washingtonian From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 4893 times:
A few weeks ago there was a thread on A.net where somebody speculated that Terminal 8 at JFK could be expanded with 30 more mainline gates in order accomodate British Airways and the other oneworld carriers at JFK as well as jetBlue's entire operation in the event of a merger. Most of us ridiculed this as not feasible. I've looked closely at the maps and layout of Terminal 8 and want to start a thread to discuss what exactly is and is not possible.
Above is a picture of the empty land next to Terminal 8. The main hall of the terminal was never built out to full size. If BA is to move to T8, they would essentially have to build the never-completed main hall out to its full size for adequate check-in space, etc. This would also allow them to build an escalator directly from the main hall of the terminal to the entrance to the airTrain. The current set up is one of the longer walks to the airTrain at JFK and takes you a bit out of the way through several twists and turns.
On the ramp, there is clearly not room for 30 more mainline gates, as others speculated. The only way this would be even remotely possible would be if all of the already-existing widebody gates were converted to narrowbody gates, but that is not going to happen. T8 is primarily an international terminal; the bulk of its domestic flights consists of flights to Los Angeles, San Francisco, Miami, and Eagle flights.
There is room for about 10 more widebody gates to be built, on the land in the picture above. I looked at the schedules of oneworld carriers and on a given day this summer, all of the airlines (except Qantas) could be accommodated in EIGHT gates with a decent amount of flexibility. I did not include Qantas because their LAX-JFK service is technically a domestic flight, even though it's available only for passengers continuing onward on Qantas, so their A-330 could use any normal non-FIS equipped gate at T8 (of which there are a few). But they would probably build as many gates as possible in the new wing, and I think 9-10 are doable. This is more than enough to handle British Airways, Cathay Pacific, Iberia, JAL (if they wanted to move), Royal Jordanian, LAN (if they wanted to move from T4), and Finnair (already in T8). It's also much more flexible than the current set up in T7 (where they basically operate out of 6 widebody gates), which get tight during inclement operations. It's not a coincidence that it's always British Airways and Cathay Pacific with the worst ground delays when blizzards cover JFK.
A few problems/issues that need to be worked out. I don't think there is enough ramp space there to have more than 1 or 2 gates accomodate A-380s and 77Ws. It's still going to be a tight ramp, but no more tight than the current T7 or the old T8 alley. Another potential issue is whether BA will want to operate a "terminal within a terminal" in their own wing of T8. Will they want to have separate TSA checkpoints or restricted access to their concourse, or will they basically just be expanding the current TSA checkpoint and essentially just making Terminal 8 larger?
Overall though, there is plenty of space for T8 to be expanded. It is not enough space for 30 gates, but it could make for a very nice international concourse in an already-nice terminal at JFK.
Mir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 19695 posts, RR: 56 Reply 1, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 4412 times:
Quoting washingtonian (Thread starter): I did not include Qantas because their LAX-JFK service is technically a domestic flight, even though it's available only for passengers continuing onward on Qantas, so their A-330 could use any normal non-FIS equipped gate at T8 (of which there are a few).
While they wouldn't need the FIS, they'd still probably need an FIS-equipped gate, as those are the only ones that a 330 (or 747 for that matter if they decided to bring it back) could fit on.
Quoting washingtonian (Thread starter): But they would probably build as many gates as possible in the new wing, and I think 9-10 are doable.
The current wing has 8 gates on it, plus two on the little stub of the second wing. The space available to expand that wing is about the same, so going with the same design would result in a net gain of six gates. I don't see them being able to get much more than that - maybe a gain of eight is possible.
Quoting washingtonian (Thread starter): I don't think there is enough ramp space there to have more than 1 or 2 gates accomodate A-380s and 77Ws.
380s will be a problem - they won't fit between the two concourses, which limits the places where you could put 380-capable gates. You could probably get two of them on the east side where the old T8 was. As for 77Ws (or 346s for that matter), length is the issue - they'd also have trouble fitting them between the concourses. So you're probably looking at having to use the 380-capable gates there as well (with one or two more elsewhere in the terminal).
-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
ScottB From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 6358 posts, RR: 34 Reply 2, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 4268 times:
Quoting washingtonian (Thread starter): I've looked closely at the maps and layout of Terminal 8 and want to start a thread to discuss what exactly is and is not possible.
I suspect it's possible to get close to 30 additional gates at Terminal 8 -- if the Terminal 7 site is turned into a satellite concourse for T8. This could be achieved via a two-phase (or more) process. First, build the other half of the terminal concourse (and ticketing/baggage hall), with provision for a train system connecting to the T7 site. Then, after moving BA into the new portion of T8, demolish T7 and build a satellite concourse in its place using the train to go over the JFK Expressway. With some coordination, it might even be possible to have that train extend to JetBlue's planned T5i (on the site of T6 and potentially to T5, thus facilitating connections between AA and B6. It would probably all be a ten-plus-year endeavor, but it would also be the premier hub facility at JFK in the end.
washingtonian From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 3, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 4244 times:
Quoting ScottB (Reply 2): I suspect it's possible to get close to 30 additional gates at Terminal 8 -- if the Terminal 7 site is turned into a satellite concourse for T8. This could be achieved via a two-phase (or more) process. First, build the other half of the terminal concourse (and ticketing/baggage hall), with provision for a train system connecting to the T7 site. Then, after moving BA into the new portion of T8, demolish T7 and build a satellite concourse in its place using the train to go over the JFK Expressway. With some coordination, it might even be possible to have that train extend to JetBlue's planned T5i (on the site of T6 and potentially to T5, thus facilitating connections between AA and B6. It would probably all be a ten-plus-year endeavor, but it would also be the premier hub facility at JFK in the end.
Very doable, but in our fantasies in all likelihood. Also, the poster in the other thread was referring to adding 30 mainline gates at the current T8 without the land where T7 and T6 are.
BA174 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2009, 718 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 4198 times:
Quoting washingtonian (Thread starter): Another potential issue is whether BA will want to operate a "terminal within a terminal" in their own wing of T8.
Yes they will. No offense to any AA fans/staff but BA would never risk devolving their AC handling/lounges at JFK which is the airlines no1 route with 7 freq daily over to AA maybe on the ramp, yes but not the customer service side of things.
mysterzip From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 157 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 4143 times:
Quoting BA174 (Reply 4): Quoting washingtonian (Thread starter):
Another potential issue is whether BA will want to operate a "terminal within a terminal" in their own wing of T8.
Yes they will. No offense to any AA fans/staff but BA would never risk devolving their AC handling/lounges at JFK which is the airlines no1 route with 7 freq daily over to AA maybe on the ramp, yes but not the customer service side of things.
BA may want to think about having their own staff around for their premium passengers. When it comes to regular folk and handling other carriers, it depends on whether or not BA wants to spend more money on HR. It is a race to the bottom, after all. There's also the issue of the IAM (union that represents BA in the US).
washingtonian From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 6, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 3939 times:
Quoting BA174 (Reply 4): Yes they will. No offense to any AA fans/staff but BA would never risk devolving their AC handling/lounges at JFK which is the airlines no1 route with 7 freq daily over to AA maybe on the ramp, yes but not the customer service side of things.
I have no doubt they will have their own lounges and ground staff. But there's still a question as to whether they will want their concourse to be just another part of T8, or whether they will want an exclusive area just for BA passengers.
nyc2theworld From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 653 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 3895 times:
Quoting washingtonian (Reply 6): I have no doubt they will have their own lounges and ground staff. But there's still a question as to whether they will want their concourse to be just another part of T8, or whether they will want an exclusive area just for BA passengers.
How would that work for AA Domestic--->BA transfers? Would BA have their own "checkpoint" airside to make sure only BA passengers are allowed over? I doubt the store/restaurants/shops would like that agreement with all the AA passengers not being able to spend money there.
Always wonderers if this "last and final boarding call" is in fact THE last and final boarding call.
washingtonian From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 9, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 3852 times:
Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 7): There is room to add ~30 gates. Close to two-thirds would be Eagle gates, but the room exists, plain and simple.
Ahh now you are changing your tune. Now it's 10 mainline gates and 20 Eagle gates? That's not what you said in your earlier posts where you said there was room for 30 more mainline gates.
Anyhow, there is room for plenty of more RJ gates if they want to build a thin finger concourse somewhere. But American learned over a decade ago that they could not make money at JFK with an Eagle operation. Something Delta started to learn in 2006-2007 when they tried to copy jetBlue but with turboprops and RJs.
Quoting nyc2theworld (Reply 8): How would that work for AA Domestic--->BA transfers? Would BA have their own "checkpoint" airside to make sure only BA passengers are allowed over? I doubt the store/restaurants/shops would like that agreement with all the AA passengers not being able to spend money there.
I don't really think it's feasible, but everyone talks about how "crucial" it is that BA operates its own terminal at JFK. I personally think it would be fine if they have their own concourse at T8 that is connected fully to the rest of the terminal, but only used for BA and OneWorld departures.
HKG212 From Hong Kong, joined Jan 2008, 125 posts, RR: 0 Reply 10, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 3763 times:
Quoting ScottB (Reply 2): It would probably all be a ten-plus-year endeavor, but it would also be the premier hub facility at JFK in the end.
The big question here is, what would be the purpose of having such a hub at JFK? it is already more or less at capacity serving primarily O/D traffic to and from the NYC area. Increased hubbing may in fact cripple the airport's ability to serve that traffic.
Moreover, wIth US regulations and no clear geographical advantage, there is little prospect for any OW international-international transfers at JFK. International to domestic transfers have to clear customs and go again through security anyway, so the only potential advantage of single-terminal operations (or airside connections to other terminals) is a smoother domestic to international transfer process. I doubt this will justify the investment, again considering that most of the airlines' business is O/D.
Quoting washingtonian (Reply 6): I have no doubt they will have their own lounges and ground staff.
As far as I'm aware, by OW rules anyone is allowed into the equivalent lounge of any OW member according to their class of service or OW status. I have certainly exercised this privilege in several airports around the world. So it's not clear to me how this gets enforced. American may simply have to up their game and go for a joint lounge for international travelers and elites, while keeping the current mediocre facilities for Admiral's Club members.
Quoting washingtonian (Reply 9): I personally think it would be fine if they have their own concourse at T8 that is connected fully to the rest of the terminal, but only used for BA and OneWorld departures.
That's exactly how it would work, there is no other way.
I think the main attraction for BA would be to have proper facilities for the A380 (e.g. 3-bridge, 2-level boarding) if they decide to deploy it on the LHR-JFK route (as opposed to keeping high frequencies on 77Ws). CX, with their growing operations to JFK -- now hinting at a potential 5th (!) daily -- may want more space too, including their own lounge.
staralliance85 From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 165 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 3677 times:
I think extending Terminal 8 based on a American-Jetblue merger is pure speculation. They just built Terminal 5 and it will be a wile till that ever happens. All Oneworld Airlines should be under the same roof because it will make connection times so much easier. In terms of lounges, AA should of their Admirals Club for their customers and British Airways should have their First and Business Class lounges with other oneworld premium customers being allowed to enter (same as current arrangement). Jet Airways and Qatar Airways should move to another terminal, in order to make way for all of the Oneworld Airlines in Terminal 8.
BA174 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2009, 718 posts, RR: 0 Reply 12, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 3424 times:
Would joining up BAs T7 up to T8 be more of an option e.g. better connections between the terminals or fast shuttles to ferry people between the two work. A similar system that now works at LHR T5/3. I know BA likes to have its own facility at JFK and makes a profit through handling QF/IB/CX/FI and leasing gates to UA at the station and would probably want to keep that side of the business in the event of a T8 move. Which leads me to think that whether they stay in T7 or move to T8 they would want to keep a presence e.g. own sub-terminal etc
washingtonian From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 13, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 3336 times:
Quoting HKG212 (Reply 10): I think the main attraction for BA would be to have proper facilities for the A380 (e.g. 3-bridge, 2-level boarding) if they decide to deploy it on the LHR-JFK route (as opposed to keeping high frequencies on 77Ws). CX, with their growing operations to JFK -- now hinting at a potential 5th (!) daily -- may want more space too, including their own lounge.
Yes. I think that all things considered, having a dedicated wing in T8 with all of the space that it offers would be quite attractive to BA.
Quoting staralliance85 (Reply 11):
I think extending Terminal 8 based on a American-Jetblue merger is pure speculation
Suggesting that T8 could accomodate 30 more mainline gates and accomodate jetBlue and all of the oneworld carriers IS pure speculation. I've yet to hear the person retract that statement.
But talking about oneworld carriers moving into T8 is not speculation; they are currently in the planning stages to do so.
Quoting staralliance85 (Reply 11): Jet Airways and Qatar Airways should move to another terminal, in order to make way for all of the Oneworld Airlines in Terminal 8.
Not necessary. They are currently accommodated just fine in the gates American has. If and when they build new gates at T8 for oneworld, there will be more than enough room for everyone (as I said above, accommodating oneworld really only requires 8 gates based on current schedules)
Quoting BA174 (Reply 12): Would joining up BAs T7 up to T8 be more of an option
They are already connected by the airtrain but it is not the most efficient for connecting, of which there are a fair number of passengers. In an ideal world, for example, Cathay Pacific's flights from HKG would arrive in T8.
Quoting BA174 (Reply 12): I know BA likes to have its own facility at JFK and makes a profit through handling QF/IB/CX/FI and leasing gates to UA at the station and would probably want to keep that side of the business in the event of a T8 move.
Their lease on T7 supposedly ends in 2015. The PANJNY has more or less said the next big project at JFK will involve the completion of T8.
ScottB From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 6358 posts, RR: 34 Reply 14, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 3161 times:
Quoting HKG212 (Reply 10): The big question here is, what would be the purpose of having such a hub at JFK? it is already more or less at capacity serving primarily O/D traffic to and from the NYC area. Increased hubbing may in fact cripple the airport's ability to serve that traffic.
Having a more effective hub facility with better connecting opportunities would allow for up-gauging flights currently served by regional jets or simply combining duplicated services -- i.e. using A320's or 738's for routes like BOS-JFK and JFK-IAD/DCA, rather than E135/140/145/190's or CR7's. Even in the absence of a merger, AA could use larger aircraft for international routes with better connecting feed to and from B6. It's unlikely that new slots would become available, but it is most certainly possible to use the existing slot portfolio more effectively.
Quoting HKG212 (Reply 10): Moreover, wIth US regulations and no clear geographical advantage, there is little prospect for any OW international-international transfers at JFK. International to domestic transfers have to clear customs and go again through security anyway, so the only potential advantage of single-terminal operations (or airside connections to other terminals) is a smoother domestic to international transfer process.
But that smoother domestic-to-international transfer is a meaningful improvement, and it is possible to ease the international-to-domestic connection as well with a dedicated TSA screening checkpoint at the exit from Customs. The lengthy walk from the AirTrain to T5 is also a drawback of the current setup.
Agreed that it is a pie-in-the-sky scenario, but making a design provision for an airside connection between an expanded T8 and a replacement for T7 seems like it would be wise, and if T6 is being replaced, it would make sense to incorporate that into the plans as well.
washingtonian From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 15, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 3016 times:
Quoting ScottB (Reply 14): Agreed that it is a pie-in-the-sky scenario, but making a design provision for an airside connection between an expanded T8 and a replacement for T7 seems like it would be wise, and if T6 is being replaced, it would make sense to incorporate that into the plans as well.
washingtonian From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 16, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 2637 times:
Quoting ScottB (Reply 14): But that smoother domestic-to-international transfer is a meaningful improvement, and it is possible to ease the international-to-domestic connection as well with a dedicated TSA screening checkpoint at the exit from Customs.
I don't even think this is necessary, if they have a large main TSA checkpoint.
A gate that has access to immigration and customs (I think FIS stands for Federal Immigration Service). If you want to run an international flight, it needs to arrive at an FIS gate* (or use a remote stand with buses, but that's not viewed highly in the US). Not all gates in the US have this capability - in fact, most don't, since so many US flights are domestic (airports like JFK will have more of them due to the international nature of the traffic, but there are still those that don't - JetBlue for instance does not have a customs facility in their terminal, so all of their international flights have to arrive at other terminals that do have customs.
* Does not apply to flights with preclearance.
-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
Byrdluvs747 From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 2141 posts, RR: 1 Reply 19, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 2305 times:
It would be a strategic mistake for AA/OW to allow themselves to be corralled into one terminal. However, it seems as though OW is fond of making these types of mistakes, then act surprised when *A and/or ST take advantage of them. DL is a big force in JFK, therefore the purpose of T8 should be primarily for AA's ability to grow. T8 was NOT created for the purpose of stuffing in every OW carrier.
That does not mean BA can't negociate another lease for T7.
Quoting ScottB (Reply 14): Agreed that it is a pie-in-the-sky scenario
Its only pie in the sky because AA/BA/OW are not fighting for it. If they demanded it, it would be closer to reality. Unfortuantely, AA/OW have not recognized the mistake they're making.
VV701 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 6618 posts, RR: 17 Reply 21, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 2208 times:
Quoting Byrdluvs747 (Reply 19): That does not mean BA can't negociate another lease for T7.
Here is an extract from Slide 117 (titled "Hub Development") of a presentation made by Craig Kreeger, SVP International, American Airlines, at a BA meeting with financial analysts in London in May of last year:
"•BA/AA/IB Terminal 8 co-location
•Create a single oneworld terminal operation
•Seamless transfer proposition
•Adopt very best of T5 at JFK
•Leading edge lounge and premium services
•Operational and facility synergies"
Nevertheless I suppose that even with the planned colocation there is nothing to stop BA from trying to re-negotiate their T7 lease so it can continue to profit by leasing out the T7 facilities to other airlines.
Here's a link to the full slide suite of the May 2010 presentations:
BA174 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2009, 718 posts, RR: 0 Reply 22, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 2164 times:
Quoting VV701 (Reply 21): Nevertheless I suppose that even with the planned colocation there is nothing to stop BA from trying to re-negotiate their T7 lease so it can continue to profit by leasing out the T7 facilities to other airlines.
BA have not got enough ground staff at JFK to operate out of two terminals and the benifits of the third party handling system they have at JFK would probably be corroded if they had to work it like that. I predict that UA will leave JFK for COs EWR hub in the near future and there current gates will be haded back to BA. BA will then move it and their thrid party handling clients to a new concourse at JFK T8.
BA174 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2009, 718 posts, RR: 0 Reply 23, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 2164 times:
Quoting VV701 (Reply 21): Nevertheless I suppose that even with the planned colocation there is nothing to stop BA from trying to re-negotiate their T7 lease so it can continue to profit by leasing out the T7 facilities to other airlines.
BA have not got enough ground staff at JFK to operate out of two terminals and the benefits of the third party handling system they have at JFK would probably be corroded if they had to work it like that. I predict that UA will leave JFK for COs EWR hub in the near future and there current gates will be haded back to BA. BA will then move it and their thrid party handling clients to a new concourse at JFK T8.
washingtonian From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 24, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 2105 times:
Quoting Byrdluvs747 (Reply 19): It would be a strategic mistake for AA/OW to allow themselves to be corralled into one terminal.
Why? They would be moving into new gates; AA still has plenty of room to grow in their already-existing gates. And if AA and B6 do merge at some point, they will have a whole other terminal as well.
Quoting Byrdluvs747 (Reply 19): That does not mean BA can't negociate another lease for T7.
True.
Quoting BA174 (Reply 22): I predict that UA will leave JFK for COs EWR hub in the near future and there current gates will be haded back to BA.
Not happening. PS is the perfect niche service for JFK, it's not going anywhere. Jeff Smisek has even said to expect upgrades to the PS fleet. If anything, I think we'll see United add a few flights at JFK to connect some of the dots...like JFK-IAH, which PMCO ended a few years ago when gas prices got high.
Sponsor Message: 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2009, 718 posts, 
From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 31115 posts, 
From Hong Kong, joined Jan 2008, 125 posts, 
From Ireland, joined Nov 2010, 453 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
