, SkyTeam internationals, AND non-aligned international airlines. I would gues
48 apodino : I didn't say all of SkyTeam would be in T4. Quite the contrary, because many SkyTeam airlines are in T1, and that wouldn't change under my plan. Basi
49 jfk777 : The terminal 2/3 sight will have an expansion of terminal 1 or 4. IT will be something spectacular, JFK can NOT ignore such a huge chunk of land and
50 washingtonian : Not all of those gates are capable of handling widebodies. Not to mention none can handle the A-380. A lot of the people who posted fantasy terminal
51 N623JB : I agree totally with building the T5-I concourse all the way down to the T7 area. That would give jetBlue plenty of room, especially with their futur
52 nycdave : Wow, you might want to let them know about that. If it's the case, they could probably have saved a lot of money and trouble by NOT codesharing with
53 nycdave : Perhaps if it was torn down and rebuilt. Otherwise, I doubt that they'd ever take a terminal with a full (and large) customs and immigration and turn
54 delimit : We can talk about that later then, bacause as of now, T2 ain't going anywhere.
55 Post contains links STT757 : [ I've never seen one ad. The Governor's of New York and New Jersey jointly control the Port Authority, in fact the highest ranking Port Authority off
56 nycdave : I stand corrected on that, then -- really shocked that it's being allowed, but then again Andy does almost the opposite of anything I'd do! The other
57 Post contains links and images nycdave : Just because you've never seen 'em, doesn't mean they weren't there http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3536/3886860121_3cc5cf53f4.jpg http://farm3.static
58 STT757 : Of the $3 Billion in Port Authority funds going to the ARC Hudson rail tunnel project, $1.8 Billion of that is going to the aforementioned Northern Ne
59 Post contains images exFATboy : I would have preferred seeing the PANYNJ funds go to the PATH extension to EWR as well, but part of it is just timing - the funds are available prett
60 panamair : Interesting to note that QR will be moving from Terminal 4 to Terminal 8 (AA) starting May 9 2011. F and J pax (though I don't think QR sells F on the
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...
Update: JFK Terminal 4 And New LGA Terminal posted Sat Jul 17 2010 11:03:53 by ATLflyer
JFK Terminal 1 Evacuated 7/4/10 posted Sun Jul 4 2010 15:28:32 by yvphx
Trans World Express @ JFK Terminal 5 posted Thu Jun 17 2010 14:31:29 by nomadic
Delta To Announce JFK Terminal Plans posted Tue Jun 15 2010 08:56:33 by FoxBravo
Update On Delta's JFK Terminal 2/3 posted Thu May 13 2010 21:51:55 by ATLflyer
Jetblue's JFK Terminal 5 Wins Top Awards posted Wed Mar 24 2010 08:30:38 by yazoo
JFK Terminal 8 Evacuated Due To Security Breach posted Sat Jan 16 2010 14:42:21 by ManuCH
DL JFK Terminal Plans? posted Wed Jul 29 2009 06:37:14 by Usdcaguy
DL JFK Terminal Plans Update. posted Fri May 15 2009 19:33:33 by CokePopper
JFK Terminal 4 Fees posted Sat Apr 11 2009 14:21:43 by JA