Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Effort To Save Pan Am's Worldport  
User currently offlinebraniff From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 108 posts, RR: 2
Posted (2 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 5432 times:

Back in October, someone posted a message asking what the Pan Am Worldport terminal looked like in the 70's, but that thread has been closed and archived.

There's a Facebook page called "Save the Pan Am Worldport" that is advocating for preservation and restoration of the original "flying-saucer" terminal.

There's a few photos there from the 70's both interior and exterior, mostly of the saucer building.


Believe it!
19 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlinerockinflyer From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 232 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (2 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 5397 times:

I'll have a look at the facebook page. I'd love to see it restored to original luster and glory!!!! Maybe call it the Deltaport?


AA,AC,AF,BA,BN,BW,CO,DL,FL,F9,HA,KL,NA,PA,RW,TW,UA,WA,WN
User currently offlinebraniff From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 108 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (2 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 5158 times:

As would I.

Delta let it get so run down over the years, presumably because they keep thinking they're gonna get rid of it, but years later it's still there. It's not especially flattering of Delta or JFK, and most travelers can't wait for it to go.

But the saucer is definitely an icon. If they're gonna bulldoze T3, they should at least keep the saucer and use it to their advantage (kind of like what B6 was gonna do with the Saarinen TWA T5, but decided not to.)

Gut it, renovate it and use it for shopping, eateries, pubs, and what have you. It's not a huge place, but there's plenty of room once you remove the security crap, check-in desks, gates, kiosks, etc. It would be a cool place to hang out while going between T2 and T4.

With the 1972 expansion section gone, there would still be room for hardstands and better flow, and the view from the saucer would be like it was back in the '60's.



Believe it!
User currently offlinedelta2ual From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 620 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (2 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 4836 times:

Thanks! I had asked if anyone had any pics. I will go check it out!


From the world's largest airline-to the world's largest airline. Delta2ual
User currently offlinewilliam From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 1262 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (2 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 4810 times:

Problem, they saved TWA's terminal and how is that going?...........Yeah, thats what I thought, do not save Worldport unless one have a concise plan what to do with it.

User currently offlinemogandoCI From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (2 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 4645 times:

In terms of iconic, the PanAm Worldport is nothing compared to TWA Terminal at JFK. It is not worth preserving at all.

JFK has very limited space and is filled to the brim on a daily basis (sans the small space of the deprecated T6). It simply can't afford to waste valuable space preserving every single old building.


User currently offlineDelta763 From United States of America, joined May 2008, 287 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (2 years 8 months 4 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 4362 times:

As much as I am a Pan Am fanboy, I concede that it doesn't make sense to keep the terminal. It was built to meet needs defined in the 1950's. They would just about have to gut it and rebuild it anyway to make it useful as a terminal today. If they kept it as it is, it would just be in the way.

Same goes for the old TWA terminal, really. You see how much use it's getting today. It's just an obstruction everyone has to build around, unless they can convert it to some sort of museum or something, which they likely won't do. JetBlue and Delta are in the flying business, not the history business.


User currently offlinebraniff From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 108 posts, RR: 2
Reply 7, posted (2 years 8 months 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 4212 times:

Quoting william (Reply 4):
do not save Worldport unless one have a concise plan what to do with it.

I think that's the idea. There's no point in saving another building no one plans to use. As much as I loved T6 and hated to see it go, the way it was situated ate up a huge chunk of space. That said, T6 was probably the more useful of the two since its boxy layout was more functional. But T6 is gone.

Quoting Delta763 (Reply 6):
They would just about have to gut it and rebuild it anyway to make it useful as a terminal today. If they kept it as it is, it would just be in the way.

Trying to re-use it as a terminal would be pointless. I think most of the suggestions revolve around re-purposing it for retail and entertainment space that would make it earn its keep and pay off the cost of restoration, unlike the TWA building that's sitting there pretty but empty.

The Worldport addition is mostly what's in the way. The saucer intrudes very little on flows and the hardstands they're planning for the reclaimed space. The T2-T4 connector in the mockup photos is really silly IMO. Keeping the saucer in between doesn't change the overall layout much.



Believe it!
User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8482 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (2 years 8 months 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 4184 times:

Quoting Delta763 (Reply 6):
Same goes for the old TWA terminal, really. You see how much use it's getting today. It's just an obstruction everyone has to build around, unless they can convert it to some sort of museum or something, which they likely won't do. JetBlue and Delta are in the flying business, not the history business.

TWA is an architectural landmark. It's one of the most important buildings in the USA. So, that is its function.


User currently offlineCuriousFlyer From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 692 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (2 years 8 months 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 4154 times:

I agree TWA is more impressive than Worldport. Maybe keep the saucer if it does not prevent DL from building a good facility, so badly needed.

As for TWA, shame, someone should invest in that space. At the very least make it a 5 star boutique hotel for connections, there will be takers in JFK, it has the high end customers passing through.


User currently offlineDelta763 From United States of America, joined May 2008, 287 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (2 years 8 months 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 4077 times:

Quoting Flighty (Reply 8):
TWA is an architectural landmark. It's one of the most important buildings in the USA. So, that is its function.

A true modern architect would never say that.  

The fact that its been reduced to something pretty but superfluous to me is a worse insult to its modernist aesthetic than tearing it down would be.

"Nothing useless can be truly beautiful"

[Edited 2011-12-02 14:40:30]

User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12443 posts, RR: 25
Reply 11, posted (2 years 8 months 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 4027 times:

Quoting braniff (Reply 2):
Gut it, renovate it and use it for shopping, eateries, pubs, and what have you. It's not a huge place, but there's plenty of room once you remove the security crap, check-in desks, gates, kiosks, etc. It would be a cool place to hang out while going between T2 and T4.

Even if they did this, I really doubt it'd get enough use to earn its keep. Unless you have a big-ass layover, why would one want to hang out there? One wants to get through security and hang out near their gate and get going ASAP.

DL and PANYNJ have made their desires crystal clear, and they do not include preserving any part of T3. I'm sure they're more concerned about if/when they can do the so-called Phase 2 of T4, which would really improve things in that part of JFK and allow for a lot of tenants to relocate to more efficient locations.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlinebeeweel15 From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 1751 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (2 years 8 months 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 3990 times:

Quoting CuriousFlyer (Reply 9):
I agree TWA is more impressive than Worldport. Maybe keep the saucer if it does not prevent DL from building a good facility, so badly needed.

I agree and that is the point many folks are making just keep the front and get rid of the back. To many folks think that keeping the fron means keeping the whole terminal. T2 is the one that should be raised it serves no purpose.

Quoting CuriousFlyer (Reply 9):
As for TWA, shame, someone should invest in that space. At the very least make it a 5 star boutique hotel for connections, there will be takers in JFK, it has the high end customers passing through.

Shamefull what JETblue did to the terminal. It is just there gathering dust. They should have better incorporated the terminal in their T5 design. If they did they would have had a tremendous terminal cause the rear of the TWA terminal has a huge bay window that faces the ramp.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Tom Turner



As seen in the picture behind that window when TWA was in existence had a bar and viewing area. And If jetblue used the terminal better and took advantage of some of its features they would have had a nice experience for not only travelers but people who meet and greet people. The only terminals where ther is good food service outside of security is T8, T1 and T4 (soon to be destroyed by Delta when everything moved behind security) everybody else is behind security making it no fun to come to JFK and wait for folks.


User currently offlinecloudboy From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 813 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (2 years 8 months 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 3846 times:

Just because JetBlue or the Port Authority has not yet done anything with T5 does not mean nothing sensible could be done with it. and in fact they have finally done some restoration and recently had an open house. The World Port is not anywhere near as iconic as the Saarinen's TWA terminal, but it is still significant. I would love to see it restored and re-purposed.

However, I know realistically that the only thing that really gets a company or organization to act is some kind of short term gain or profit. And the WorldPort just wont make it. The worldport was architecturally impressiv4e due to it's volumes, and for the needs of an airline or aiport authority, the last thing they want is someone standing there in awe of the terminal. They want them either in the plane flying, or they want them in a restaurant eating, bar drinking, or store buying. An enjoyable flying experience is detrimental to short term profits. they need people to need to buy or consume stuff to make up for a poor experience.

What would work for the WorldPort would be if it were the home to an international airline, one that is really focused on the whole travel experience. There it becomes a giant lounge for all passengers, who are stuck in transit. But for an airline like Delta or for an operator like the Port Authority, I dont see it happening.



"Six becoming three doesn't create more Americans that want to fly." -Adam Pilarski
User currently offlinerwy04lga From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 3176 posts, RR: 8
Reply 14, posted (2 years 8 months 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 3727 times:

I'll repeat what I've said a few times before...Keep just the saucer section and jettison the secondary hull....um, I mean the 70's Worldport addition. Transfer all the RJ's from T2 to the now saucer-only T-3. Plenty of room for the RJ's...and a covered ramp!!! Sweet!!!


Just accept that some days, you're the pigeon, and other days the statue
User currently offlinepolot From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 2159 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (2 years 8 months 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 3720 times:

Quoting rwy04lga (Reply 14):
I'll repeat what I've said a few times before...Keep just the saucer section and jettison the secondary hull....um, I mean the 70's Worldport addition. Transfer all the RJ's from T2 to the now saucer-only T-3. Plenty of room for the RJ's...and a covered ramp!!! Sweet!!!

On the ramp maybe. I don't even want to imagine how packed the terminal would be.


User currently offlinerwy04lga From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 3176 posts, RR: 8
Reply 16, posted (2 years 8 months 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 3688 times:

Less people would be waiting for a 70-seat airliner than currently wait for a 200-seat airliner. Wouldn't it be LESS packed?

[Edited 2011-12-02 19:02:52]


Just accept that some days, you're the pigeon, and other days the statue
User currently offlinespacecadet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3624 posts, RR: 12
Reply 17, posted (2 years 8 months 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 3306 times:

Quoting beeweel15 (Reply 12):
Shamefull what JETblue did to the terminal.

What, you mean preserving and restoring it?

A lot of us here just visited T5 a few weeks ago at the open house, and a lot of work has been done. Upholstery has been replaced, carpeting has been replaced, everything has been cleaned, the tubes are fully connected to the new T5. Work is going on.

I don't know what you expect; this is really an unnecessary vanity project. It will be a much nicer experience going into T5 once the work is done (assuming it ever gets done), but it's not like JetBlue needs this. T5 is perfectly functional as it is.



I'm tired of being a wanna-be league bowler. I wanna be a league bowler!
User currently offlineFlyASAGuy2005 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 7004 posts, RR: 11
Reply 18, posted (2 years 8 months 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 3277 times:

Quoting beeweel15 (Reply 12):

T3 is an eyesore and the armpits of DL's domestic system. The design as it stands is leaps and bounds behind what T2 is doing at the moment. If you could explain exactly why 2 serves no purpose then maybe ill understand you better but at this point it just sounds like a lot of noise to save a piece of aviation history.



What gets measured gets done.
User currently offlinebeeweel15 From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 1751 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (2 years 8 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 3184 times:

Quoting FlyASAGuy2005 (Reply 18):
Quoting beeweel15 (Reply 12):

T3 is an eyesore and the armpits of DL's domestic system. The design as it stands is leaps and bounds behind what T2 is doing at the moment. If you could explain exactly why 2 serves no purpose then maybe ill understand you better but at this point it just sounds like a lot of noise to save a piece of aviation history.

Again as my self and others here have said just keep the front of T3 and get rid of the back, T2 is to to far away from T4 especially for connecting pax will you walk that distance if you got park at the last gate on the T4 B concourse. Also T2 is to close to T1 and is dangerous for planes and personnel especially when the big jets have to make that sharp turn to T1.


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...
How To Paint A Pan Am 727 posted Tue Apr 22 2008 19:07:12 by FlyPIJets
Pan Am Worldport Expansion In 70s posted Wed Nov 2 2005 22:02:14 by Nwray
The Former Pan Am Worldport: Safe From Demolition? posted Wed Feb 4 2004 02:07:39 by WGW2707
Pan Am's Worldport posted Tue Aug 19 2003 23:48:16 by Tommy767
How Did It Feel To Fly Pan Am 1 posted Thu Aug 14 2003 19:20:15 by 747400sp
First Airline Ever To Operate - Pan Am? posted Sun Jan 12 2003 11:48:17 by 747-600X
Massive Effort To Save Gulf Air posted Sun Mar 17 2002 23:06:30 by Eg777er
What Happened To Pan Am Airlines Fleet? posted Tue Oct 26 2010 17:47:37 by NASCARAirforce
Pan Am To The Moon posted Wed May 26 2010 23:31:00 by LatinPlane
Pan Am Introduction To Jet Service - 1958 Video posted Sun Apr 25 2010 13:54:08 by Mortyman