Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Finally T5i @ JFK Groundbreaking  
User currently offlineinfiniti329 From United States of America, joined Jul 2012, 829 posts, RR: 0
Posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 9252 times:

Today B6 announned the groundbreaking for T5i. From the looks of things it looks like B6 will try an attract some partner airlines to use T5i

Few of the highlights
* Six International Gates
*Opening in 2015
* International Arrivals Hall with full U.S. Custom and Federal Inspection Services (FIS)
* Can handle up 1,200 passengers an hour

http://blog.jetblue.com/

32 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinespiritair97 From United States of America, joined Jan 2011, 1231 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 9111 times:

"B6 will try and attract some partner airlines to use T5i"

Didn't EI and LO already announce that they were switching to T5? I assume they both meant T5i as T5 doesn't have customs.


User currently offlineplanetime From Singapore, joined Mar 2006, 719 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 9072 times:

Any airlines other than Air Lingus planning on moving there?

User currently offlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16907 posts, RR: 51
Reply 3, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 8999 times:

Quoting planetime (Reply 2):
Any airlines other than Air Lingus planning on moving there?

They don't require Customs and Immigration facilities though since there is pre-screening in Dublin and Shannon.



Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offlineCompensateMe From United States of America, joined Jan 2009, 1301 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 8991 times:

It's helpful if you add "JFK" to the title. This may surprise you, but the world doesn't revolve around NYC  .


Gordo:like this streaming video,Sky magazine,meals for sale at mealtime-make customer satisfaction rank so high at UA
User currently offlineapodino From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 4317 posts, RR: 6
Reply 5, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 8737 times:

I heard a rumor that B6 may be looking at A330's or A350's in the future. Would this be new terminal be capable of either expansion or handling widebodies?

User currently offlinejfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 8500 posts, RR: 6
Reply 6, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 8581 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting apodino (Reply 5):
I heard a rumor that B6 may be looking at A330's or A350's in the future. Would this be new terminal be capable of either expansion or handling widebodies?

Don't you remember JB was going to be flying A330 to sao Paulo by now if the "galley talk " was "right".,


User currently offlineEagleBoy From Niue, joined Dec 2009, 1917 posts, RR: 2
Reply 7, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 8579 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Well with EI already going to be operating into the current T5 at JFK from next Summer I think the plan for T5i will have included provision for widebodies. Even if B6 aren't planning on getting any they would want to have the capacity to handle them for partner airlines.

User currently offlinevarsity From United States of America, joined Aug 1999, 255 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 8451 times:

I would think so, too, although isn't HA's JFK-HNL service operated with an A330?

Quoting EagleBoy (Reply 7):
I think the plan for T5i will have included provision for widebodies.


User currently offlinejfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 8500 posts, RR: 6
Reply 9, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 8235 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting EagleBoy (Reply 7):
Well with EI already going to be operating into the current T5 at JFK from next Summer I think the plan for T5i will have included provision for widebodies

Anyone designing a new terminal at JFK has to keep widebodies in mind as most flights are big planes.


User currently offlinePIEAvantiP180 From United States of America, joined Sep 2009, 558 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 8133 times:

So why will it take 2 1/2 years till build 3 gates and covert 3 more. Yes I know the terminal is being expanded, two more baggage belts and fis but it still should not take 2 1/2 years. Does anybody know how much this little project will cost?

User currently offlinevarsity From United States of America, joined Aug 1999, 255 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 7972 times:

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 9):
Anyone designing a new terminal at JFK has to keep widebodies in mind as most flights are big planes.

On that topic I rolled out of there JFK-LAX on B60673 this past Thurs. and noticed that - at least from outside the blast fence - the last few gates at the end near T4 look really packed in snug with not much maneuvering room. There was an Embraer on the second gate but the first was empty, and from that perspective it didn't look like you'd be able to sneak another plane past it to the last gate.


User currently offlineNASBWI From Bahamas, joined Feb 2005, 1320 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 7873 times:

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 9):
Anyone designing a new terminal at JFK has to keep widebodies in mind as most flights are big planes.

In theory, yes. But in B6's case, T5 was designed specifically for them, and their current fleet. I recall either reading or hearing somewhere that T5 was not optimized for widebody use (in terms of gate spacing). Of course, that has been rectified, but only because one of the nearby gates is inoperative when HA's 330 is present. T5i will allow for not only widebodies, but for B6's int'l flights that must clear customs/immigration (using T4 has been quite a drag, especially for connecting customers).

If EI is to use T5, and not T5i, my guess is that they'll probably have to modify some of the gate spaces for both them and HA. As it is, HA only has the one flight, so it's not too much of an inconvenience to render one gate inop for the short time they're parked. But if more than one widebody is using that much space, a new plan may have to be used.



Fierce, Fabulous, and Flawless ;)
User currently offlinespiritair97 From United States of America, joined Jan 2011, 1231 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 7805 times:

Quoting NASBWI (Reply 12):
If EI is to use T5, and not T5i, my guess is that they'll probably have to modify some of the gate spaces for both them and HA

Not necessarily. I have seen the HA flight at gate 27 and at gate 14, meaning they can both be used by widebodies. Plus, the HA isn't on the ground at the same time as any EI flights, so really they wouldn't have to do anything they aren't doing now. I do know what you are saying, that it may be too many flights during the day, especially during the summer, but I don't think it is gonna be that big a deal.


User currently offlineNASBWI From Bahamas, joined Feb 2005, 1320 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 7715 times:

Quoting spiritair97 (Reply 13):
especially during the summer, but I don't think it is gonna be that big a deal.

True, and I'm honestly not sure of EI's schedule, but I've seen more than one EI aircraft parked at T4 during the late afternoon/early evening hours. That's one of B6's busiest times in JFK. I'm thinking that B6 will need all available gate space during those times that EI is in town.



Fierce, Fabulous, and Flawless ;)
User currently offlinevarsity From United States of America, joined Aug 1999, 255 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 7542 times:

Looking at the timetable they should not really both be there at once but I know I've also seen two of them on the T4 gates. One gets in in the early afternoon and is gone by 7, the other comes in around then and is gone by 10. Maybe the schedule is different in the summer?

Also HA0050 lands at 6 a.m. and is gone again as HA0051 by 10, so they should not cross paths with EI.


User currently offlineEagleBoy From Niue, joined Dec 2009, 1917 posts, RR: 2
Reply 16, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 7485 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting NASBWI (Reply 12):
But in B6's case, T5 was designed specifically for them, and their current fleet. I recall either reading or hearing somewhere that T5 was not optimized for widebody use (in terms of gate spacing).

I don't want to claim this as a novel idea (I'm sure many airports have this technique)......but the EI home base terminal at DUB has a gate spacing plan that is quite flexible. It has 'Left', 'Centre' and 'Right' positions on about 2/3 of its stands. So each of these stands can handle either 1 widebody or 2 narrowbodies alternatively. (ie 2 A320 on 1 stand,then 1 A330/B777/B767, then 2 A320 on the 3rd stand) This gives DUB T2 the ability to handle 20+ early morning A320 departures, followed by a mix of narrow/wide during the day, finishing up with the late evening narrow body return to base.

A design along this line of thinking would offer B6 lots of flexibility looking towards future ops and opportunities.

[Edited 2012-10-01 16:26:46]

[Edited 2012-10-01 16:27:41]

User currently offlinejblua320 From United States of America, joined May 2002, 3180 posts, RR: 19
Reply 17, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 7424 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting varsity (Reply 11):
On that topic I rolled out of there JFK-LAX on B60673 this past Thurs. and noticed that - at least from outside the blast fence - the last few gates at the end near T4 look really packed in snug with not much maneuvering room. There was an Embraer on the second gate but the first was empty, and from that perspective it didn't look like you'd be able to sneak another plane past it to the last gate.

That area is gates 1-4. As far as I know, there are no space restrictions there and Airbusses operate out of there, including gate 1, regularly. It is snug, though.


User currently offlinespiritair97 From United States of America, joined Jan 2011, 1231 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 7410 times:

Quoting NASBWI (Reply 14):
True, and I'm honestly not sure of EI's schedule, but I've seen more than one EI aircraft parked at T4 during the late afternoon/early evening hours. That's one of B6's busiest times in JFK. I'm thinking that B6 will need all available gate space during those times that EI is in town.

Yeah you're correct. A little research never hurts, right?!  
Quoting EagleBoy (Reply 16):
I don't want to claim this as a novel idea (I'm sure many airports have this technique)......but the EI home base terminal at DUB has a gate spacing plan that is quite flexible. It has 'Left', 'Centre' and 'Right' positions on about 2/3 of its stands. So each of these stands can handle either 1 widebody or 2 narrowbodies. (ie 2 A320 on 1 stand,then 1 A330/B777/B767, then 2 A320 on the 3rd stand) This gives DUB T2 the ability to handle 20+ early morning A320 departures, followed by a mix of narrow/wide during the day, finishing up with the late evening narrow body return to base.

A design along this line og thinking would offer B6 lots of flexibility

That IS a pretty good idea. Offers, like you said, a lot of flexibility and conserves space well.


User currently offlinePITrules From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 3255 posts, RR: 6
Reply 19, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 5980 times:

I assume this is only the first of a possible two phases? With only 3 new gates, this will occupy only a fraction of the space T6 covered.


FLYi
User currently offlinejfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 8500 posts, RR: 6
Reply 20, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 4350 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting PITrules (Reply 19):
19, posted s_lt(1349148867, 'l F j Y H:i:s');Mon Oct 1 2012 23:34:27 your local timeMon Oct 1 2012 20:34:27 UTC (9 hours 35 minutes 38 secs ago) and read 1619 times:

I assume this is only the first of a possible two phases? With only 3 new gates, this will occupy only a fraction of the space T6 covered.

The PANYNJ probably wants to give the T5 only half the old T6 sight for expansion as whatever future terminal may be built on the T7 sights after BA's lease finishes in 2015. T7 is a small 12 gate terminal to which 747 are carefully parked due to limited space.


User currently offlinejfklganyc From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 3626 posts, RR: 6
Reply 21, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 4152 times:

This expansion can continue as necessary towards BA.

Keep in mind that the old T6 was an "old school" kind of terminal where the new T5 is not.

What do I mean when I say that?

If you look at T5, the gates are spread out, there is plenty of ramp space, dual taxiway entrance and exits, and plenty of seating in gate areas because of the spread out design.

B6s operation benefits from this design. You almost NEVER wait for a gate or alleyway congestion at T5.

T6 had tight alleyways akin to T2 and T3. It also crammed 17 gates into a tiny area using the 1960s circle layout where you had two circles with 5 or 6 gates each and only 3 or 4 gates in a straight line between the circles. The design was very popular back then (look at terminals A and B at EWR) because it allowed the skinny end of the airplane (the nose) to fit into a fan like pattern with other aircraft around a central hub (the terminal)

This design doesn't work today. Flights are more packed than ever, more frequent than ever AND people are arriving earlier than ever at the airport. This leads to a crowded terminal with inadequate seating. Remember T6 in the final years? Been through Terminal A at EWR? Truly a mess.

Anything new built on the T6 site will employ the same design as T5. A straight line, spacious gate system.

If you took the old T6 and built a straight concourse end to end you would not get the 17 gates you had. You would likely get 10 give or take one or two.

The new T5 already encroached onto T6 with Gate 27. So now you have room for maybe 9 more narrowbody gates in the straightline design. B6 is building 3 more. That gives expansion for maybe 5 or 6 more tops. The site is a lot smaller than you think.

And while this design does not maximize space, it leads to a much better operation. AAs Billion Dollar Palace has an alley. And if you have been caught in it trying to exit during the international push, you wished that the architects spent as much time on ramp traffic flow as they did on soaring glass. B6, with their high frequency, quick turn operation has focused on this more


User currently onlinewjcandee From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 5339 posts, RR: 23
Reply 22, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 3977 times:

Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 21):
The design was very popular back then

In part because it also allowed for minimal walking. I find EWR's setup very convenient -- moving walkway to pod, short distance to gate. A linear design means that I need to walk (or ride the slow moving walkway) a lot further.

That said I understand that this is where things are going in the future.

Speaking of old -- what's the story with the Saarinen Terminal? Really a shame it has just been left languishing. The PA didn't do a good job of requiring B6 to do something with it in the contract for T5.


User currently offlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16907 posts, RR: 51
Reply 23, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 3887 times:

Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 21):
T6 had tight alleyways akin to T2 and T3. It also crammed 17 gates into a tiny area using the 1960s circle layout where you had two circles with 5 or 6 gates each and only 3 or 4 gates in a straight line between the circles. The design was very popular back then (look at terminals A and B at EWR) because it allowed the skinny end of the airplane (the nose) to fit into a fan like pattern with other aircraft around a central hub (the terminal)

The designs presented by Susan Baer to the Port Authority board for a new Terminal A at EWR are almost identical to T-5 at JFK, albeit a little bigger (40 gates).



Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offlinespiritair97 From United States of America, joined Jan 2011, 1231 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 3851 times:

Quoting wjcandee (Reply 22):

Last I heard B6 was turning it into a brand new check-in and customs facility, maybe to go along with T5i.


User currently offlineZBA2CGX From Canada, joined Mar 2006, 92 posts, RR: 0
Reply 25, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 3847 times:

I was working on this as little side project to see how to put new terminals into the spaces of T6/7 and T2/3. The below is still a little bit of work in progress. Based on the comments above by jfklganyc I may have to adjust the layout slightly.

It expands on the comments made by jfklganyc.

Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 21):
If you took the old T6 and built a straight concourse end to end you would not get the 17 gates you had. You would likely get 10 give or take one or two.

The new T5 already encroached onto T6 with Gate 27. So now you have room for maybe 9 more narrowbody gates in the straightline design. B6 is building 3 more. That gives expansion for maybe 5 or 6 more tops. The site is a lot smaller than you think.

I actually took DTW North Terminal as an example of the hockey stick shaped terminal and continued it from T5i extension. In the image below you can see the Dark Blue of the T5i, everything to the left is to replace the footprints of T6/T7.
In phase 1 of the construction The area purple is the landside of the new terminal that could be constructed while the existing T7 is in operation. The area in purple could also house an expanded FIS for the new larger Terminal and handle spillover from T5. The gates along the blade would constructed up to the edge of existing T7
The area in light blue and the adjacent gates (Blade and others) would handle an expanded terminal operations once T7 is demolished

The blade part of the hockey stick would handle the heavies like DTW north terminal gates D1-5. The handle would handle a mix of A330/B787 and narrow bodies.

There would be 8 gates along the handle, 6 widebody on the blade and 3 more gates on the west side.

Looking back on it now, it looks like I need to leave a little more room in the alley to let the heavies out. But you get the general idea. Ignore the area in green, that was to help me figure out the total area of T7 footprint.

JFK T5 possible future


Just some ideas


User currently offlinewerdywerd From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 603 posts, RR: 1
Reply 26, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 3719 times:

Quoting PITrules (Reply 19):
I assume this is only the first of a possible two phases? With only 3 new gates, this will occupy only a fraction of the space T6 covered.

The rest of the space (Where T6 was) will be used as hardstands and de-icing area's for B6


User currently offlinewerdywerd From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 603 posts, RR: 1
Reply 27, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 3764 times:

Quoting wjcandee (Reply 22):
Speaking of old -- what's the story with the Saarinen Terminal? Really a shame it has just been left languishing. The PA didn't do a good job of requiring B6 to do something with it in the contract for T5.

The PA is still very interested in turning it into the lobby area of a new 300 room hotel.

There are a couple of hotel chains currently bidding for this and PANYNJ should be making an announcement soon.

The Hotel rooms themselves would be housed in one or two small tower buildings behind the terminal (in between New T5 and Old T5 Saarinen


User currently onlinewjcandee From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 5339 posts, RR: 23
Reply 28, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 3607 times:

Thanks, Werdywerd. That would make a good use of the building, if done properly. (Kind of like how the former Helmsley Palace uses the Villard Houses in an inspired way.)

User currently offlineSSTeve From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 733 posts, RR: 2
Reply 29, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 3602 times:

Regarding the two lollipops in the old B6 terminal...

Quoting wjcandee (Reply 22):
In part because it also allowed for minimal walking.

... I have a fond memory of running to, and boarding a flight in my socks there. Less seating? No problem.


User currently offlineB6JFKH81 From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 2902 posts, RR: 7
Reply 30, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 3558 times:

Quoting wjcandee (Reply 22):
Speaking of old -- what's the story with the Saarinen Terminal? Really a shame it has just been left languishing. The PA didn't do a good job of requiring B6 to do something with it in the contract for T5.

????
Why should the Saarinen building be B6's responsibility? B6 INCORPORATED the thing into the design of their new terminal, even tried to save one of the trumpets and had it attached at the end of the new T5, unfortunately it really didn't fit well and was really falling apart after years of neglect....by the PANYNJ.

The "Historical Societies" are the ones that put up all types of red tape once the buiding became a historic landmark. B6 was already spending $800m to build a new terminal, they weren't going to pay a buttload more money to "historically preserve" a building that they weren't even going to be able to use. B6 wanted to put check-in kiosks and stuff in there too so customers could take a walk down memory lane by pulling up in front of that T5 instead of the new one, walk down the tube and then enter our terminal. Our terminal has been open for now 4 years, and the PANYNJ is the one that had to "historically preserve" the Saarinen building and it's STILL not open.

Sorry, wjcandee, as someone who also has fond memories of that building, I would also like to see it open back up...but I see no reason why B6 should be responsible for that building especially since we would probably have to pay rent to occupy it (knowing how the PANYNJ operates). B6 is in the business to make money flying planes, not open museums.

Quoting ZBA2CGX (Reply 25):
actually took DTW North Terminal as an example of the hockey stick shaped terminal and continued it from T5i extension. In the image below you can see the Dark Blue of the T5i, everything to the left is to replace the footprints of T6/T7.

Why would B6 want to combine terminals with BA, UA, IB, AC, US and the other carriers that operate out of T7? B6 wanted (and did) design a terminal that fit them, their style, their customer base, their operation. Combining terminals would, IMHO, dimishish what they set out to do unless they partnered with those airlines...like they did with EI and HA who are already in T5 or will be moving over soon.



"If you do not learn from history, you are doomed to repeat it"
User currently offlinespiritair97 From United States of America, joined Jan 2011, 1231 posts, RR: 0
Reply 31, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 3419 times:

Quoting werdywerd (Reply 27):
The Hotel rooms themselves would be housed in one or two small tower buildings behind the terminal (in between New T5 and Old T5 Saarinen

If/When the hotel in completed, how high will the hotel be? Good enough to see planes from the rooms?    

I know I can't be the only one thinking this!  


User currently offlinevarsity From United States of America, joined Aug 1999, 255 posts, RR: 0
Reply 32, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 3027 times:

I'd be sad if they put the hotel tower(s) in a spot that further compromises the view of and from the old TWA main hall. To me a better idea would be a single tower block on top of the baggage claim area (north of the main hall). This part of the facility is not architecturally interesting and if any part of the facility needs to be compromised, I'd rather it be over there.

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...
Delta JFK Term Groundbreaking...Finally. posted Fri Nov 19 2010 06:20:06 by cokepopper
T5i...what Happened? posted Fri Aug 31 2012 14:12:56 by jfklganyc
Greek Govt Finally Sells Former OA A340s posted Sun Jul 8 2012 11:18:26 by LAXintl
AA To Finally Serve TLV? posted Fri Apr 20 2012 22:57:14 by olddominion727
Alitalia Finally Introduce A Retro Livery posted Fri Mar 30 2012 06:33:16 by EY460
Finally, Aviogenex Fleet Renewal! posted Wed Mar 21 2012 02:38:33 by ju068
CO Finally Flies Into The Sunset Mar 3. posted Tue Feb 21 2012 15:48:58 by olddominion727
FLL Expanded 9R-27L Groundbreaking Ceremony posted Tue Jan 24 2012 09:42:13 by KFLLCFII
Air Greenland (Finally!) Opens Nuuk-Iqaluit Route posted Wed Jan 18 2012 10:50:53 by Thule
DL & US Close Slot Swap...Finally posted Tue Dec 13 2011 13:08:09 by jetlanta