B6A322 From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 287 posts, RR: 0 Posted (9 months 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 4929 times:
Granted more than a few people would be confused, but with the rather large changes that are currently in the works at JFK to the terminal layout, one can't help but wonder, when will the numbers be changed? Delta and Jetblue's projects will leave the total number of physical buildings at 6, and from the looks of it, that number will probably continue to decrease over the next number of years.
So, when is a renumeration due? Or will the airlines fight to keep the current number as part of their brand (such as all of jetblue's t5 branding).
The content I post is solely my own opinion. It is not an official statement by/of/for nor representative of any company
jfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 7342 posts, RR: 7 Reply 1, posted (9 months 3 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 4696 times:
Why would terminals need to be re-numbered ? The terminal 3 Delta sight will get a new building eventually, it maybe in 2030 but don't believe its going to be empty forever. The terminal 6 sight will get a new building too, as a T 5 international, standalone terminal or a combo with T7. Leave the umbers alone, cofusion would occur if Terminal 4 became T3 and AA would another number.
STT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16252 posts, RR: 52 Reply 4, posted (9 months 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 4482 times:
Quoting jfk777 (Reply 1): Why would terminals need to be re-numbered ? The terminal 3 Delta sight will get a new building eventually, it maybe in 2030 but don't believe its going to be empty forever. The terminal 6 sight will get a new building too, as a T 5 international, standalone terminal or a combo with T7. Leave the umbers alone, cofusion would occur if Terminal 4 became T3 and AA would another number.
The T-6 site is not getting a new terminal, it's being developed into an expansion of T-5 as well as new hard stand parking. Similarly I don't foresee T-3 being replaced, for now it's going to be hardstand parking. If anything I could see a satellite concourse for T-1 on part of the T-2 and T-3 sites, but the T-2/T-3 sites are just too small for any new terminal development.
The only area I can see future terminal developments would be on the current T-7 site, that could expand somewhat on the former T-6 area not taken up by T-5I.
jfklganyc From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 2645 posts, RR: 5 Reply 5, posted (9 months 3 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 4410 times:
STT is correct.
The original JFK 2000 plan (scrapped due to economic realities and lack of foresight in the PA) called for one single terminal at JFK with satellites.
Much more efficient and standardized.
Why are B6 and AA passengers arriving in beautiful state-of-the-art facilities while DL pax arrive in a hell hole? If you look at an airport like CLT of ATL or MCO, you don't see this kind of disparity.
In airports like that, the airport agency oversees a masterplan which the airlines buy into with their input. In NYC, it is the complete opposite...
Take the current B6 T5i debacle:
Ground Breaking still hasn't occrred because B6 can't come to a rental agreement with the PA. It's almost as if the 2 entities (which should be working together) and actually working against each other.
The result is a hodge podge of terminals in various states of disrepair throughout 3 airports.
That said, the future JFK will likely have an expanded T1, a further expanded T4, an expanded T5, and expanded T8. 4 terminals.
The T7 spot is a wildcard. The current terminal is in good working order, albeit a bit crowded when 12 widebodies park there in the evening. The terminal has a life left in it
STT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16252 posts, RR: 52 Reply 6, posted (9 months 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 4224 times:
Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 5): The original JFK 2000 plan (scrapped due to economic realities and lack of foresight in the PA) called for one single terminal at JFK with satellites.
I remember well, the news was all over the underground baggage tunnels that were being built but never actually connected to anything.
Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 5): Much more efficient and standardized.
Absolutely agree, a single (or two) central terminal with several large satellites connecting to the main terminal via trams ala MCO or TPA (albeit bigger). This would have been much more efficient in terms of Port Authority police, TSA, Customs & Border Patrol staffing. Also instead of the small automated Airtrain making the loop around all the terminals they could have instead built a heavy rail LIRR capable connection right into the single terminal out to the LIRR main at Jamaica. The central terminal could have also boasted a hotel, ala MCO, incorporated into the facility. The problem with all these separate terminals is not only the staffing and overall inefficiencies, but the airlines and private operators are maintaining their facilities to differing levels. Creating a hodge podge of modern and inadequate facilities.
Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 5): That said, the future JFK will likely have an expanded T1, a further expanded T4, an expanded T5, and expanded T8. 4 terminals.
I agree, I think though T-7 will be redeveloped at some point and as for a wild card I would throw in the possibility of a very basic charter facility somewhere else at the airport similar to the former Tower Air set up. Something "off the grid" so to speak, no Airtrain, not in the central terminal area.
richierich From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 4022 posts, RR: 6 Reply 7, posted (9 months 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 4168 times:
Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 5): Ground Breaking still hasn't occrred because B6 can't come to a rental agreement with the PA. It's almost as if the 2 entities (which should be working together) and actually working against each other.
Does anybody actually work with the PANYNJ? It is my understanding that they basically define the word bureaucracy!
Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 5): The T7 spot is a wildcard. The current terminal is in good working order, albeit a bit crowded when 12 widebodies park there in the evening. The terminal has a life left in it
And T7's geography almost ensures it will never merge with Terminal 8, except via a walkway over the JFK Expressway perhaps. As it is, they are using part of the old T6 site to hard stand T7 aircraft. I find T7 to be an emotionless, uninspiring terminal, and if it wasn't for the flair of 'Britishness' about it, it would have even less going for it. The arrivals hallway into US immigrations is not a very pleasant welcome into the USA, in my opinon. (Not to be outdone, Delta's T3 arrival facilities have to be the worst in the nation...I like the architecture of the old Pan Am terminal but this is not a part of the experience that anybody talks about positively!)
Back to T7, I wonder how the terminal landscape will change if AA should merge post-bankruptcy? One can only guess whether or not AA will maintain a large or small presence at JFK - but I could see BA moving over to the under-utilized T8 within the next 5 years. Then all bets are off for T7. Not sure if the Port would re-develop the existing terminal or just go with a simple new terminal built from the ground up.
B6JFKH81 From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 2767 posts, RR: 7 Reply 9, posted (9 months 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 4074 times:
Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 5): Take the current B6 T5i debacle:
Ground Breaking still hasn't occrred because B6 can't come to a rental agreement with the PA. It's almost as if the 2 entities (which should be working together) and actually working against each other.
Really? I guess it is a little odd since T5i is taking over where T6 used to be (so a second terminal site) but is going to be an addition to T5, so it will be one building that they want to have the same lease term for? I know that B6 was paying for the expansion themselves and not financing through PANYNJ and the green light was given as per the following press release on 5/31:
Quoting richierich (Reply 7): Does anybody actually work with the PANYNJ? It is my understanding that they basically define the word bureaucracy!
I think the question should be turned around to be "does the PANYNJ actually work with anybody?" considering they are the ones that seem to roll out the red tape instead of the red carpet for folks trying to work with them LOL.
"If you do not learn from history, you are doomed to repeat it"
jfklganyc From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 2645 posts, RR: 5 Reply 10, posted (9 months 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 3896 times:
"The arrivals hallway into US immigrations is not a very pleasant welcome into the USA, in my opinon."
It's modern, small, quick and very pleasant. From the plane to the curb in 10 minutes. Beats 4 and 1 anyday in my humble opinion
tymnbalewne From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 912 posts, RR: 1 Reply 11, posted (9 months 3 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 3801 times:
richierich From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 4022 posts, RR: 6 Reply 12, posted (9 months 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 3670 times:
Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 10): It's modern, small, quick and very pleasant. From the plane to the curb in 10 minutes. Beats 4 and 1 anyday in my humble opinion
Maybe it's been a while since I arrived at T7 internationally, but the only adjective you used that I would have agreed with is 'small'. I think 10 minutes to the curb is probably a stretch though, unless you are one of the lucky ones off the plane first.
DeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 5290 posts, RR: 48 Reply 16, posted (9 months 3 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 2969 times:
I think I'm in the small (OCD) minority that would like to see them renumbered...
Quoting cloudyapple (Reply 8): The day when Boeing renames the B787-800 to the B787-200 and Airbus renames the A380-800 the A380-200.
THIS. It pissed me off when they did that. Also, 747-100, 747-200, 747-300, 747-400... 747-8i?! NOOOOO
1337Delta764 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 5752 posts, RR: 2 Reply 18, posted (9 months 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 2073 times:
Quoting tharanga (Reply 17): There are other precedents. For now, BOS had terminals A, B, C and E. no D.
The general confusion from renaming probably outweighs the ease-of-mind benefit for the OCD anetters.
And ABQ only has Concourses A, B, and E. C was the TWA concourse, which has since been converted to office space. D was a ground-level commuter aircraft concourse used by Great Plains.
The Pink Delta 767-400ER - The most beautiful aircraft in the sky
csavel From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 1330 posts, RR: 5 Reply 19, posted (9 months 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 2065 times:
6th Avenue was renamed "Avenue of the Americas" in I think the LaGuardia administration. I have NEVER heard a New Yorker call it anything other than 6th Avenue when not talking to tourists. Similarly the Triborough bridge was renamed the Robert F. Kennedy bridge about 3 years ago. Not only does everyone still call it the triboro, but a lot of people don't even know it has been officially renamed. I can imagine the confusion when a tourist asks how to drive to the RFK bridge.
Point being that New Yorkers will call places what they want to call them, and the City that Never Sleeps can be incredibly tradition-bound. This often sows confusion. What if the PA numbers the terminal "correctly" but judging by the anecdotes, the old T4 is still called that, as is T8, as is....
A cabbie would have to ask, "Which terminal four do you mean?"
So what they are not in order, I mean seriously.
If you want a few more anecdotes.
Native New Yorkers will still talk of talking the BMT, or the IRT or the IND. They were the three separate and sometimes competing subway systems. The systems combined round about when Jackie Robinson was stealing home!
I may be ugly. I may be an American. But don't call me an ugly American.
blue100 From United States of America, joined Mar 2012, 26 posts, RR: 0 Reply 20, posted (9 months 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 2035 times:
Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 10): It's modern, small, quick and very pleasant. From the plane to the curb in 10 minutes. Beats 4 and 1 anyday in my humble opinion
I second that. I've never had a very long wait when arriving at T7. I've flown BA many times to and from JFK and I can recall one time we landed on 31R and I managed to get from the plane to the airtrain station in no more than 20 minutes after touching down. Granted this was without a checked bag but I was seated in Y.
I just came back with KL to JFK and we arrived just before an LY, EK, EY and a couple of other flights. The lines at immigration weren't bad but I did have to wait some time for my suitcase.
varsity From United States of America, joined Aug 1999, 184 posts, RR: 0 Reply 22, posted (9 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 1577 times:
If I recall correctly -- the existing numbering scheme did not exist (at least not in common knowledge) prior to the demolition of the IAB. When I worked in travel in the 80s/90s we referred to them by the largest tenant (Eastern, Delta, Pan Am, WWD, IAB, EWD, TWA international and domestic, British, American, United) as they were identified in the Flight Guides the PA used to mail out every few months. At some point (probably when EAL died) their building and its successor became T1 and after United moved in with BA their building became known as T3 (despite there being no T2) in this guide.
I am wondering if the sequential signs along the approach road were there all along, but that use of the numbers did not extend beyond the airport until the much-marketed replacements of T1 and T4.
Blueman87 From United States of America, joined Aug 2009, 535 posts, RR: 0 Reply 23, posted (9 months 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 1550 times:
Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 5): Why are B6 and AA passengers arriving in beautiful state-of-the-art facilities while DL pax arrive in a hell hole? If you look at an airport like CLT of ATL or MCO, you don't see this kind of disparity.
because they are not paying to have a new one so they get what they get dont blame B6 or AA for having nice terminals cause they paid for it its DL fualt for having the terminals they do
varsity From United States of America, joined Aug 1999, 184 posts, RR: 0 Reply 24, posted (9 months 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 1523 times:
Quoting csavel (Reply 19): Point being that New Yorkers will call places what they want to call them, and the City that Never Sleeps can be incredibly tradition-bound. This often sows confusion.
See also, Pan Am Building.
25 ANITIX87: And MIA: D, E, F, G, H, J. No A-C, no I (for obvious reasons). And it's all one GIANT building. Many airports all around the world are like this. TIS
26 jfklganyc: In fairness, 6th Ave and Ave of the Americas carries both titles "because they are not paying to have a new one so they get what they get dont blame B
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 287 posts, 
From Hong Kong, joined Jul 2005, 2425 posts, 
From Canada, joined Aug 2005, 3167 posts, 
From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 21464 posts, 
Perhaps you've heard....Delta might have plans for T-3...
From India, joined Dec 2011, 1363 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
