Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Why Didn't Delta Stick With The Rotunda At JFK?  
User currently offlinewashingtonian From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (2 years 9 months 4 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 12327 times:

Why didn't the Port/Delta decide to stick with the T3 rotunda instead of T2? The number of gates is similar. The rotunda was never really in as bad shape as the rest of T3. Doing so would have had a few benefits: Shorter walk to T4, the Port could have then knocked down T2 and had lots of land at its disposal for a future terminal expansion from T1. The only major negative I could think of would be that they already have their RJ gates set up at T2.

Oh well, just a random thought of Saturday morning...

[Edited 2012-02-04 07:24:00]

58 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineEricR From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 1904 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (2 years 9 months 4 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 12275 times:

I thought one of the benefits of knocking down T3 was so that DL could use this space to park / pushback aircraft from both T2 & T4. However, if DL knocked down T2 instead, it would not be as operationally efficient to park aircraft (especially those coming from T4) and would require them to use JFK's crowded taxiways to re-position planes.

User currently offlinewashingtonian From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (2 years 9 months 4 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 12141 times:

Quoting EricR (Reply 1):

I thought one of the benefits of knocking down T3 was so that DL could use this space to park / pushback aircraft from both T2 & T4. However, if DL knocked down T2 instead, it would not be as operationally efficient to park aircraft (especially those coming from T4) and would require them to use JFK's crowded taxiways to re-position planes.

If they kept the rotunda, but knocked down the rest of T3, there would be plenty of space to park planes...


User currently offlinejfklganyc From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 3599 posts, RR: 6
Reply 3, posted (2 years 9 months 4 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 11855 times:

It is old and needs work.

Look at what they are doing, a simple concourse extension and a walkway.

Simpler, cleaner job.


User currently offlineSA7700 From South Africa, joined Dec 2003, 3431 posts, RR: 26
Reply 4, posted (2 years 9 months 4 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 11810 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD MODERATOR

Hi Washingtonian,

It has been a while since I have used JFK, so I don't know a whole lot about the current developments over there. Included are a thread or two, which hopefully may be useful to you:

Delta Announces Details Of JFK Improvements

Update On Delta's JFK Terminal 2/3


Take care,

SA7700



When you are doing stuff that nobody has done before, there is no manual – Kevin McCloud (Grand Designs)
User currently offlinerwy04lga From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 3176 posts, RR: 8
Reply 5, posted (2 years 9 months 4 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 11769 times:

As I've said before, keep the rotunda and tear down the 70's addition. Move all the RJ's from Term 2 to the rotunda where the passengers will be able to board w/o getting wet in the rain. The space vacated by moving the RJ's can be expanded to add more mainline gates and still have room to park planes where the 70's addition is now.


Just accept that some days, you're the pigeon, and other days the statue
User currently offlinegaystudpilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 457 posts, RR: 7
Reply 6, posted (2 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 11585 times:

It would be great if the PANYNJ, planners, designers, and operators could come to an agreement to keep the rotunda vs an agreement to tear it down. The building is a part of aviation history and touches the emotions of a bygone era that so many of us hold close today. However, a solution to keep it does not appear to be cost effective and operationally viable in today's environment.



The rotunda faces several challenges.

1. The renovation needs are greater than most of us realize. I find it interesting that we've never seen an estimate to renovate it which could be telling. We do know that DL has sunk millions into making the facility workable in the current configuration. Also, next time you're in the rotunda look up. That's not art work suspended from the ceilings; it's a water diversion system designed to catch water from the leaking roof.



2. It's questionable how useful the design could be as a terminal today even with extensive renovations. Very little about the facilities work well today from an operator's and passenger's perspective. To what degree could it be re-designed without loosing its architectural uniqueness and historical aviation interest yet become an operationally viable airline terminal? Could it somehow be re-purposed and utilized while adding value to airport and airline operations and the customer experience? It would be interesting to see what ideas have been thrown around. Most have probably been contrived solutions not grounded in reality a la the "festival marketplace" urban renewal ideas of the 1980s.

3. The location of the rotunda does not provide enough flexibility to use the real estate between terminals 1 and 4 in the future. The current plan for terminal 2 is to remain in place with some renovations synced with the completion of the first phase expansion of terminal 4, concourse B and the demolition of terminal 2. We know that terminal 2 and terminal 4 are being pieced together with a long walkway and that the proximity of terminal 1 to terminal 2 leads to additional operational complexities. We also know that JFK is hemmed in from a real estate perspective. Removing the rotunda allows for more design options between terminals 1 and 4 in the future while helping DL operations in shorter term.



A lot of us would like to see something useful done with the space vs demolition. Sadly, the options appear to be few and we'll have to say goodbye.


User currently offlinejfklganyc From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 3599 posts, RR: 6
Reply 7, posted (2 years 9 months 4 weeks ago) and read 11401 times:

"As I've said before, keep the rotunda and tear down the 70's addition. Move all the RJ's from Term 2 to the rotunda where the passengers will be able to board w/o getting wet in the rain. The space vacated by moving the RJ's can be expanded to add more mainline gates and still have room to park planes where the 70's addition is now."


This is actually a good idea.

Functionally, DL has let the rotunda become a mess. It is a cable and cement structure and is not at the end of its useful life.

What Delta did do by no maintaining it is create a leaky mess that you see in the photo above.

This of course is done intentionally for political reasons. The worse condition it is in, the less pushback they get to demolition.

Plus the preservationists are not helping themselves across the field. What has become of TWA? It should have been incorporated to T5. Instead, it is completely remodeled and sitting empty without a purpose.


It is quite a shame what is happening with T3. I imagine that 40 years from now, that razing that rotunda will be looked upon in a similar light to Penn Station.

That was also demolished after years of neglect by the Pennsylvania RR. It was deemed grimey and outdated to modern railroad travel.

Those that do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.


Rest assured, on the a.net of the future, no one will be talking about the architectual marvels of T1. T4. T5. or T8.

Nor will they be talking about the hub airports of the 80s and 90s either unless they use adjectives such as bland or uninspiring.


User currently offlineb727fa From United States of America, joined Jun 2011, 800 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 11224 times:

Quoting rwy04lga (Reply 5):

As I've said before, keep the rotunda and tear down the 70's addition. Move all the RJ's from Term 2 to the rotunda where the passengers will be able to board w/o getting wet in the rain. The space vacated by moving the RJ's can be expanded to add more mainline gates and still have room to park planes where the 70's addition is now.

It's an obvious, therefore ignored, option. T3, per se, is DCI, T4 is Delta ML. There are more than enough stands at the "saucer" for RJ's...even with jetways and it's a short(er) walk to T4. How DL thinks people will want to WALK from T2 to T4 is beyond me. Now they have this stupid idea that people want to walk from "D" at LGA to USAirways old bldg. How/Why do we keep doing this to ourselves?



My comments/opinions are my own and are not to be construed as the opinion(s) of my employer.
User currently offlineFlyASAGuy2005 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 7004 posts, RR: 7
Reply 9, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 11136 times:

The facts are that you guys are looking at what's going on now for the near future and not what's going to happen (+/-) 10 years from now. The space left from the T3 demolition (glad to see it go btw) will not remain a parking lot...

Functionally, T3 is a mess. The money that would have to be sunk into that pit to bring it up to standards would have increased the project cost of this first phase by a little more than a quarter alone. This is coming from the Delta JFK Redevelopment Project Manager. Neither the port nor Delta was willing to pay for it and a compromise had to be made somewhere in the middle. Just because both have "about the same amount of gates" does not mean anything. Most of the mainline stands cannot park 75Ws side by side. To do this would require the REMOVAL and realigning of jetways. 2. A number of stands cannot legally park a 757 because the tail would be well outside the containment line. As it is because of the need to stagger wingtips, there are a couple gates were they have to stop at L1 vs L2. Pulling in at L2 would put the leading edge in the side of the building...this is just gate engineering. The roof would have to finally be addressed and that in itself would require the closure of sections of the terminal at a time to get the work done safely. Below wing, the baggage system is of a 40 year old design. If anyone's seen the old eastern bagroom under C in Atlanta would know what I'm talking about. The one in ATL took over a year to complete and is now set up as a pier system vice a single carousel belt. At that time, all bags had to be handled through the other bagrooms until it was complete. Delta does not have this luxury at JFK.

I guess I can go on and on and it wouldn't really matter because people will still be upset but just trying to lay out some facts and sanity here.

[Edited 2012-02-04 15:04:38]


What gets measured gets done.
User currently offlinespacecadet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3651 posts, RR: 12
Reply 10, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 10484 times:

Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 7):
It is quite a shame what is happening with T3. I imagine that 40 years from now, that razing that rotunda will be looked upon in a similar light to Penn Station.

That was also demolished after years of neglect by the Pennsylvania RR. It was deemed grimey and outdated to modern railroad travel.

These are not comparable at all. For one thing, Penn Station was an architectural treasure - it was miles beyond the T3 rotunda. The rotunda is, literally, "just" a rotunda. Other than the history there, there's nothing all that special about it architecturally. It's a round building with a roof that overhangs to keep people dry when they go to their planes - that may make it distinctive, but it's not particularly significant architecturally, nor is it necessary in these days of covered jet bridges.

For another, Penn Station was demolished not because it was "grimey and outdated to modern railroad travel", but because it cost too much to maintain and was thought of as a wasteful monument to something that was viewed as increasingly utilitarian (rail travel had shifted by that time to be mostly commuter traffic). Emotionally that's a tough pill to swallow but you can understand it from a business standpoint, and at that time, this was still a privately owned train station. (The current Penn Station is owned by Amtrak.)

But this is not the same situation as the T3 rotunda, which is literally outdated. There's nothing the old Penn Station couldn't do, it just wasn't worth it for the railroad to keep paying to clean and maintain it. That's why it was such a travesty - money probably could have been found for that to preserve the station, through some private foundation or government/private partnership. But there's no amount of money that's going to solve the rotunda's unworkable design given current security and other requirements. It's the same as the Saarinen T5. Maybe you could keep it open as a museum, if you can find the money to fix it up, but you can't make it work as a terminal anymore.



I'm tired of being a wanna-be league bowler. I wanna be a league bowler!
User currently offlineEricR From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 1904 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 10015 times:

Quoting FlyASAGuy2005 (Reply 9):

The facts are that you guys are looking at what's going on now for the near future and not what's going to happen (+/-) 10 years from now. The space left from the T3 demolition (glad to see it go btw) will not remain a parking lot...

We are not talking about 10 years from now. Those long term plans will most likely change based on the competitive landscape 5 to 7 years from now. So instead of hypothesizing on plans that will most likely change to some unknown form 10 years in the future, we are discussing what we know for sure is going to happen - which is is the razing of T3 and the use of this land for parking.


User currently offlinenycdave From United States of America, joined Aug 2010, 547 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 9500 times:

A few thoughts --

First off, as SpaceCadet said, it's not analogous to Penn Station in the slightest. Penn Station was a monumental work in fine working order, by the greatest -- or at least most famous -- architects of the Beaux Arts era. The railroad, in dire financial straits, saw a chance to knock down a large, expensive to maintain facility, and use the air rights to put up a tawdry skyscraper and a new Madison Square Garden for a few bucks. It actually spurred the entire historical preservation movement -- prior to that, there weren't any statutes on the books. Penn Central tried to do the same thing later on to Grand Central, was blocked by the city using the new laws, and wound up going all the way to the Supreme Court (which upheld them).

Anyhow, by contrast, T3 is, well... just a building, by comparison. The rotunda may have some emotional resonance and be evocative of the golden age of flying, but that's just about all that can be said. It broke no new architectural or engineering ground, the designers were of no particular fame or lasting influence, and the original structure was heavily modified when that whole expansion was built onto the back of it in the 1970's. By comparison, even T-6 was more important (both designed by I.M. Pei and introducing several innovative design solution that went on to be used heavily in buildings with glass curtain walls). So there goes that reason for keeping it.

Secondly, as has been noted, it is in rather horrible shape -- nothing that can't be repaired and rehabilitated, but I'm guessing the cost would be extremely prohibitive.

But if we were to restore it, what benefit would that hold? The design is simply INADEQUATE to modern needs. There's not enough check-in space, baggage claim/processing space, gate space, and certainly not enough space for sufficient TSA screening areas! Where, in the rotunda, would you propose to put all that stuff, even if you knocked down the 70's extension?

I'm not going to say it won't be sad to see it go - I loved the "flying saucer" roof, and it was something iconic. I would have loved to see it used as an entrance foyer/hall for a new terminal complex... but even if it were preserved that way (and indeed, I think that's all, like Saarinen's T5, it could be useful for operationally), it wouldn't allow for the solving of any of the aircraft movement and parking issues on that side of the complex.

There's no good place for the worldport, there's no good use for the worldport, and, unfortunately, there's not a strong enough case to justify spending the money to preserve it in the face of those two problems.


User currently offlineFlyASAGuy2005 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 7004 posts, RR: 7
Reply 13, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 9128 times:

Quoting EricR (Reply 11):
We are not talking about 10 years from now. Those long term plans will most likely change based on the competitive landscape 5 to 7 years from now. So instead of hypothesizing on plans that will most likely change to some unknown form 10 years in the future, we are discussing what we know for sure is going to happen - which is is the razing of T3 and the use of this land for parking.

Are you going to donate the money to make T3 workable? Forget everything I said about 10 years from now if that's how you want to do it we can just focus on the facts...

Quoting FlyASAGuy2005 (Reply 9):
Functionally, T3 is a mess. The money that would have to be sunk into that pit to bring it up to standards would have increased the project cost of this first phase by a little more than a quarter alone. This is coming from the Delta JFK Redevelopment Project Manager. Neither the port nor Delta was willing to pay for it and a compromise had to be made somewhere in the middle. Just because both have "about the same amount of gates" does not mean anything. Most of the mainline stands cannot park 75Ws side by side. To do this would require the REMOVAL and realigning of jetways. 2. A number of stands cannot legally park a 757 because the tail would be well outside the containment line. As it is because of the need to stagger wingtips, there are a couple gates were they have to stop at L1 vs L2. Pulling in at L2 would put the leading edge in the side of the building...this is just gate engineering. The roof would have to finally be addressed and that in itself would require the closure of sections of the terminal at a time to get the work done safely. Below wing, the baggage system is of a 40 year old design. If anyone's seen the old eastern bagroom under C in Atlanta would know what I'm talking about. The one in ATL took over a year to complete and is now set up as a pier system vice a single carousel belt. At that time, all bags had to be handled through the other bagrooms until it was complete. Delta does not have this luxury at JFK.



What gets measured gets done.
User currently offlineEricR From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 1904 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 9051 times:

Quoting FlyASAGuy2005 (Reply 13):

Did you even read my post? What does my comment about T3 being razed and the area replaced by aircraft parking have anything to do with trying to make T3 workable? It is clear that T3 is not workable, hence the demolition of the site.

[Edited 2012-02-04 20:29:12]

User currently offlineFRAIAD From Germany, joined Feb 2011, 69 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 8440 times:

From my perspective - that is definitely influenced by some Pan Am sentimentality - it should be possible to incorporate the original rotunda building (without the crappy later additions) into a new terminal. Why not turn the rotunda into the check in area and then build a concourse parallel to the runway for gates area? I understand that PANYNJ/Delta do not have the money for it. But how can you demolish this landmark building? What would be the reaction if someone suggested to get rid of the TWA building to create additional parking space for aircraft (I know it is not actually doable)? Honestly, it is a scandal that none steps up and stops this from happening!

User currently offlineFlyASAGuy2005 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 7004 posts, RR: 7
Reply 16, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 8404 times:

Quoting EricR (Reply 14):

Yes, I read your responce to my post. I didn't notice the one further up. I was responding to those that are suggesting that T3 should not be torn down which is the basis of the entire thread anyway. Aside from that ONE line about the 10 year thing, I gave a pretty long explanation as to why it wasn't kept but you didn't focus on that so I was confused as to what your point was in the first place.

[Edited 2012-02-04 23:15:23]


What gets measured gets done.
User currently offlineidlewildchild From United States of America, joined Nov 2011, 166 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 7967 times:

As my handle indicates, JFK is not just a love of mine but a childhood home where I spent weekends spotting in the early 60s through the early 70s when I landed an airline job. If I were to be really honest about what I'd love to see at JFK? A HUGE terminal in the center of the building with CDG style T1 or ATL styled or MCO styled trains that take folks out to gates based on the different alliance. Knock it all down, except the TWA building (it's a landmark, can't be touched) and turn it into the greatest airport in the world. Even rethink potential runways, I think it calls for a 5th. Consider taking a bit more of Jamaica Bay if necessary too. I know it's a dream that, especially because of today's economic reality and people's lack of imagination, won't happen... but like the boy I was in the early 60s, it's worth dreaming about.

I miss the original International Arrivals Building where one could peer down into the customs hall and watch the flight board posted inside, excited to see your relatives and friends come through customs - they would look up and wave! Truly grand! And of course the observation deck where you could run from one side to the other to follow the arrivals and departures. I'm so grateful I was there for the golden age.


User currently offlinejfklganyc From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 3599 posts, RR: 6
Reply 18, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 7027 times:

"These are not comparable at all. For one thing, Penn Station was an architectural treasure - it was miles beyond the T3 rotunda. The rotunda is, literally, "just" a rotunda. "

There were people like you in the late 50s saying the same thing about Penn Station.

Almost immediately after it was razed, we as a society were sorry we listened to those people.

As for a "just a rotunda" mention, tell me this:

Is there another building like it anywhere in the world?

Is there another building with an umbrella roof that was designed as the first covered boarding?


The answer is no. And that makes this structure unique because once it's gone, there will not be another structure like that on this planet.

Now, is that worth preserving? Good question and good debate.

But don't for one second say the building doesn't have the historic significance of Penn Station. To say so would be to blind yourself by looking at current motivating conditions, not historical significance (Which will be an issue once it's gone...I promise!)


User currently offlinepoLOT From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 2315 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 6904 times:

Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 18):
Is there another building with an umbrella roof that was designed as the first covered boarding?

It is an overhang. Nothing more, nothing less. The only difference between the terminal's overhang and other building's overhangs it is protected people when they were walking into a plane, instead of a building. It is not a unique architectural feature and not one worthy of preservation.

Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 18):
The answer is no. And that makes this structure unique because once it's gone, there will not be another structure like that on this planet.

So now we must preserve every unique structure in the country? People preserve buildings for historical/cultural significance, not uniqueness. Nothing is preventing anyone from designing another circular building with a large overhang.

Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 18):
But don't for one second say the building doesn't have the historic significance of Penn Station. To say so would be to blind yourself by looking at current motivating conditions, not historical significance (Which will be an issue once it's gone...I promise!)

It doesn't. I bet that half of the people who walk through the terminal today don't even know that Pan Am once owned it. And of the other half I bet of the other half most don't care because they never flew Pan Am and they have no attachment to an airline that died 20 years ago and had its heyday 50-60 years ago. People cared about about Penn Station because it was considered a landmark and a beautiful building, not because people used it for 50 years to take the railroad to far off destinations.

[Edited 2012-02-05 07:08:01]

User currently offlinewashingtonian From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 6887 times:

Quoting rwy04lga (Reply 5):
As I've said before, keep the rotunda and tear down the 70's addition.

That's what I said in the original post.

Quoting gaystudpilot (Reply 6):
3. The location of the rotunda does not provide enough flexibility to use the real estate between terminals 1 and 4 in the future

If they kept just the rotunda and knocked down T2, they would have room to start building a new wing of T1 where T2 is currently.

Quoting FlyASAGuy2005 (Reply 9):
unctionally, T3 is a mess. The money that would have to be sunk into that pit to bring it up to standards would have increased the project cost of this first phase by a little more than a quarter alone.

Fair enough. Even just the Rotunda? My whole point wasn't about preservation or anything. I just meant that from the Port's perspective, keeping the Rotunda (for now) and removing T2 and the T3 1970s extensions would give them the maximum amount of free cement space to plan future projects.

Quoting FlyASAGuy2005 (Reply 9):
If anyone's seen the old eastern bagroom under C in Atlanta would know what I'm talking about.

Is it still around?


User currently offlinedelimit From United States of America, joined Jan 2009, 1513 posts, RR: 2
Reply 21, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 6876 times:

Yes, however we now have architectural preservation societies. Have they been actively protesting this? Because they certainly did when the Port debated demolishing T6.

I think their silence on this plan is noteworthy.

It's sad to see one of the last vestiges of Pan Am go, but honestly folks, stop with the archicyural preservation angle. It's just not that significant a building.


User currently offlinewashingtonian From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 6877 times:

Here's another question for everyone: Around what year did the Worldport become obsolete? Ditto for the original IAB at JFK? Was it in the late 70s? Or 80s? Or early 90s?

User currently offlinepoLOT From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 2315 posts, RR: 1
Reply 23, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 6828 times:

Quoting delimit (Reply 21):
Yes, however we now have architectural preservation societies. Have they been actively protesting this? Because they certainly did when the Port debated demolishing T6.

I think their silence on this plan is noteworthy.

It's sad to see one of the last vestiges of Pan Am go, but honestly folks, stop with the archicyural preservation angle. It's just not that significant a building.

  
People here (and other aviation enthusiast) are taking their thoughts/feelings/and nostalgia for an airline and attributing it to a building, rather than thinking of the building in isolation. That is what you need to do when deciding if a building is worthy of preservation, if you can't let go of an airline start a museum rather than desperately hanging on to an old, dingy, outdated terminal.


User currently offlinejfklganyc From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 3599 posts, RR: 6
Reply 24, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 6490 times:

"People here (and other aviation enthusiast) are taking their thoughts/feelings/and nostalgia for an airline and attributing it to a building, rather than thinking of the building in isolation. That is what you need to do when deciding if a building is worthy of preservation, if you can't let go of an airline start a museum rather than desperately hanging on to an old, dingy, outdated terminal."

But who cares about Pan Am?

That is the view YOU are imposing on this thread.

I am a New Yorker. And that building is unique to NYC and to the world.

Doesn't matter if Pan Am used it or not.

It was a unique design 60 years ago and is a unique design now.



"Here's another question for everyone: Around what year did the Worldport become obsolete? Ditto for the original IAB at JFK? Was it in the late 70s? Or 80s? Or early 90s?"

When security became an issue. The terminal had no space for metal detectors. They stationed them at the door so you literally waited in the street. They were one of the first buildings to scan all checked luggage because you could not get to the ticket counter to check a bag without going through security. The bag scanners were huge!

Post 9/11, Delta made a security area by dividing the concourses on each side in half and moved the ticket counters pre security. This led to tight, cramped conditions pre and post security at that point.

That was when the 1970s addition became obsolete.

The rotunda is just a rotunda. Not anymore obsolete than any rotunda at any airport. The rotunda can stand without the 70s addition and be incorporated into that walkway they are building if they chose too

This led to a tight security area


25 Post contains links 727tiger : Well, there is the Tempelhof roof overhang that predated the JFK PanAm Worldport by a few decades: http://blog.goethe.de/meet-the-germa...-and-the-Ne
26 FlyASAGuy2005 : The physical space is still there. ASA restarted the carousel mid 2006 after it sat un-used for close to 15 years. When Delta took over all ground OP
27 Post contains images Viscount724 : Another photo: And under construction (September 1959 I believe), with Aeroflot Tu-114 on its first visit to the U.S. It brought Soviet premier Khrush
28 beeweel15 : Well it could be done for a car park as it is not doing anything right now it just sits there gathering dust. I have let go of Pan Am but the buildin
29 Post contains images FlyASAGuy2005 : Right. Like how they're "avoiding in droves" now when the current facilities are far sub-par and inferior to AA's current terminal Let's get real for
30 PITrules : Actually it's "yes"; as already mentioned there was Templehof, which came long before JFK's T3 and offered the first covered boarding terminal. As fa
31 FlyASAGuy2005 : Nothing illegal. It is not on the historical landmark register. Should it be? Who knows...apparently there aren't enough people out there that care e
32 gaystudpilot : I'm all for preservation when it makes sense. I just haven't seen a sound argument for it here and for future use of a renovated rotunda. It's intere
33 cloudboy : Creative versus technical, I guess. Actually, there is quite a lot of interest in the Worldport architecturally. While I agree that there does not see
34 GSPSPOT : Oh, so very true! I thought B4 had the old TWA terminal renovated for their use (I don't keep close tabs on goings-on at JFK -sorry!)??
35 rwy04lga : I wasn't referring to what YOU said...I was referring to what I'VE said in threads prior to this one, hence the phrase 'As I've said before..." Perha
36 jc2354 : Why not just jack it up, and move it to an area where it could be incorporated to the new design? Or Dismantle the rotunda, and rebuild it elsewhere?
37 GSPSPOT : GREAT ideas! Not sure how practical/cost effective they'd be though. Sad that truly iconic architecture becomes a slave to the almighty $$.
38 rwy04lga : Like covering the TWA building? jk
39 ghifty : From Wikipedia, "The City of New York designated both the interiors and the exteriors of the Saarinen terminal a historic landmark in 1994[4] and in
40 PSU.DTW.SCE : The whole thing is a piece of junk. While it sounds great in theory to preserve, restore, relocate... no one wants to pay for such and its likely not
41 Post contains images beeweel15 : Whats your point T4, T1, T8 all newer and have leaks. Even T7 has leaks. Sorry to say it is not encompassed with the new T5 it just stand there doing
42 Post contains links airbazar : It's not hypothesizing. It's already happening. Demolishing the rotunda was necessary for JFK's next phase of T4 expansion. JFK T4 To Have 2 More Con
43 Post contains links and images sspontak : Here is a nice shot of the current T2 T3 Delta operation. Even though it is inefficient, I will miss the T2/T3 co-operation. View Large View MediumPho
44 jfk777 : The Pan AM rotunda is old and probably in need of lots of $$$ to keep it going. The T3 sight at some point around 2020 will either get a new T3, an ex
45 TOMMY767 : It doesn't make sense as to why they are knocking down the rotunda but keeping around T-3? Really, T-3? It's a barely funcitonal POS that can't even s
46 Post contains images nycdave : Yes - many drive-in restaurants of the 1950's and 60's Yes - THF decades before As I said, I *LIKE* the rotunda, and I'd *LIKE* to see it preserved a
47 GSPSPOT : I totally understand the dollars-and-cents reasons for demolition, my heart still DOESN'T understand how something with such history and of such iconi
48 nycdave : Agreed. Even though I've been defending the *reasoning* behind demolition, emotionally, it feels wrong. It's just that there aren't any really solid
49 jfklganyc : "The rotunda cannot be compared to Penn Station. The new penn station was constructed because the former was completely over crowded" Um...you need to
50 crj200faguy : The problem with this site is the people who romanticize dumpy airport buildings. You probably fly through them once a year if that but for some reaso
51 Post contains images GSPSPOT : I've seen birds flying inside all kinds and ages of buildings... The rotunda may not be in tip-top shape, but as has been posted here already, even th
52 jfk777 : When the 747 arrived in 1970. The IAB was "nice" when the Dc-7 was parked in front and already crowded when the 707 arrived. Part of this was because
53 cloudboy : I think this alone points out why this building should have been saved. The Worldport roof isn't an umbrella roof, at least not in the sense that we
54 nycdave : See, now I have to take issue with you on that -- it simply didn't. Other, perhaps, than inspiring the design of "The Jetsons", there's no lasting ar
55 beeweel15 : Firstly tell the airline you work for to maintain their terminals. Secondly understand that most suggestions are just to save a piece not the whole t
56 FlyASAGuy2005 : I'm guessing you mean the T3 ADDITION here? The rotunda and T3 are one and the same. 2nd, nothing from the current T3 operation is being kept. The le
57 FlyASAGuy2005 : Not defending Delta in letting T3 come to what it was but the plan was always to build a nice, new terminal. Let's not forget it wasn't until 91' tha
58 m11stephen : I think we can all agree that if T3 was designed and built by a not so popular airline like Peoples Express or Tower Air none of would be sad to see i
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...
Why Didn't Delta Order The 757-300? posted Wed Nov 21 2007 17:24:35 by 1337Delta764
Why Did Pmua Go With The A359 Over The 77W? posted Thu Sep 22 2011 09:21:52 by washingtonian
What's The Update With The 787 At Farnborough? posted Wed Jun 30 2010 10:09:50 by virginblue4
Why Didn't Boeing Beef Up The 763ER Along W/764ER? posted Fri Feb 19 2010 12:57:36 by ea772lr
Help! Spotting The A380 At JFK posted Sun Nov 2 2008 16:27:25 by A380900
Will Delta Switch To The B764 On JFK-CPT Route? posted Fri Aug 15 2008 23:15:40 by Umfolozi
Delta Crew Aids Stranded Family At JFK posted Mon Dec 31 2007 20:22:32 by Flynavy
Workers Charged With Drug Smuggling At JFK posted Tue Oct 16 2007 11:48:23 by Sh0rtybr0wn
Delta Using T4 Remote Stands At JFK posted Fri Aug 11 2006 05:07:15 by AlitaliaMD11
Will Air Portugal Stick With The A350XWB? posted Fri Jul 21 2006 19:20:26 by FCKC
Delta Using T4 Remote Stands At JFK posted Fri Aug 11 2006 05:07:15 by AlitaliaMD11
Will Air Portugal Stick With The A350XWB? posted Fri Jul 21 2006 19:20:26 by FCKC
Why Didn't Boeing Beef Up The 763ER Along W/764ER? posted Fri Feb 19 2010 12:57:36 by ea772lr
Help! Spotting The A380 At JFK posted Sun Nov 2 2008 16:27:25 by A380900
Will Delta Switch To The B764 On JFK-CPT Route? posted Fri Aug 15 2008 23:15:40 by Umfolozi
Delta Crew Aids Stranded Family At JFK posted Mon Dec 31 2007 20:22:32 by Flynavy
Workers Charged With Drug Smuggling At JFK posted Tue Oct 16 2007 11:48:23 by Sh0rtybr0wn
Delta Using T4 Remote Stands At JFK posted Fri Aug 11 2006 05:07:15 by AlitaliaMD11
Will Air Portugal Stick With The A350XWB? posted Fri Jul 21 2006 19:20:26 by FCKC
Why Didn't Delta Order The 757-300? posted Wed Nov 21 2007 17:24:35 by 1337Delta764
Why Did Pmua Go With The A359 Over The 77W? posted Thu Sep 22 2011 09:21:52 by washingtonian
What's The Update With The 787 At Farnborough? posted Wed Jun 30 2010 10:09:50 by virginblue4
Why Didn't Boeing Beef Up The 763ER Along W/764ER? posted Fri Feb 19 2010 12:57:36 by ea772lr
Help! Spotting The A380 At JFK posted Sun Nov 2 2008 16:27:25 by A380900
Will Delta Switch To The B764 On JFK-CPT Route? posted Fri Aug 15 2008 23:15:40 by Umfolozi
Delta Crew Aids Stranded Family At JFK posted Mon Dec 31 2007 20:22:32 by Flynavy
Workers Charged With Drug Smuggling At JFK posted Tue Oct 16 2007 11:48:23 by Sh0rtybr0wn
Delta Using T4 Remote Stands At JFK posted Fri Aug 11 2006 05:07:15 by AlitaliaMD11
Will Air Portugal Stick With The A350XWB? posted Fri Jul 21 2006 19:20:26 by FCKC