Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Traffic Way Down At JFK?  
User currently offlinejfklganyc From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 3508 posts, RR: 5
Posted (2 years 5 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 7244 times:

Does anybody know if air traffic is way off at JFK?

At first I thought it was a fall/winter thing, but even as of late, the airport's taxiways and runways have been very quiet.

How many flights has DL cut with the LGA expansion?

How many flights is AA down with BK?

B6 has stopped all growth at the airport and is either flat or slightly down in terms of flights.

45 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineAS739BSI From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 132 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (2 years 5 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 7189 times:

I would suggest looking at statistics. JFK cannot grow except outside of peak hours due to slot restrictions and of course those peak hours are when airlines want to run their aircraft. JFK will not grow until NextGen is fully deployed if they decide to reduce delays to the 15 minute standard which isn't expected to happen until 2020. A new runway will not happen in Jamaica Bay without fighting the feds and NYC residents to where it is infeasable politically. In order to build a new runway, the Eastern Cargo area would have to be relocated but Nextgen would have to be deployed in order to not lose capacity at LGA.

User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25524 posts, RR: 50
Reply 2, posted (2 years 5 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 7147 times:

Yes movements at JFK are down – peaked at about 444,000 in 2007, with 2011 down to 410,000.

Though passenger volumes have been almost unchanged at about 47mil for the last 5-years at JFK.

Part of this is likely the revised and stricter FAA slot program which limited movements to 82-83/per hour compared to earlier allowance of almost 100.

However even with the stricter limits, JFK still continues to sit in the bottom half of national ontime statistics, though it did improve from almost the bottom spot to a bit more middle of the pact.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineFSDan From United States of America, joined Jan 2011, 755 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (2 years 5 months 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 6862 times:

Quoting jfklganyc (Thread starter):
How many flights has DL cut with the LGA expansion?

Not that many, actually. They have moved some destinations completely to LGA (e.g. PWM) and have reduced frequencies on quite a few regional routes (like JFK-BUF and JFK-RIC), but at the same time they are adding the following:

JFK-AUS, JFK-MCI, JFK-MSY, JFK-MKE, JFK-DAY, JFK-JAX, JFK-CHS, JFK-GSO, and JFK-ELM

They've also added frequency to JFK-SFO, JFK-LAX, JFK-STI, JFK-SDQ, and JFK-SJU.

All told, there should be between 180 and 190 daily DL flights from JFK this summer.



SEA SFO SJC LAX ONT SAN DEN IAH DFW OMA FSD MSP MSN MKE ORD DTW CVG MEM JAN BHM RSW ATL CLT BWI PHL LGA JFK MEX LIM KEF
User currently offlinejfklganyc From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 3508 posts, RR: 5
Reply 4, posted (2 years 5 months 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 6505 times:

I'm glad to hear that DL hasn't cut as much as I have thought. I liked the well rounded hub approach they have taken over the last 5 years as opposed to the intl hub approach they had through much of the 90s. IE: JFK will always be an intl connecting hub, but it would be nice if it was used for the first 8 hours of the day.

That said, much of my observations are based on last year vs this year. Not 2005/6 to now.


User currently offlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16878 posts, RR: 51
Reply 5, posted (2 years 5 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 6447 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 2):
Yes movements at JFK are down – peaked at about 444,000 in 2007, with 2011 down to 410,000.

It's crazy that EWR has more movements than JFK, 415,000 to 410,000, yet JFK handles 13 million more passengers per year.



Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offlinetsnamm From United States of America, joined May 2005, 628 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (2 years 5 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 6344 times:

Quoting STT757 (Reply 5):
It's crazy that EWR has more movements than JFK, 415,000 to 410,000, yet JFK handles 13 million more passengers per year.

JFK has many more wide body flights...a lot of the movements at EWR are UA/CO Express flights...


User currently offlinejfklganyc From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 3508 posts, RR: 5
Reply 7, posted (2 years 5 months 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 6090 times:

"JFK has many more wide body flights...a lot of the movements at EWR are UA/CO Express flights..."

It is true. LGA as well.

A few years ago, the DOT or FAA was thinking of imposing a size restriction at LGA...they should have.

Imagine how much more economic impact for the area if you could get an extra 13 million passengers per year through an airport with less flights then you currently have.

Now granted, that is comparing an International-Heavy airport (JFK) with a Domestic-Heavy airport (EWR). But still, it is a relevant point. With the excpetion of a few underserved, small markets, the smallest thing landing at JFK/LGA/EWR should be 70 seats.

And the PANYNJ should also step in and RAISE fees on RJs less then 50 seats while REDUCING fees on aircraft over 70 seats


User currently offlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16878 posts, RR: 51
Reply 8, posted (2 years 5 months 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 6081 times:

Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 7):
It is true. LGA as well.

A few years ago, the DOT or FAA was thinking of imposing a size restriction at LGA...they should have.

Imagine how much more economic impact for the area if you could get an extra 13 million passengers per year through an airport with less flights then you currently have.

Now granted, that is comparing an International-Heavy airport (JFK) with a Domestic-Heavy airport (EWR). But still, it is a relevant point. With the excpetion of a few underserved, small markets, the smallest thing landing at JFK/LGA/EWR should be 70 seats.

And the PANYNJ should also step in and RAISE fees on RJs less then 50 seats while REDUCING fees on aircraft over 70 seats

I also support the idea of size restrictions, with some caveats so places like Ithaca, Binghamton, Elmira, Harrisburg etc.. can get 30-50 seat prop/regional jet service.



Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offlinecorinthians From United States of America, joined May 2008, 349 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (2 years 5 months 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 5969 times:

Traffic levels at JFK seem to be the same compared to last year. In 2010, it handled a little under 400,000 movements, but much of that was because the bay runway was closed and airlines voluntarily reduced their flights. Last year, it handled about 410,000 movements. As of February of this year, movements are up by 3%. Overall passenger numbers seem to be up by 6%. So, JFK’s doing just fine. This is all from the PA’s website.

Quoting AS739BSI (Reply 1):
I would suggest looking at statistics. JFK cannot grow except outside of peak hours due to slot restrictions and of course those peak hours are when airlines want to run their aircraft. JFK will not grow until NextGen is fully deployed if they decide to reduce delays to the 15 minute standard which isn't expected to happen until 2020. A new runway will not happen in Jamaica Bay without fighting the feds and NYC residents to where it is infeasable politically. In order to build a new runway, the Eastern Cargo area would have to be relocated but Nextgen would have to be deployed in order to not lose capacity at LGA.

The PA and RPA are conducting research on adding new runways at JFK and EWR. Some include Jamaica Bay land reclamation and others propose removing the northern cargo area. EWR’s plans are really ambitious and involve demolition of some of the terminal buildings. Expanding LGA was essentially ruled out and I think they finally gave up on that stupid idea of SWF being a reliever airport.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 2):
Part of this is likely the revised and stricter FAA slot program which limited movements to 82-83/per hour compared to earlier allowance of almost 100.

One thing I never got was how LHR and FRA, which have similar if not worse flight restrictions, handle more flights to any of the NYC airports. FRA was capped at 80 movements an hour before they got the new runway, yet it consistently handled about 480,000 movements a year. FRA didn’t have the best runway configuration either, but it never had bad delays. Do they just have a better ATC system there?

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 2):
However even with the stricter limits, JFK still continues to sit in the bottom half of national ontime statistics, though it did improve from almost the bottom spot to a bit more middle of the pact.

JFK’s delays are nowhere near as bad as they were in the past. It’s really only delayed now when the weather is really, really bad. Even LGA’s performance has improved. EWR still has problems.

Quoting STT757 (Reply 5):
It's crazy that EWR has more movements than JFK, 415,000 to 410,000, yet JFK handles 13 million more passengers per year.

Yup…and that’s a grand total of 13 more flights a day.

Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 7):
It is true. LGA as well.

A few years ago, the DOT or FAA was thinking of imposing a size restriction at LGA...they should have.

Imagine how much more economic impact for the area if you could get an extra 13 million passengers per year through an airport with less flights then you currently have.

Now granted, that is comparing an International-Heavy airport (JFK) with a Domestic-Heavy airport (EWR). But still, it is a relevant point. With the excpetion of a few underserved, small markets, the smallest thing landing at JFK/LGA/EWR should be 70 seats.

And the PANYNJ should also step in and RAISE fees on RJs less then 50 seats while REDUCING fees on aircraft over 70 seats

JFK, EWR and even LGA don’t have THAT many planes with less than 50 seats. This is especially the case with JFK. Sure, EWR and LGA have a lot of RJ’s, but most are over 70 seats. Even if you place size restrictions, I doubt it will make much difference or do much good. Just look at LHR. You’d be hard-pressed to find anything smaller than an A319 there, yet their delay problems are much worse than anything in NYC. Bigger planes don’t necessarily equate to a smother traffic flow or even fewer flights.


User currently offlinedaviation From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (2 years 5 months 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 5893 times:

Quoting corinthians (Reply 9):
that stupid idea of SWF being a reliever airport

Not to start another SWF vs JFK/EWR/LGA war, but why is it a stupid idea? The Port Authority is investigating adding new runways to JFK and/or EWR. How many billions will that cost? When would it be completed? Probably not in my lifetime!

We all know that the rail line cannot be feasibly hooked up to SWF. What about express bus service? SWF sits right at the intersection of two interstates (84 & 87). The bus ride, using the bus-only lanes at the Lincoln Tunnel, would have you in midtown Manhattan in 90 minutes. As you know, during rush hour, it can take 90 minutes or more to get to JFK/EWR by car. And there is no public transport to LGA.

For a fraction of the cost, Port Authority could run a free bus service and utilize a fantastic airport with two runways (one of them 12,000 feet), and a newish terminal that will soon undergo renovation.

I don't think it's a stupid idea at all.


User currently onlinePolot From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 2214 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (2 years 5 months 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 5846 times:

Quoting corinthians (Reply 9):
JFK, EWR and even LGA don’t have THAT many planes with less than 50 seats. This is especially the case with JFK. Sure, EWR and LGA have a lot of RJ’s, but most are over 70 seats. Even if you place size restrictions, I doubt it will make much difference or do much good. Just look at LHR. You’d be hard-pressed to find anything smaller than an A319 there, yet their delay problems are much worse than anything in NYC. Bigger planes don’t necessarily equate to a smother traffic flow or even fewer flights.

It is also important that the terminals themselves can handle the extra passengers. With EWR (especially A2) and LGA, I am not so sure that is the case.


User currently offlinethreeifbyair From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 686 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (2 years 5 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 5766 times:

Quoting daviation (Reply 10):
We all know that the rail line cannot be feasibly hooked up to SWF. What about express bus service? SWF sits right at the intersection of two interstates (84 & 87). The bus ride, using the bus-only lanes at the Lincoln Tunnel, would have you in midtown Manhattan in 90 minutes. As you know, during rush hour, it can take 90 minutes or more to get to JFK/EWR by car. And there is no public transport to LGA.

AirTrain + LIRR doesn't take 90 minutes, though. SWF is always 90 minutes away.

Quoting corinthians (Reply 9):
JFK, EWR and even LGA don’t have THAT many planes with less than 50 seats. This is especially the case with JFK. Sure, EWR and LGA have a lot of RJ’s, but most are over 70 seats. Even if you place size restrictions, I doubt it will make much difference or do much good. Just look at LHR. You’d be hard-pressed to find anything smaller than an A319 there, yet their delay problems are much worse than anything in NYC. Bigger planes don’t necessarily equate to a smother traffic flow or even fewer flights.

  

Moreover, many 50 seat RJs will be retired over the next 5 years. The problem will almost solve itself, unless people start complaining about those stupid 70 seat RJs...  


User currently offlinemogandoCI From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (2 years 5 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 5737 times:

Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 7):
Now granted, that is comparing an International-Heavy airport (JFK) with a Domestic-Heavy airport (EWR). But still, it is a relevant point. With the excpetion of a few underserved, small markets, the smallest thing landing at JFK/LGA/EWR should be 70 seats.

And the PANYNJ should also step in and RAISE fees on RJs less then 50 seats while REDUCING fees on aircraft over 70 seats

Or just charge flat-rate landing *and takeoff* fees during peak hours, not just by weight. The same $ XYZ price for both a Beechcraft and the A380. Reduce fees to very low during the slow noon hours.

Everyone wins in this scenario :

1. Incentivize airlines to upgauge instead of frequency abuse. (reducing pollution and congestion)
2. For those freq-obsessed biz pax, they would have no trouble paying a premium for high-freq RJ service (increasing revenue).
3. Small destinations are not compromised since they can always run their RJs at 11am and 2pm. (maintaining connectivity)
4. Long-haul international flights that must depart around noon or midnight (due to time zone changes) would have their fees lowered, thus enticing more international carriers.


User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13154 posts, RR: 100
Reply 14, posted (2 years 5 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 5677 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 2):
Yes movements at JFK are down – peaked at about 444,000 in 2007, with 2011 down to 410,000.

Though passenger volumes have been almost unchanged at about 47mil for the last 5-years at JFK.

Thank you for the numbers. Very interesting.

Quoting corinthians (Reply 9):
As of February of this year, movements are up by 3%. Overall passenger numbers seem to be up by 6%. So, JFK’s doing just fine.

Also interesting. So a return to growth. I assume all peak time slots are spoken for? (Note, I'm asking.) What fraction are being 'squatted on' with RJs?

Quoting daviation (Reply 10):
The Port Authority is investigating adding new runways to JFK and/or EWR. How many billions will that cost?

But those would pay off in the long run. SWF has a small amount of potential. A BUR vs. LAX. It is simply too far off the 'beaten path' to be a significant reliever. International traffic requires connections to be viable, so I doubt one could force long haul there...

Due to the location, it would appeal to Spirit or Allergiant, but not any high yielding airlines.

Airports have a reduced 'catch' of passengers more than 60 minutes away. We already see DL service at SWF. If there was a larger market, it wouldn't be DL branded RJs, but rather mainline. Unless SWF is connected to Metro-North, its growth will be slow. To be blunt, without easier connections to SWF (which only Metro North will really provide) will the airport serve as a reliever.

Once the airport grows to 2 or 3 million passengers per year, than bus service could be used to further grow the airport. But it will be a chicken and egg scenario. The bus will be empty until passenger numbers increase dramatically and thus uneconomical.

But the real money would be to expand EWR or JFK to further enable their use as an international hub. Billions spent on either would be paid back through increased fees and taxes. SWF? I doubt the current service would survive a large fee increase. Also, SWF is unlikely to be expandable past 15 million pax/year.

Quoting threeifbyair (Reply 12):
Moreover, many 50 seat RJs will be retired over the next 5 years. The problem will almost solve itself, unless people start complaining about those stupid 70 seat RJs...

   I expect as the MAX and NEO enter service, the relative economics of the RJ will fall apart further accelerating the removal from the fleet.

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlinerwy04lga From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 3176 posts, RR: 8
Reply 15, posted (2 years 5 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 5616 times:

Quoting daviation (Reply 10):
And there is no public transport to LGA.

Oh yeah? I don't walk or drive to work! NY city buses Q33, Q47, Q48, Q72, and the M60 ALL go to LGA for $2.25 or LESS! Transport is more than just trains and planes!  



Just accept that some days, you're the pigeon, and other days the statue
User currently offlinemogandoCI From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (2 years 5 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 5594 times:

Quoting rwy04lga (Reply 15):
Oh yeah? I don't walk or drive to work! NY city buses Q33, Q47, Q48, Q72, and the M60 ALL go to LGA for $2.25 or LESS! Transport is more than just trains and planes!  

Good luck getting to LGA reliably at friday 5pm with those unless you leave home super early. Few desire a mode of transport in which the level of uncertainty is high.


User currently offlinedaviation From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (2 years 5 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 5512 times:

Quoting rwy04lga (Reply 15):
NY city buses Q33, Q47, Q48, Q72, and the M60 ALL go to LGA

Now honestly! You're a native New Yorker. I was born & raised in NYC too, but I wouldn't even have a clue how to take the city bus to LGA. Do you think a business person, tourist, or other out-of-towner is going to attempt to reach LGA by city bus?

Look, I'm just throwing out an idea about the express bus from SWF - I'm sure some politician has already beaten me to it. But new runways, especially in the political climate of New York, just aren't going to happen. It took ten years to get the new World Trade Center started. I think the bus service to SWF is an easy short-term solution. Of course, Lightsaber is correct that SWF will never be a hub airport. I think it could serve more like a Gatwick-type solution.


User currently offlinemogandoCI From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (2 years 5 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 5490 times:

Quoting daviation (Reply 17):
Look, I'm just throwing out an idea about the express bus from SWF - I'm sure some politician has already beaten me to it. But new runways, especially in the political climate of New York, just aren't going to happen. It took ten years to get the new World Trade Center started. I think the bus service to SWF is an easy short-term solution. Of course, Lightsaber is correct that SWF will never be a hub airport. I think it could serve more like a Gatwick-type solution.

At least LGW has a 30-40 minute Gatwick Express from Victoria station, which is very close to city center.


User currently offlinedaviation From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (2 years 5 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 5491 times:

One more thing: "off the beaten path" is relative over a period of time. When I was growing up in New York City, Suffolk County (Long Island) and Orange County (Hudson Valley) were considered part of the other side of the world! People would go there for the summer.

Now, these are considered just more suburbs. A 90-minute commute is hardly unheard of these days. My own commute is 100 miles roundtrip every day.


User currently offlinedaviation From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (2 years 5 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 5477 times:

Quoting mogandoCI (Reply 18):
At least LGW has a 30-40 minute Gatwick Express from Victoria station

Yes, I know, I've been to London. And London has better public transport in general than New York will ever have. I've taken the tube several times to LHR. Easy as pie. When I go to EWR, JFK, or LGA, I don't dare take public transport. I don't know the routes, and it's just easier to navigate by car, but still an awful ride.


User currently offlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16878 posts, RR: 51
Reply 21, posted (2 years 5 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 5457 times:

Quoting corinthians (Reply 9):
and I think they finally gave up on that stupid idea of SWF being a reliever airport.
Quoting daviation (Reply 10):
Not to start another SWF vs JFK/EWR/LGA war, but why is it a stupid idea? The Port Authority is investigating adding new runways to JFK and/or EWR. How many billions will that cost? When would it be completed? Probably not in my lifetime!

The Port Authority made a big mistake taking over SWF, it's never going to be a "reliever" airport. It's too far from the major population centers in the City, Long Island and Northern New Jersey. It's too far from passengers, it's too far for cago operations. All funds should be concentrated into EWR and JFK.

Quoting daviation (Reply 10):
We all know that the rail line cannot be feasibly hooked up to SWF. What about express bus service? SWF sits right at the intersection of two interstates (84 & 87).

There aren't enough flights to justify dedicated shuttle bus service. What I think the Port Authority should do is try to develop SWF into a NYC verison of Sanford (Orlando). The Port Authority is planning on building an FIS, they could develop SWF into an international charter airport for both European charters and US charters to Mexico, Caribbean etc.. Tie those charters into dedicated buses arranged by those companies.



Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offlineaquablue From United States of America, joined Oct 2009, 94 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (2 years 5 months 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 3997 times:

I agree. JFK is underutilized. It has similar or perhaps more land area than airports like LAX, which manage to squeeze a better higher capcaity runway configuration in there. Perhaps JFK needs to reconfigure its cargo and terminal complex to fit in more runways on its current footprint if the bay expansion option is out for good. There is plenty of room for more runways if buildings were moved around. One could even have 4 parallel runways on the current land if the terminal complex was rebuilt in a different configuration. Cargo could be moved to Stewart for instance, and the current circle of terminals could be rebuilt into a linear terminal with midfields allowing more space for runways. That is one idea that the RPA didn't examine.

User currently offlinetommyy From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 66 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (2 years 5 months 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 3997 times:

I fully disagree with the assement on SWF, I live in Rockland County, which is 20 miles north of NYC and I fly every week to either ATL or MEM and I wish I could fly out of SWF but the flights out of SWF are always a couple of hundred dollars more expensive then even LGA, it just does not make any sense, they will never get traffic to SWF if the flights out of there are consistently more expensive, there is a very large population of business travellers who live in CT or Westchester who would much rather go to SWF then fighting NYC traffic but not when the fares are so much higher, just go to Delta.com and search flights to ATL from either LGA or even HPN and you will see SWF is considerably higher them both of them

User currently offlinecorinthians From United States of America, joined May 2008, 349 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (2 years 5 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 3535 times:

Quoting aquablue (Reply 22):
I agree. JFK is underutilized. It has similar or perhaps more land area than airports like LAX, which manage to squeeze a better higher capcaity runway configuration in there. Perhaps JFK needs to reconfigure its cargo and terminal complex to fit in more runways on its current footprint if the bay expansion option is out for good. There is plenty of room for more runways if buildings were moved around. One could even have 4 parallel runways on the current land if the terminal complex was rebuilt in a different configuration. Cargo could be moved to Stewart for instance, and the current circle of terminals could be rebuilt into a linear terminal with midfields allowing more space for runways. That is one idea that the RPA didn't examine.

JFK has the runway capacity. It has four runways, which is the same as LAX. The configuration isn't even all that bad - certainly no worse than what they have at ORD. The problem is the airspace surrounding JFK - LGA hogs up much of airspace over Queens and Brooklyn, pretty much handicapping which runways JFK can use and how they can be used. LGA even prevents two runways from being used all that efficiently at JFK. The best solution would be close down LGA to allow JFK to be used to its full potential, but that ain't gonna happen.

So, without a change in the airspace or some really big advance in ATC technology that allows JFK to use its four runways more efficiently, building another runway to allow another departure or arrival flow would help immensely. And they probably can build another one where the north cargo area is. That's something they're researching, among other things.


25 STT757 : The best solution would be to close TEB and LGA and put all the resources into two NYC airports, EWR and JFK. There would be huge savings for everyon
26 corinthians : I won’t argue with you there. But considering all the investment they’re going to do at LGA, that’s not likely to change. Aren’t they suppose
27 mogandoCI : They need to do way more than that. It's highly inefficient to have 4 small and disjoint terminals like that. Concourse A and C of CTB looks rotten,
28 STT757 : They're soliciting bids right now to replace the CTB with a new $3 Billion dollar terminal, should be an announcement by this Fall. It would be a joi
29 corinthians : They should just get rid of that airport and use the area for housing or whatever. I never understood the draw and in this case, perception is strong
30 Post contains links STT757 : I posted the Port Authority board video about a year ago where they showed what the new Terminal A would look like. I'll try to dig it up, it looks l
31 mogandoCI : Even though EWR T-A is a bit outdated, it's light years ahead of what LGA is. EWR is definitely low on the priority list if funding is constrained.
32 jfklganyc : Agreeed. Terminal A at EWR was built for the 70s and updated for the 80s and 90s. The CTB was built for Orville and Wilbur. Seriously, it was late 50s
33 Post contains images Blue100 : A bit off topic but I flew out of EWR Terminal B in December for the first time in a very long time. I was surprised by the amount of construction tha
34 STT757 : Or even something that looks like MIA's North Terminal or DTW's McNamara.
35 corinthians : Remember JFK 2000? That was supposed to put everything under one roof. The airlines nixed it because they didn’t want to pay and they didn’t want
36 rwy04lga : You said 'there is NO public transportation'. I merely pointed out that, in fact, there IS. How good, convenient, or whatever.. is subjective. When h
37 mogandoCI : No one said "no public transportation" , but i said no *reliable* one - the one that can give you a rather safe estimate of travel and arrival time,
38 Post contains images jfklganyc : "I will have the chance to fly DL from the "infamous" terminal 3 this July. Does anyone have an idea as to how crowded T-3 typically gets during the s
39 STT757 : N train right to the front of the new CTB, similar to DCA, would be perfect.
40 rwy04lga : I wasn't referring to you but to 'daviation'. In reply 10, second paragraph, last sentence...'daviation' does indeed say 'There is no public transpor
41 mogandoCI : Then you've quoted the wrong line. In reply 36 you quoted his reply 17 instead of 10. COPY ??!!!
42 rwy04lga : In reply 37, YOU said 'no one said there was no transportation', I showed that in reply 10 'davation' said exactly that. That's why I referenced your
43 aquablue : That would never happen. You would be destroying a neighborhood. Think of another solution.
44 rwy04lga : What would never happen?
45 jetbluefan1 : Absolutely. Take the current track at 31st Ave. and Queens Blvd and have the train run along the GCP a mile or two until it reaches LGA. It's probabl
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...
Traffic Down 8% At MDT posted Wed Apr 1 2009 13:40:15 by Buddys747
Report: 200 Bag Thefts A Day At JFK posted Wed Mar 28 2012 07:49:02 by bjorn14
Airline Lounges At Terminal 4 At JFK posted Tue Feb 21 2012 05:59:21 by washingtonian
Ladeco Sign At JFK posted Mon Feb 20 2012 10:20:21 by washingtonian
AA Emergency Landing At JFK Right Now? posted Thu Feb 16 2012 21:47:49 by AAJFKLHR777
Atlas Air Cargo At JFK T4 posted Wed Feb 15 2012 12:26:21 by contrails15
Why Didn't Delta Stick With The Rotunda At JFK? posted Sat Feb 4 2012 07:22:16 by washingtonian
SIA A380 At JFK? posted Mon Jan 23 2012 18:37:42 by corinthians
AA - Delta Terminal Swap At JFK? posted Thu Jan 5 2012 23:09:32 by airtechy
Qatar A330 And A340 At JFK posted Wed Jan 4 2012 06:24:34 by emirates202
Why Didn't Delta Stick With The Rotunda At JFK? posted Sat Feb 4 2012 07:22:16 by washingtonian
SIA A380 At JFK? posted Mon Jan 23 2012 18:37:42 by corinthians
AA - Delta Terminal Swap At JFK? posted Thu Jan 5 2012 23:09:32 by airtechy
Traffic Down 8% At MDT posted Wed Apr 1 2009 13:40:15 by Buddys747
Report: 200 Bag Thefts A Day At JFK posted Wed Mar 28 2012 07:49:02 by bjorn14
Airline Lounges At Terminal 4 At JFK posted Tue Feb 21 2012 05:59:21 by washingtonian
Ladeco Sign At JFK posted Mon Feb 20 2012 10:20:21 by washingtonian
AA Emergency Landing At JFK Right Now? posted Thu Feb 16 2012 21:47:49 by AAJFKLHR777
Atlas Air Cargo At JFK T4 posted Wed Feb 15 2012 12:26:21 by contrails15
Why Didn't Delta Stick With The Rotunda At JFK? posted Sat Feb 4 2012 07:22:16 by washingtonian
SIA A380 At JFK? posted Mon Jan 23 2012 18:37:42 by corinthians
AA - Delta Terminal Swap At JFK? posted Thu Jan 5 2012 23:09:32 by airtechy