Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Final Day For T3 At JFK!  
User currently offlineaviateur From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 1352 posts, RR: 11
Posted (1 year 3 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 14355 times:

At long last. Thursday will be the last day of regular operations at JFK's terminal 3!

On one hand the occasion is melancholy, but I am NOT among those who feel that T3 ought to have been preserved. Yes, as the former Pan Am Worldport it's a somewhat historic building. But architecturally, no, it's certainly not on a par with Saarinen's TWA building, or even I.M. Pei's demolished National Airlines terminal (the original terminal 5). It's tough to mourn the loss of T3. It was, by the end, an ugly, claustrophobic, very dysfunctional facility.

Still, while JFK is a "nicer" airport now, in a generic sort of way, it's losing more and more of the character and personality that the older generation terminals provided: Pan Am's T3, Saarinen's TWA, Pei's National, and of course the old American Airlines terminal, with its giant stained glass window (it was largest in the world!).

I've read that the zodiac sign designs that used to adorn the fence/wall in front of T3 are currently stored in a JFK hangar. I hope they don't discard them. Man, I'd like to own one of those, if only I had a place to store or display it.

There's an essay in my new book that talks about JFK and the aesthetic of its terminals -- particularly the horror of T5 -- if anybody's interested.

Farewell, Terminal 3.


-- Patrick Smith


Patrick Smith is an airline pilot, air travel columnist and author
85 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7877 posts, RR: 52
Reply 1, posted (1 year 3 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 14229 times:

It's sad to see the Worldport go but demolishing it solves a lot of congestion issues at a very packed airport. Maybe if JFK wasn't such a mess we could have preserved it, too bad. Hope this really helps DL's ops up there


Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineKirkseattle From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 265 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (1 year 3 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 14151 times:

I'm kinda glad to see it go. For me, the security, walkways and gates were so outdated and more like a herd moving through a hallway. Oh, I hope they get the birds out of there near gates 1, 2, 3 and the teens. I'm sure they will miss the Burger King goodies. First time a bird dropped at my feet - freaked, me, out!   

Cheers,
KirkSeattle


User currently offlinebomber996 From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 391 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (1 year 3 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 14125 times:

Are there plans to put something on the former site of T3?

Peace   



AVIATION - A Vacation In Any Town, I Own Nothing
User currently offlineDeltal1011man From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 9321 posts, RR: 14
Reply 4, posted (1 year 3 months 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 14004 times:

Good bye T3....I just wish i could push the big red button myself.

or maybe not, who knows what kind of toxic crap is in that building.

Quoting bomber996 (Reply 3):

hard stands replacing what was lost to extend T4B



yep.
User currently offlineAwysBSB From Brazil, joined Sep 2005, 561 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (1 year 3 months 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 13848 times:

I do not know what makes some of you so sure that T3's rotunda would not be preserved.
Why would DL and PANYNJ hurt their images making a hugely controversial demolition?
By the way, their point of view about the umbrella building has not been linear.


User currently offlinejetlanta From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 3262 posts, RR: 35
Reply 6, posted (1 year 3 months 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 13796 times:

Quoting AwysBSB (Reply 5):
I do not know what makes some of you so sure that T3's rotunda would not be preserved.
Why would DL and PANYNJ hurt their images making a hugely controversial demolition?

Yeah. It's not hugely controversial. Pretty much no one cares.


User currently offlineGSPSPOT From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 3014 posts, RR: 2
Reply 7, posted (1 year 3 months 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 13393 times:

T3 may have been a hell-hole structurally, but it IS still significant architecture and should be saved in some way!! Take lots of pics of it while you still can, if you value airline history.


Finally made it to an airline mecca!
User currently offlinedsuairptman From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 897 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (1 year 3 months 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 13353 times:

JFK is a dump and there is no glory in T3. Pan Am is long dead and for good reason, so just because they parked planes there isn't a reason to save a building. Architecturally speaking, what is there worth preserving other than the saucer roof, perhaps?


GEAUX SAINTS!
User currently offlineGSPSPOT From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 3014 posts, RR: 2
Reply 9, posted (1 year 3 months 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 13331 times:

Quoting jetlanta (Reply 6):
Yeah. It's not hugely controversial. Pretty much no one cares.

You have to realize that not everyone has the warm fuzzies for airline history the way some of us do, sadly.



Finally made it to an airline mecca!
User currently offlineDL WIDGET HEAD From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 2090 posts, RR: 5
Reply 10, posted (1 year 3 months 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 13313 times:

T3 is not a national monument worth preserving just an interesting building from the past that a lot of people have mixed emotions about and certainly not worth the expense to try to preserve for nostalgia sake. Tear it down like the Berlin wall and let's move on.

[Edited 2013-05-23 08:35:43]

User currently offlinenotam-j From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 85 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (1 year 3 months 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 13145 times:

Does anyone know what the last scheduled flight will be to/from terminal 3?


If only I had a nickel for every Boeing vs Airbus posting...
User currently offlinepanamair From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 4895 posts, RR: 25
Reply 12, posted (1 year 3 months 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 13095 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I had my last departure out of T3 this past Sunday and went around to snap a few pics. I remember coming to T3 in the late '80s during the summer and going to the rooftop to watch the Pan Am 747s come in from LHR, FRA, CDG, FCO, etc., and have taken many Pan Am and Delta flights out of the place since then. While I am sad to see the place go (for obvious nostalgic reasons), I also understand that Delta desparately needs a new terminal...the place is embarassing for the thousands of Delta customers who go through DL JFK every day...

Rotunda Check-in area: Sky Priority lines
JFK T3 Rotunda SP Check-in


Rotunda Check-in area: General
JFK T3 Rotunda Check-in


Rotunda Inside: view from side
JFK T3 Rotunda inside Side view


Rotunda Inside: Gates 1, 2, and 3. One of these gates (the current Gate 3 I believe) was the one from which the very first scheduled 747 flight from JFK to LHR departed:
JFK T3 Rotunda Gates 1 2 3


User currently offlineDeltal1011man From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 9321 posts, RR: 14
Reply 13, posted (1 year 3 months 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 13087 times:

Quoting AwysBSB (Reply 5):

I do not know what makes some of you so sure that T3's rotunda would not be preserved.

The fact that Delta and PANYNJ has said its going bye-bye

Quoting AwysBSB (Reply 5):
Why would DL and PANYNJ hurt their images making a hugely controversial demolition?

Its not controversial outside of a very small minority

Quoting GSPSPOT (Reply 9):
You have to realize that not everyone has the warm fuzzies for airline history the way some of us do, sadly.

No, we just don't believe in wasting outside.



yep.
User currently offlinejfklganyc From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 3433 posts, RR: 5
Reply 14, posted (1 year 3 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 12953 times:

Quoting jetlanta (Reply 6):
Yeah. It's not hugely controversial. Pretty much no one cares.

I'm not saying preserve it....but if the threads, fb pages, and articles are to be belived...someone cares. So that would make you statement false.


User currently offlineLDVAviation From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 1056 posts, RR: 5
Reply 15, posted (1 year 3 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 12944 times:

Quoting jetlanta (Reply 6):
Yeah. It's not hugely controversial. Pretty much no one cares.

That no one cares is not a good thing.

From the Architect's Newspaper: As for the threatened Terminal 6 by I.M. Pei, Hayes* said Terminal 3 is “superior to Pei, especially in terms of aviation architecture. Pei’s is a pretty corporate box, but it could be anywhere.” Terminal 3, however, had an unparalleled design that allowed for passenger loading and maintenance to take place all under its unique canopy. “This is really the place that established the paradigm for airport architecture, and these terminals were treated like international headquarters, intended to be corporate icons,” Hayes said of JFK.

* Hal Hayes was one of the lead architects on the T4 terminal. As the blog post also indicates, he created an earlier scheme for Delta that repurposed T3.

--- http://blog.archpaper.com/wordpress/archives/8487#more-8487


User currently offlinepsa188 From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 512 posts, RR: 18
Reply 16, posted (1 year 3 months 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 12822 times:

Quoting jetlanta (Reply 6):
Yeah. It's not hugely controversial. Pretty much no one cares.

NOT true!

TV, radio and media personality Michael Manning wrote two very powerful and optimistic blog entry on his blog site. Thank you, for your support and advice, Michael!

http://michaelmanningtv.blogspot.com...13/05/saving-pan-am-worldport.html

http://michaelmanningtv.blogspot.com...ldports-final-week-crisis-and.html

Travel and airline blog site Flying with Fish also posted two very interesting commentaries about Delta's final days operating Terminal 3.

http://boardingarea.com/blogs/flying...tion-closes-it-wont-be-documented/

http://boardingarea.com/blogs/flying...orldports-last-day-%E2%80%A6-fear/

And the New York/Tri-state chapter of the international preservation advocacy organization, Docomomo-US wrote a very detailed news piece on our campaign. The author, John Morris Dixon, wrote one of the very first architectural opinons about the original Pan Am Terminal back in 1961! Thank you, John!

http://docomomo-nytri.org/2013/05/19/can-jfks-terminal-3-be-saved/

YOU might not care, but don't say "no one" cares.


User currently offlinecedarjet From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 8088 posts, RR: 54
Reply 17, posted (1 year 3 months 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 12659 times:

The last flight will be Delta Flight 268, a Boeing 747-451, from gate 6, tonight. Nice that it's gate 6 (not the same as in 1970) and a 747.

Is there anything happening to mark the event? Would it be worth being there in person?



fly Saha Air 707s daily from Tehran's downtown Mehrabad to Mashhad, Kish Island and Ahwaz
User currently onlineUnited_fan From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 7483 posts, RR: 7
Reply 18, posted (1 year 3 months 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 12658 times:

I only went thru T3 once,inbound from MIA on DL March '11 . Are the express gates section getting demolished also?


'Empathy was yesterday...Today, you're wasting my Mother-F'ing time' - Heat.
User currently offlinepanamair From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 4895 posts, RR: 25
Reply 19, posted (1 year 3 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 12520 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting cedarjet (Reply 17):
The last flight will be Delta Flight 268, a Boeing 747-451, from gate 6, tonight. Nice that it's gate 6 (not the same as in 1970) and a 747.

And I did get a quick snap of T3 Gate 6 with a Delta 744 recently....no such views up close of a 744 at T4 unfortunately:

DL 744 N667US Gate 6 T3 JFK


Quoting United_fan (Reply 18):
Are the express gates section getting demolished also?

The Delta Connection RJ gates are mostly in T2 now, so they will be around a little longer. They will move to a new extension to T4B within the next two years.


User currently offlineJAAlbert From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 1573 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (1 year 3 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 12363 times:

Quoting panamair (Reply 12):
I had my last departure out of T3 this past Sunday and went around to snap a few pics.

Thanks so much for the photographs - they will be nice to look back on one day. You can't say Delta didn't get its use out of that building!!

One question: the mezzanine or second floor area and the shops under the saucer, were those original to the design or added later?

Quoting psa188 (Reply 16):
YOU might not care, but don't say "no one" cares.

It would have been nice had the authorities been able to save the building -- Pan Am had a storied history and its sad to see it go.


User currently offlinepanamair From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 4895 posts, RR: 25
Reply 21, posted (1 year 3 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 12216 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting JAAlbert (Reply 20):
One question: the mezzanine or second floor area and the shops under the saucer, were those original to the design or added later?

The mezzanine level was from the original (or at least it was already there in the early '70s) as seen in this clip (excerpt from the James Bond 1973 movie "Live and Let Die" - go to 0:39 of the clip).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ieff3w5P0Ko


User currently offlineDTWPurserBoy From United States of America, joined Feb 2010, 1617 posts, RR: 7
Reply 22, posted (1 year 3 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 11017 times:

I was more upset with the demolition of the three chapels that stood in the center of JFK than of T3. There was a catholic, protestant and Jewish synagogue with beautiful architecture.

My first landing at JFK was right after the I. M. Pei T5 terminal opened in 1970. I flew on National Airlines from DCA--it was a beautiful modern building then.

But JFK's Achilles heel is a lack of growth space. For years there had been talk of extending the airport across the marsh to the old Floyd Bennett Field but IIRC that was quashed because it is a bird sanctuary.

I was based in T2 with Northwest Orient through the 80's--that place was a total dump!

Time marches on. Pan Am is now a part of airline history. It will be interesting to see in 20 years what JFK will look like.



Qualified on Concorde/B707/B720/B727/B737/B747/B757/B767/B777/DC-8/DC-9/DC-10/A319/A320/A330/MD-88-90
User currently offlinecokepopper From United States of America, joined May 2008, 1179 posts, RR: 10
Reply 23, posted (1 year 3 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 10207 times:

Here are a few pictures from the acquisition of PanAm in '91
In with the New Term 3 Oct 1991
JFK Terminal 3 Oct 1991
Out with the old, In with the new JFK Term 2 Oct 1991


User currently offlineCairnterriAIR From United States of America, joined Jun 2008, 402 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (1 year 3 months 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 9386 times:

Let the wrecking ball swing. And when they're done they can drive 115 miles up into Connecticut and take out the now vacant eye-sore at BDL that forever was Terminal A. An even worse god-awful dump!

User currently offlinejust7four7 From Hong Kong, joined Oct 2009, 65 posts, RR: 0
Reply 25, posted (1 year 3 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 9260 times:

Absolutely silly to abandon the saucer. One of the few main images of JFK.
Now it will be the same generic 'adult contemporary' McTerminal. How sad.

Would have been easy to integrate the roof into a new facility behind, on the airside.
As premium passenger entry, anything really, cool lounge, restaurant...

Too many people today live and behave like nomads, in a global world of n'importe quoi, so have little feeling for things that define time and place.

Delta, bye bye. As bad as the old facility was (and I do not disagree with taking that part down), as boring and bland will the new part be.


User currently offlineaviateur From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 1352 posts, RR: 11
Reply 26, posted (1 year 3 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 9227 times:

Does anybody know the answer to this...

When the Beatles landed at JFK in '64, is it true that the press conference during which John Lennon made the famous/infamous quote about the Beatles being "bigger than Jesus," took place in a press room inside terminal 3?

I know there's a Pan Am globe in the background of the footage from that interview, but I'm uncertain if the room was at JFK, or at Pan Am's skyscraper over on Park Avenue.


PS



Patrick Smith is an airline pilot, air travel columnist and author
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7877 posts, RR: 52
Reply 27, posted (1 year 3 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 9503 times:

Quoting just7four7 (Reply 25):
Would have been easy to integrate the roof into a new facility behind, on the airside.
As premium passenger entry, anything really, cool lounge, restaurant...

Do you understand what tearing down this terminal will allow? It isn't just because it's old and decrepit. T-3's shape makes it impossible for aircraft to simultaneously back out and come in on either one side or both, I forgot (someone fill me in on it.) It is much more than just a simple teardown vs renovation, T-3 actually blocks traffic flow

And besides that (entering opinion territory) it's kinda a unique building, but it's hardly a masterpiece, and it is far from as historic as other landmarks in the US. It just doesn't cut it. Just like with mergers, rebrands, shut down carriers, etc, some parts of aviation will bite the dust, sadly. We can't let the past bog us down because something is semi-historic



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineOzarkD9S From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 5051 posts, RR: 21
Reply 28, posted (1 year 3 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 9326 times:

Quoting aviateur (Reply 26):


Does anybody know the answer to this...When the Beatles landed at JFK in '64, is it true that the press conference during which John Lennon made the famous/infamous quote about the Beatles being "bigger than Jesus," took place in a press room inside terminal 3? I know there's a Pan Am globe in the background of the footage from that interview, but I'm uncertain if the room was at JFK, or at Pan Am's skyscraper over on Park Avenue.

Not even the same year. Had JL made this quote to the press on their first trip to the States well, it might have been their last.

The Jesus quote was from an interview given in the UK in '66:

On March 4, 1966, this quote of John's was printed in an interview by reporter (and friend of John's) Maureen Cleave in the London Evening Standard:

"Christianity will go. It will vanish and shrink. I needn't argue with that; I'm right and I will be proved right. We're more popular than Jesus now; I don't know which will go first - rock 'n' roll or Christianity. Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. It's them twisting it that ruins it for me."

Note JL said more popular, not "bigger than"....now I'm neither defending nor supporting the quote, but.



Next Up: STL-LGA-RIC-ATL-STL
User currently offlinealfa164 From United States of America, joined Oct 2012, 435 posts, RR: 0
Reply 29, posted (1 year 3 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 8958 times:

Quoting psa188 (Reply 16):
Travel and airline blog site Flying with Fish also posted two very interesting commentaries about Delta's final days operating Terminal 3.

http://boardingarea.com/blogs/flying...tion-closes-it-wont-be-documented/

http://boardingarea.com/blogs/flying...fear/

As a traveller who has flown more than 200,000 miles per year for the past ten years (I have business in Asia) - and, until now, having flown a vast majority of those on Delta - I can only say:

SHAME ON DELTA.

If they don't want the structure... that's their p[osition. But to deny a credible enthusiast and write the chance to document its last day is shameful. If the airline has no sense of history, so be it - but allow those with that sense to play out their roles. There is a value in heritage, and denying that is to deny an importa t of our history and culture.

SHAME ON DELTA!


User currently offlineKGRB From United States of America, joined Sep 2010, 713 posts, RR: 1
Reply 30, posted (1 year 3 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 8914 times:

Quoting psa188 (Reply 16):
Travel and airline blog site Flying with Fish also posted two very interesting commentaries about Delta's final days operating Terminal 3.

http://boardingarea.com/blogs/flying...nted/
Quoting alfa164 (Reply 29):
As a traveller who has flown more than 200,000 miles per year for the past ten years (I have business in Asia) - and, until now, having flown a vast majority of those on Delta - I can only say:

SHAME ON DELTA.

If they don't want the structure... that's their p[osition. But to deny a credible enthusiast and write the chance to document its last day is shameful. If the airline has no sense of history, so be it - but allow those with that sense to play out their roles. There is a value in heritage, and denying that is to deny an importa t of our history and culture.

SHAME ON DELTA!

Sorry to say, but that's just sour grapes from some no-name blogger. I'm sure Delta's PR employees have better things to do than to babysit him all day while he "documents" the last day of T3.



Δ D E L T A: Keep Climbing
User currently offlinealfa164 From United States of America, joined Oct 2012, 435 posts, RR: 0
Reply 31, posted (1 year 3 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 8786 times:

Quoting KGRB (Reply 30):

Sorry to say, but that's just sour grapes from some no-name blogger. I'm sure Delta's PR employees have better things to do than to babysit him all day while he "documents" the last day of T3.

That's a great tactic: if you can't deny what a person says, just call him names.

Delta must be very proud of you!


User currently offlineKGRB From United States of America, joined Sep 2010, 713 posts, RR: 1
Reply 32, posted (1 year 3 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 8699 times:

Quoting alfa164 (Reply 31):

That's a great tactic: if you can't deny what a person says, just call him names.

Delta must be very proud of you!

This may be a news flash to you, but for this blogger to see and "document" the operation in the restricted areas of the terminal, he would need to be escorted by a Delta employee with either a DL or JFK SIDA badge. Do you really think that DL has people just sitting around that can escort him all day? If he wants to take pictures of the public areas of T3, he doesn't need Delta's approval. But that's not what he wanted, did he?

It seems like you are the one that can't deny what I say.



Δ D E L T A: Keep Climbing
User currently offlinealfa164 From United States of America, joined Oct 2012, 435 posts, RR: 0
Reply 33, posted (1 year 3 months 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 8636 times:

Quoting KGRB (Reply 32):
This may be a news flash to you, but for this blogger to see and "document" the operation in the restricted areas of the terminal, he would need to be escorted by a Delta employee with either a DL or JFK SIDA badge. Do you really think that DL has people just sitting around that can escort him all day? If he wants to take pictures of the public areas of T3, he doesn't need Delta's approval. But that's not what he wanted, did he?


Did he say he was trying to go into the restricted areas? No... Did he request an "escort" anywere. No... Did you read what he actually wrote? Probably not. Can he "take pictures of the public areas of T3", as you so casually claim, without being a ticketed passenger or getting Delta's approval? No... and maybe that is what he wanted.

Like I said, if insulting him is all you can say.... Delta must be proud of you. And if insulting me - one of your DM fliers, who just happens to think DL blew it this time - is all you can say..... I guess there are other airlines who might appreciate my business.


User currently offlineSR117 From Mexico, joined Jun 2000, 795 posts, RR: 1
Reply 34, posted (1 year 3 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 8478 times:

It's quite understandable why neither DL nor the Port Authority wanted to make any fuss regarding the closure of T3 as they did not want to stir up -any- nostalgia that would boost the preservationists' case and make tearing down T3 any more difficult or expensive than it already will be.

If there weren't people still trying to save T3 from the bulldozer, I think you'd have a more proper goodbye for the old building. But as it stands, I agree it's counter productive to stir up nostalgia.

It would be nice if we could preserve our heritage while moving forward all the time, but I think that sometimes we must choose. I appreciate the Worldport's historic value, but given the space constraints at JFK, and the still unresolved future of T2 and what will eventually take it's place. I think allowing the Worldport to stand would just make the future all the more complicated.


User currently offlinem11stephen From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 1247 posts, RR: 1
Reply 35, posted (1 year 3 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 8408 times:

I love Pan Am more than the vast majority of people but the fact is that Pan Am has been gone for close to 22 years now. Saving the Worldport, a decrepit, crumbling, outdated, inefficient terminal, is not going to bring Pan Am back. The only two significant things about the Worldport are, 1. It was built and designed by Pan Am and 2. The flying saucer roof was innovative for it's time. If the Worldport had been built by Tower Air I doubt that anyone would give a second thought about tearing it down.

Yes, I would love to see the Worldport preserved but it will never happen. Yes, I would love to see the rotunda saved but that will never happen. In fact, if Pan Am were still around do you think that they would still be using the Worldport? I'm sure they would have torn the Worldport down and rebuilt just like Delta is doing. JFK already has one old terminal sitting around that no one has any idea what to do with. The TWA terminal has been sitting empty for five years now. Does the Port Authority really need another old terminal, that no one of any significance wants, sitting around?



My opinions, statements, etc. are my own and do not have any association with those of any employer.
User currently offlinerwy04lga From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 3176 posts, RR: 8
Reply 36, posted (1 year 3 months 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 8266 times:

Quoting aviateur (Thread starter):
I.M. Pei's demolished National Airlines terminal (the original terminal 5).

I believe that's terminal 6. T5 is B6's current terminal (was TWA's old terminal), and T7 is BA's terminal. The National terminal was between terminals 5 and 7.



Just accept that some days, you're the pigeon, and other days the statue
User currently offlinejfklganyc From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 3433 posts, RR: 5
Reply 37, posted (1 year 3 months 22 hours ago) and read 8018 times:

Quoting panamair (Reply 19):
And I did get a quick snap of T3 Gate 6 with a Delta 744 recently....no such views up close of a 744 at T4 unfortunately:

The 747s pulled right up to the window. Just like the movie Airplane! I have never seen a 747 nose that close anywhere else. Those gates were designed for 747s specifically. People talk about the rotunda...I always liked the 70s addition. The fact that you drove into the middle of the terminal, the rooftop parking, driving under the jetways...there was no terminal like that. Very sad day for me.

Quoting SR117 (Reply 34):
It's quite understandable why neither DL nor the Port Authority wanted to make any fuss regarding the closure of T3 as they did not want to stir up -any- nostalgia that would boost the preservationists' case and make tearing down T3 any more difficult or expensive than it already will be.

Bingo. Delta doesn't want any nostolgia pieces. Period. No need to stir the pot


User currently offlineAwysBSB From Brazil, joined Sep 2005, 561 posts, RR: 0
Reply 38, posted (1 year 3 months 20 hours ago) and read 7901 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 27):
T-3's shape makes it impossible for aircraft to simultaneously back out and come in on either one side or both, I forgot (someone fill me in on it.) It is much more than just a simple teardown vs renovation, T-3 actually blocks traffic flow

Please, share more information about such an impossibility. Would it exist if aircraft were RJs? At what gates of T3's ramps is such a traffic flow obstruction more frequent? Has the locations of T2 and of T4's concourse B any guilt for that?
The umbrella building is not ought to disappear, given it is completely functional or for a regional flights terminal or for a premium terminal. The second possibility is more likely, since a premium terminal is lacking to NYC market.
It will not take long for us to see the umbrella building in its original shape, like shown in these images:





User currently offlineEricR From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 1904 posts, RR: 1
Reply 39, posted (1 year 3 months 19 hours ago) and read 7799 times:

Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 37):
have never seen a 747 nose that close anywhere else. Those gates were designed for 747s specifically

UA at LAX has/had some gates at the end of T6 & T7 that offered this type of view. Also, the new section of TBIT offers similar views. But outside of LAX, I cannot think of many others in the U.S either.


User currently offlineHNL From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 335 posts, RR: 1
Reply 40, posted (1 year 3 months 19 hours ago) and read 7743 times:

Quoting EricR (Reply 39):
UA at LAX has/had some gates at the end of T6 & T7 that offered this type of view. Also, the new section of TBIT offers similar views. But outside of LAX, I cannot think of many others in the U.S either.

Honolulu offers similar views. Plus one can go up on level and peer down onto the aircraft.



HNL - There's no place like it!
User currently offlineLDVAviation From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 1056 posts, RR: 5
Reply 41, posted (1 year 3 months 18 hours ago) and read 7636 times:

Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 37):
Bingo. Delta doesn't want any nostolgia pieces. Period. No need to stir the pot

In some interview the other day (I think it was with CBS), Richard Anderson claimed that he wanted Delta to become an iconic brand.

Pan Am was an iconic brand, in no small part due to its association with the original architecture of the Worldport. It was groundbreaking, even if it was not designed by a famous architect.

How is Delta trying to become an iconic brand? By adding 9 gates to an existing corporate box and proclaiming it a "gleaming new terminal."

Even when Delta was given the opportunity to create an icon in their own backyard (the new international terminal in Atlanta), they balked at the costs and ended up with an even more banal corporate box.

[Edited 2013-05-24 10:37:44]

User currently offlineEricR From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 1904 posts, RR: 1
Reply 42, posted (1 year 3 months 17 hours ago) and read 7538 times:

Quoting LDVAviation (Reply 41):

In some interview the other day (I think it was with CBS), Richard Anderson claimed that he wanted Delta to become an iconic brand.

Pan Am was an iconic brand, in no small part due to its association with the original architecture of the World Port. It was groundbreaking, even if it was not designed by a famous architect.

How is Delta trying to become an iconic brand? By adding 9 gates to an existing corporate box and proclaiming it a "gleaming new terminal."

Even when Delta was given the opportunity to create an icon in their own backyard (the new international terminal in Atlanta), they balked at the costs and ended up with an even more banal corporate box.

I can think of many iconic brands and none of those brands are iconic brands due to the buildings they occupy.

Perhaps Worldport was the face of PA because it was during a different era when JFK was the heart and soul of that airline. Fast forward to today, and JFK does not play nearly the same role in the DL network as JFK did in the PA network. Perhaps it is nostalgic to see the building go, but I do not believe a building by itself comes anywhere close to defining a brand.


User currently offlineKGRB From United States of America, joined Sep 2010, 713 posts, RR: 1
Reply 43, posted (1 year 3 months 17 hours ago) and read 7468 times:

Quoting alfa164 (Reply 33):

Did he say he was trying to go into the restricted areas? No... Did he request an "escort" anywere. No... Did you read what he actually wrote? Probably not. Can he "take pictures of the public areas of T3", as you so casually claim, without being a ticketed passenger or getting Delta's approval? No... and maybe that is what he wanted.

Like I said, if insulting him is all you can say.... Delta must be proud of you. And if insulting me - one of your DM fliers, who just happens to think DL blew it this time - is all you can say..... I guess there are other airlines who might appreciate my business.

Yes, I read what he wrote. He was very vague in describing what kind of access he was looking to obtain. However, as I said, if he were taking photographs and interviewing people in the non-sterile areas of the terminal (i.e. the lobby, baggage claim, etc.) he wouldn't need Delta's permission at all. It's a public facility -- he can do what he wants. To obtain access to the sterile side (the gates), he would need to be escorted by a Delta employee or issued a gate pass (unlikely in this scenario, as gate passes are only issued for specific circumstances). If he wanted to go on the ramp or see any other restricted area, again he would need to be escorted.

You never answered my question, so I'll repeat it again. Does Delta have employees sitting around all day to babysit him?

And, by the way, please stop making this so personal. I've never insulted you, despite the fact that you have been disrespecting me throughout this thread. I'm proud to be a Delta employee and I work hard everyday to deliver good service to anyone, whether they're a Medallion member like yourself or a first-time flyer. I am going to come to the defense of my employer if I see someone attacking them unjustly. If you think that I can't have a debate with you on an internet forum because of your DM status, then maybe Airliners.net isn't the place for you.



Δ D E L T A: Keep Climbing
User currently offlinesankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2255 posts, RR: 2
Reply 44, posted (1 year 3 months 16 hours ago) and read 7451 times:

Photo I took of JFK T3 on March 4 this year, departing on an AA 737-800 bound for Seattle. Lots of nostalgic memories of this place, through my college years in New England when I would frequently fly Pan Am into JFK, and then connect on Ransome Airlines (Pan Am Express) to Boston.

JFK T3, soon to be torn down, photographed on March 4, 2013


User currently offlineLDVAviation From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 1056 posts, RR: 5
Reply 45, posted (1 year 3 months 16 hours ago) and read 7245 times:

Quoting EricR (Reply 42):
I can think of many iconic brands and none of those brands are iconic brands due to the buildings they occupy.

While that may be true, this is the airline business where it is hard to stand out. So a building still helps the cause of brand building. See BA and T5.

It is hard to stand out because it is largely a commodity business. Airlines compete largely on price, not product.

Even in the premium cabins, where products matters more, there is a kind of uniformity between airlines because of all the off-the-shelf products. For instance, Cathay, US, DL, and AA all use the same basic platform for their international J-seat.

Despite that, the better brands in the business have still made an effort to differentiate themselves. With an original, international First product. Delta does not offer international First. With VIP services, such as AA's Flagship Check-in. Delta has SkyPriority. With a customized version of the J seats that are available. Delta has brought us the all plastic, "hospital look." With original lounge products. Delta has nothing that compares to Cathay's Wing, the Virgin Clubhouse, or the exclusive BA Concorde Room. With a superior frequent flyer program and affinity card. AAdvantage still sets the standard here, in large part because it guarded the value of those miles, even during bankruptcy.

Now, one has to give credit where credit is due... Following bankruptcy, Delta has tried to build a brand on having PTV's in every cabin and being a reliable, well-run airline. That's just not going to earn them "iconic" status. So, yeah, an original terminal or even just an effort to preserve the originality they inherited from Pan Am might have helped the cause.

[Edited 2013-05-24 12:29:08]

User currently offlinealfa164 From United States of America, joined Oct 2012, 435 posts, RR: 0
Reply 46, posted (1 year 3 months 15 hours ago) and read 7102 times:

Quoting KGRB (Reply 43):
Yes, I read what he wrote. He was very vague in describing what kind of access he was looking to obtain. However, as I said, if he were taking photographs and interviewing people in the non-sterile areas of the terminal (i.e. the lobby, baggage claim, etc.) he wouldn't need Delta's permission at all. It's a public facility -- he can do what he wants.

Really... a "public facility"? How do I explain to the TSA that it is a public facility and I should be allowed to enter it?

No one asked Delta personnel to escort him, but he would need a pass from them... unless you know a secret entrance...


User currently offlinePSU.DTW.SCE From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 7555 posts, RR: 28
Reply 47, posted (1 year 3 months 13 hours ago) and read 6910 times:

DL doesn't have the resources to respond to every internet bloggers request, particularly when they are likely to write a slanderous piece and/or have very limited audience exposure.

User currently offlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16858 posts, RR: 51
Reply 48, posted (1 year 3 months 12 hours ago) and read 6867 times:

My Mom used to bring me to the T3 roof top parking lot to watch the Pan Am 747s European departures. I , like many other have already expressed, have very found memories. I was lucky enough to fly on Pan Am, strangely though not from JFK but from EWR to TPA on a DC-10 and L1011. With that said it's time for T-3 to be replaced, and if private investment is not provided it should be torn down. No public, Port Authority, funds should go towards retaining T3. They saved T-5 for naught, they boasted all these plans to turn T-5 into a hotel, club etc.. and nothing has ever materialized. All these ideas for T3 are the same, ideas with no funds or business plan on how it will be self sustaining.

DL's JFK passengers are getting a much improved experience, which is the big picture.



Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offlinecloudboy From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 809 posts, RR: 0
Reply 49, posted (1 year 3 months 11 hours ago) and read 6767 times:

Perhaps this is why most people don't like flying any more, find it a pain, and no longer get dressed up for it or are in good moods when they want to fly. Why pay all that money to go hang around in a shopping mall?


"Six becoming three doesn't create more Americans that want to fly." -Adam Pilarski
User currently offlinePolot From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 2158 posts, RR: 1
Reply 50, posted (1 year 3 months 11 hours ago) and read 6768 times:

Quoting cloudboy (Reply 49):
Perhaps this is why most people don't like flying any more, find it a pain, and no longer get dressed up for it or are in good moods when they want to fly. Why pay all that money to go hang around in a shopping mall?

People prefer that over crowded and outdated terminals that generally confuse and stress them out ("Are they calling my flight, or another one...?"). Attire has, of course, absolutely nothing to do with what the terminal looks like, that is rooted in culture.


User currently offlinesankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2255 posts, RR: 2
Reply 51, posted (1 year 3 months ago) and read 6496 times:

A Then and Now photo of the WorldPort interior. Sigh.

Pan Am WorldPort Then and Now


User currently offlinejfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 8326 posts, RR: 7
Reply 52, posted (1 year 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 6316 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

SAD to see Therminal 3 close and end a chapter of historic aviation. Sadly Pan AM is gone 22 years and surprising that the Worldport lasted this long, if 9/11 didn't happen DL was going to build a new terminal on the sight sooner. When T2 is fimally reired and torn down the T2 /T3 sight will get a beautiful modern addition to T1. But why has ot taken 15 years since T1 opened in 1998.

User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12426 posts, RR: 25
Reply 53, posted (1 year 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 6100 times:

Quoting STT757 (Reply 48):
They saved T-5 for naught, they boasted all these plans to turn T-5 into a hotel, club etc.. and nothing has ever materialized.

Personally I'm glad they saved T-5. I was in it during the 60s and 70s, and have seen the pictures of the parts they have restored, and nothing can give one the sensation of what it was like back then like T-5 does.

For whatever reason, T-3 just doesn't do the same thing for me. The photos in #51 above show that T-3 never achieved the 'wow' factor that one got in T-5. It's too closed in, unlike the wonderful airiness of T-5.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlinejfklganyc From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 3433 posts, RR: 5
Reply 54, posted (1 year 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 6055 times:

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 52):
When T2 is fimally reired and torn down the T2 /T3 sight will get a beautiful modern addition to T1. But why has ot taken 15 years since T1 opened in 1998.

I have never seen this on any official JFK Master Plan.

It is only speculated on a.net.

Quoting sankaps (Reply 51):
A Then and Now photo of the WorldPort interior. Sigh.

They could have done something with this rotunda. The roof leaks due to lack of maintenance for the last 10 years. Beyond that in the then and now photo, this solid structure looks remarkably the same. Very sad day yesterday. They were taking the DELTA AIR LINES sign down yesterday. I have pictures.


User currently offlinecokepopper From United States of America, joined May 2008, 1179 posts, RR: 10
Reply 55, posted (1 year 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 6042 times:

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 52):
When T2 is fimally reired and torn down the T2 /T3 sight will get a beautiful modern addition to T1.

This is your HOPE. You Hope something gets built. Reality is NOTHING has been announced except that Hardstand parking for Delta on the site of T-3 and Delta should be totally moved in T-4 by 2015.


User currently offlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16858 posts, RR: 51
Reply 56, posted (1 year 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 5950 times:

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 52):
When T2 is fimally reired and torn down the T2 /T3 sight will get a beautiful modern addition to T1

All we know is that DL will move everything to T4 by 2015, what will happen to T-2 is not known. I think we can eliminate the possibility of a new terminal. It may very well end up being the location of an expanded T-1, but I've never seen anything about that other than speculation here, or it could remain in place with some upgrades from the Port Authority to act as a non-aligned domestic / charter terminal (VX, SY etc..).

I think the next development at JFK will be BA, and other Oneworld carriers, consolidating at a fully built out T-8.



Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offlineluckyone From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 2168 posts, RR: 0
Reply 57, posted (1 year 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 5868 times:

Quoting LDVAviation (Reply 45):
That's just not going to earn them "iconic" status.

Apparently it also doesn't mean much in the long run to be "iconinc" beyond the fact that people call it "iconic." Where are the icons? Gone.


User currently offlinejfklganyc From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 3433 posts, RR: 5
Reply 58, posted (1 year 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 5863 times:

Quoting STT757 (Reply 56):
All we know is that DL will move everything to T4 by 2015, what will happen to T-2 is not known. I think we can eliminate the possibility of a new terminal. It may very well end up being the location of an expanded T-1, but I've never seen anything about that other than speculation here, or it could remain in place with some upgrades from the Port Authority to act as a non-aligned domestic / charter terminal (VX, SY etc..).

I think the next development at JFK will be BA, and other Oneworld carriers, consolidating at a fully built out T-8.

I know you appreciate this STT because you lived around here for a while.

The PA wanted to consolidate into one terminal for JFK 25 years ago. JFK 2000 I believe it was called. The airlines said no.

Magically, JFK will end up with T1, T4, T5, T7 (maybe), and T8. 4 large terminals. With a possible 5th smaller one. Just a few years ago, JFK had a hodge podge collection of 10 old terminals.

Funny how cosolidation happened all on its own


User currently offlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16858 posts, RR: 51
Reply 59, posted (1 year 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 5759 times:

Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 58):
The PA wanted to consolidate into one terminal for JFK 25 years ago. JFK 2000 I believe it was called. The airlines said no.

Yeah they wanted to model the airport somewhat after MCO or TPA, they even began work on the under ground tunnel for the baggage system. That "tunnel to no where" was all over the news about 20 years ago. That plan also included a much better plan for an Airtrain that would have connected directly to a new terminal on the East Side of Manhattan, via the outer roadway of the Williamsburg bridge which would have been converted to accommodate the Airtrain Light rail. I believe the outer roadway of the Williamsburg was originally designed for street cars, and could easily have been adapted for light rail similar to the PATCO over the Ben Franklin Bridge.



Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12426 posts, RR: 25
Reply 60, posted (1 year 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 5769 times:

Quoting STT757 (Reply 56):
All we know is that DL will move everything to T4 by 2015

Not sure I agree.

In Delta Announces Phase III Of JFK T4 (by Atlflyer May 25 2013 in Civil Aviation) we read:

Quote:

The third phase will allow Delta to consolidate all of its operations in terminal 4, says Gail Grimmett, senior vice-president for New York, on the sidelines of the event. The airline will still operate some select mainline flights from terminal 2 after phase two opens, she explains.

Delta is in discussions with the PANYNJ and JFK IAT regarding the third phase but has yet to determine a timeline the project, she says.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...sion-announces-third-phase-386342/

So surely the interest is there, yet no firm plan to make it happen, yet.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineDeltal1011man From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 9321 posts, RR: 14
Reply 61, posted (1 year 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 5654 times:

Quoting just7four7 (Reply 25):

Too many people today live and behave like nomads, in a global world of n'importe quoi, so have little feeling for things that define time and place.

ah yes. Damn people for being financially responsible
What we need is more people and companies that act like they US government, that can't fail. (just ask Russia...oh wait)

Quoting alfa164 (Reply 29):

lol.

Quoting alfa164 (Reply 33):
without being a ticketed passenger or getting Delta's approval? No... and maybe that is what he wanted.

You fly a lot but clearly know little about who can do what and where they can go. Delta has to follow TSA,DHS and FAA rules. They can't just let someone in to take pictures because everyone will want to do it. Its not nearly as simple as you think it is.

Quoting AwysBSB (Reply 38):
Please, share more information about such an impossibility.

the taxiways between T2/3/4 are to small for double aircraft movements.

Quoting AwysBSB (Reply 38):
Has the locations of T2 and of T4's concourse B any guilt for that?

uh...sure? Hey lets take down T2 and T4 and save T3 hahahahahahaha

Quoting AwysBSB (Reply 38):
Would it exist if aircraft were RJs?

yes. The building is in the way. They also lose most of the hard stands over at T4 and they have to be rebuilt somewhere. thus....T3 land will become hard stand land. That gives Delta the ability to do work on airplanes (cleaning, washing, MX ect.) and not take up valuable gate space.

Quoting AwysBSB (Reply 38):
The second possibility is more likely, since a premium terminal is lacking to NYC market.

No its not. T3 will be gone, or become empty. Delta is moving to T4, period. They aren't going to do anything with T3. (and simply aren't going to pay for it)

Quoting LDVAviation (Reply 41):

How is Delta trying to become an iconic brand? By adding 9 gates to an existing corporate box and proclaiming it a "gleaming new terminal."

They have a terminal comparable to B6,UA and AA. Period. (and they have a terminal comparable to most international gateways in the US)

Quoting LDVAviation (Reply 41):

Pan Am was an iconic brand, in no small part due to its association with the original architecture of the Worldport. It was groundbreaking, even if it was not designed by a famous architect.

Ok, good plan. Do things like PA. Worked so well the first time.

Quoting LDVAviation (Reply 45):

While that may be true, this is the airline business where it is hard to stand out. So a building still helps the cause of brand building. See BA and T5.

I have seen it. Its a terminal. Its nice i guess.....but its a terminal. I am not going to pay more to fly BA because of T5.
you're not really comparing apples to apples. BA has one airport to worry about, Delta has hubs in a ton of cities. they have to spread that budget across a much larger system than BA does.

Quoting LDVAviation (Reply 45):
Delta has nothing that compares to Cathay's Wing, the Virgin Clubhouse, or the exclusive BA Concorde Room. With a superior frequent flyer program and affinity card

And no one in the US does. You keep comparing apples to bananas

Quoting LDVAviation (Reply 45):
So, yeah, an original terminal or even just an effort to preserve the originality they inherited from Pan Am might have helped the cause.

How has it helped B6? how many people(with data) fly B6 and pay more to fly B6 because they built a terminal around T5? It was so important that the building sits empty with no real future.
T3 is falling apart, It is simply not justifiable to investors to put billions into the building when they will be able to completely move to T4, a very nice terminal comparable to the other big three in NYC, for less. Not only that but Delta wants to be in a single terminal, Even if they spent the money on T3 they would still have to have a (at least) another terminal and an expanded footprint because they would have to be able to have aircraft sit at gates due to lack of hard stands.



yep.
User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25125 posts, RR: 22
Reply 62, posted (1 year 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 5512 times:

Quoting aviateur (Reply 26):
When the Beatles landed at JFK in '64, is it true that the press conference during which John Lennon made the famous/infamous quote about the Beatles being "bigger than Jesus," took place in a press room inside terminal 3?

I know there's a Pan Am globe in the background of the footage from that interview, but I'm uncertain if the room was at JFK, or at Pan Am's skyscraper over on Park Avenue.

I'm guessing it was in the International Arrivals Building (or whatever it was called then) based on the generic airport logos apart from the few Pan Am logos. From the video of the arrival, which also includes footage of the press conference, it looks like their chartered Pan Am 707-331 (N704PA, Clipper Defiance) parked at the IAB. Isn't that the building with the observation deck visible in the video?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Df-LvrRcEo

The aircraft used (photo below) was one of 6 early 707-331s ordered by TWA but cancelled before delivery and acquired by Pan Am in 1959/60, registered N701PA through N706PA.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Lars Söderström



User currently offlineLDVAviation From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 1056 posts, RR: 5
Reply 63, posted (1 year 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 5365 times:

Quoting Deltal1011man (Reply 61):
They have a terminal comparable to B6,UA and AA. Period. (and they have a terminal comparable to most international gateways in the US)

If by "most," you mean United at Chicago. Then No. AA at Miami. No. Not even AA at JFK, with the dramatic proportions to its concourses and ticketing lobby.

Quoting Deltal1011man (Reply 61):
BA has one airport to worry about, Delta has hubs in a ton of cities. they have to spread that budget across a much larger system than BA does.

Very well and good, but I am not the one who wants Delta to be an iconic brand. I was referencing a statement made by Richard Anderson. If he is going say that he wants Delta to be an iconic brand, he is going to have do more than give the flying public warehouse-like airport facilities, PTV's, the "hospital look," SkyPesos, and a sideways logo.


Quoting Deltal1011man (Reply 61):
And no one in the US does. You keep comparing apples to bananas

You keep making excuses for Delta, but excuses do not make for an "iconic" brand. Again, that is Delta's ambition according to Richard Anderson.


User currently offlineDeltal1011man From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 9321 posts, RR: 14
Reply 64, posted (1 year 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 5357 times:

Quoting LDVAviation (Reply 63):
Not even AA at JFK, with the dramatic proportions to its concourses and ticketing lobby.

in your opinion

Quoting LDVAviation (Reply 63):
Then No. AA at Miami.

in your opinion

Of course Delta won't ever be able to do anything better than American.  
Quoting LDVAviation (Reply 63):
Very well and good, but I am not the one who wants Delta to be an iconic brand. I was referencing a statement made by Richard Anderson. If he is going say that he wants Delta to be an iconic brand, he is going to have do more than give the flying public warehouse-like airport facilities, PTV's, the "hospital look," SkyPesos, and a sideways logo.

in your opinion.

Quoting LDVAviation (Reply 63):

You keep making excuses for Delta, but excuses do not make for an "iconic" brand. Again, that is Delta's ambition according to Richard Anderson.

I'm not making excuses at all. I know what Delta is trying to do. You clearly do not. At all.
They are working toward a solid US airline. When he says iconic airline he doesn't just mean to PAX. Its to PAXs, Employees and investors. Its a slow process but they are getting there.



yep.
User currently offlinealfa164 From United States of America, joined Oct 2012, 435 posts, RR: 0
Reply 65, posted (1 year 2 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 4974 times:

Quoting Deltal1011man (Reply 64):
Quoting LDVAviation (Reply 63):Not even AA at JFK, with the dramatic proportions to its concourses and ticketing lobby.
in your opinion

Quoting LDVAviation (Reply 63):Then No. AA at Miami.
in your opinion

I have just returned through T4 (and then departed), and I must say LDV has a much more accurate picture than 1011 (and, by the way, I loved the L1011.... but that's another issue)..

The good news: Customs and Immigration is much better than T3, and quite quick (I was in BE, so I was at the front of our line). Once back in the departure gates, though, it was... just another airline terminal. The Sky Club was fine, if somewhat aniseptic (the DTW club is still my favorite; I am not really a fan of the "mid-60's modern look" in the new/remodeled clubs). The concourse seems a little brighter, but the low ceilings and overall blandness of the scene is nothing special. I remember being in the rotunda of T3 many times, always feeling that, by eliminating the add-ons and closed-off second level food court (the pictures above on Reply 51 show the original), it would still be a timeless terminal that seems like a real home for a premium (iconic?) airline. Alas, its replacement - T4 - is just another, albeit more-efficient, warehouse for flyers. If Southwest Airlines gets downgraded for its "cattle car" boarding, then T4 is Delta's cattle chute.

So I have to agree: It's no T8. It's no Inchon. It's not even up to the standards of Detroit. Millions of passengers won't care. Those of us who do... we're still saerching...


User currently offlineUnited1 From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 5935 posts, RR: 9
Reply 66, posted (1 year 2 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 4955 times:

Quoting Deltal1011man (Reply 61):
They aren't going to do anything with T3. (and simply aren't going to pay for it)

Well they are going to do something with it even if its just tearing it down to make hardstands...  The cost of remediating the site (and I assure you it's full of and surrounded by lots of toxic waste) is actually a decent chunk of the projects budget.



Semper Fi - PowerPoint makes us stupid.
User currently offlinealfa164 From United States of America, joined Oct 2012, 435 posts, RR: 0
Reply 67, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 4417 times:

Quoting Deltal1011man (Reply 64):
I'm not making excuses at all. I know what Delta is trying to do. You clearly do not. At all.
They are working toward a solid US airline. When he says iconic airline he doesn't just mean to PAX. Its to PAXs, Employees and investors. Its a slow process but they are getting there.

One would think that, in order to become an "iconic" airline with employees and investors, one might first concentrate on becoming "iconic" with passengers. After all, we are the ones paying the bills.

I really think DL could have built a terminal that would have awed us, and made us WANT to fly thrtough it. Looking back, I wonder if I am seeing the attitude of the old NW management, rather then pre-merger Delta, in some of these decisions.


User currently offlinesankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2255 posts, RR: 2
Reply 68, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 4406 times:

Quoting alfa164 (Reply 67):
Looking back, I wonder if I am seeing the attitude of the old NW management, rather then pre-merger Delta, in some of these decisions.

Old NW management brought us the Detroit McNamara terminal, one of the nicest and most "wow-inducing" terminals in the US today.


User currently offlinealfa164 From United States of America, joined Oct 2012, 435 posts, RR: 0
Reply 69, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 4382 times:

Quoting sankaps (Reply 68):
Old NW management brought us the Detroit McNamara terminal, one of the nicest and most "wow-inducing" terminals in the US today.


I have to agree; DTW is my favorite domestic hub. I didn't know whether the City of Detroit or NW was the catalyst behind it, but whoever it was, they deserve kudos.

So, knowing that... how can we explain the letdown that T4 induces?


User currently offlinesankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2255 posts, RR: 2
Reply 70, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 4352 times:

Quoting alfa164 (Reply 69):
I have to agree; DTW is my favorite domestic hub. I didn't know whether the City of Detroit or NW was the catalyst behind it, but whoever it was, they deserve kudos.

So, knowing that... how can we explain the letdown that T4 induces?

NWA drove the design and layout of the DTW terminal. One difference from T4 is that one was a new terminal from the ground up, and the other is an extension of an existing terminal.


User currently offlineAwysBSB From Brazil, joined Sep 2005, 561 posts, RR: 0
Reply 71, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 4189 times:

Quoting Deltal1011man (Reply 61):

You are considering mostly the non saucer area, which is to be demolished and substituted by ramp. Such a disturbance in aircraft traffic caused only by the umbrella building is quite small.
As for the number of hard stand positions, what T4 expansion took is more than what T3 deactivation left.
Thus, that absolves the hole T3 of a immediate demolition, allowing some new and temporary functions for the T3 non saucer area. Perhaps that part of T3 could be used as a warehouse (for cleaning, washing, MX stuffs) and even as a catering building.
The saucer building would still become a premium terminal.


User currently offlineFlyASAGuy2005 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 7004 posts, RR: 11
Reply 72, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 4058 times:

Let's get over it people. T3 is done and dead!!!

BTW, Delta did have an official send-off of T3 although it was a private event for employees. Food, games, photo booths, spaces to sign on the walks of the building and music. There was even a time capsule that was put together from what I read that will be opened approximately 20 years from now..



What gets measured gets done.
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7877 posts, RR: 52
Reply 73, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 3991 times:

Quoting alfa164 (Reply 67):
I really think DL could have built a terminal that would have awed us, and made us WANT to fly thrtough it.

Besides a.netters, I don't think many would want to fly through a terminal that awed them. I think people care more about it being functional and not cramped, which the new terminal should accomplish. Beyond that, I don't think there is much to gain on the passenger side so the airline should then take ops and cost into affect.

And don't get me wrong, I'm not saying people don't care about terminals, I just don't think many normal people care if the saucer is kept, nor will they connect to a different airport just for a "nice looking structure." They'll avoid disastrous, crappy airports and may favor an easy to connect through terminal, but I don't think they'll go much beyond that



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlinebrilondon From Canada, joined Aug 2005, 4204 posts, RR: 1
Reply 74, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 3935 times:

Quoting LDVAviation (Reply 41):
Pan Am was an iconic brand, in no small part due to its association with the original architecture of the Worldport. It was groundbreaking, even if it was not designed by a famous architect.

Pan Am was an iconic brand long before the terminal was built. It was prestigious to fly on PA back in the days of the clipper aircraft of the 30's and 40's. Flying across the Pacific Ocean in their flying boats was what made PA an airline of prestige and today there are really no prestigious airlines like Pan Am.



Rush for ever; Yankees all the way!!
User currently offlinealfa164 From United States of America, joined Oct 2012, 435 posts, RR: 0
Reply 75, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 3802 times:

Quoting brilondon (Reply 74):
today there are really no prestigious airlines like Pan

While SQ might argue with that statement (or, perhaps more correctly, that might have had a good argument 5-10 years ago), I believe it is correct - and sad. Worse than that, no airline seems to want to be prestigious like PanAm... and thus we get cookie-cutter edifices like T4.


User currently offlinebrilondon From Canada, joined Aug 2005, 4204 posts, RR: 1
Reply 76, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 3790 times:

Quoting alfa164 (Reply 75):
While SQ might argue with that statement (or, perhaps more correctly, that might have had a good argument 5-10 years ago), I believe it is correct - and sad. Worse than that, no airline seems to want to be prestigious like PanAm... and thus we get cookie-cutter edifices like T4.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5w62...UovM&list=FLnctbsNr_JOsF1CIGyEgecA

This is the way Pan Am use to be. This was the way people who were anybody wanted to fly on Pan Am. There is no comparison today as far as I am concerned.



Rush for ever; Yankees all the way!!
User currently offlineluckyone From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 2168 posts, RR: 0
Reply 77, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 3751 times:

Quoting alfa164 (Reply 75):
While SQ might argue with that statement (or, perhaps more correctly, that might have had a good argument 5-10 years ago), I believe it is correct - and sad. Worse than that, no airline seems to want to be prestigious like PanAm... and thus we get cookie-cutter edifices like T4.

You're also talking about a time when hardly anybody flew, much less could afford to fly. Therefore, the rich rich and famous are willing to pay for, and expect service that I am not. Services were infrequent. Fares, routes, and capacities were rigorously regulated. Once all that was taken away Pan Am and many of its peers floundered in an environment they were ill-equipped and ill-prepared to handle. Not to mention the politicking that won them their prized status doomed them in the long run. Once prestige stopped being important and they were forced to compete, Pan Am ceased to be something special. And then it ceased to exist. Flying is no longer prestigious. We have proven that we aren't willing to pay extra for it. I don't understand why people yearn for something they most likely wouldn't have been able to access. 1960's Pan Am would be unfeasible for me. 2013 Delta is feasible.


User currently offlineLDVAviation From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 1056 posts, RR: 5
Reply 78, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 3681 times:

Quoting alfa164 (Reply 75):
While SQ might argue with that statement (or, perhaps more correctly, that might have had a good argument 5-10 years ago), I believe it is correct - and sad. Worse than that, no airline seems to want to be prestigious like PanAm... and thus we get cookie-cutter edifices like T4.

It wasn't always like that...

The United terminal at ORD is testament to a time when United wanted very much to build an iconic brand in the spirit of Pan Am. Indeed, Terminal 1 ORD remains the most distinctive terminal built and designed for a single airline, that is still functioning. It has its flaws, but it is a clear and complete expression as a building.

Likewise, Miami Concourse D, LAX T4 and, JFK T8 are testament to a time when American tried to build a brand with not just one, but three signature terminals. Events just conspired against them. At Miami, costs started to mount and construction dragged on. At LAX, T4 was almost finished before 9/11, everything except the canopy that was to be the exterior's most distinctive feature. And, of course, most everyone knows what happened to T8 after 9/11. Still they gave it a shot. It is even possible that one day AA could redress the omissions to T4 LAX and T8 JFK.

As for Delta, except for the misguided attempt to build in Boston before 9/11, they have been purveyors of the warehouse-style.


User currently offlineDeltal1011man From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 9321 posts, RR: 14
Reply 79, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 3642 times:

Quoting alfa164 (Reply 67):

I really think DL could have built a terminal that would have awed us, and made us WANT to fly thrtough it. Looking back, I wonder if I am seeing the attitude of the old NW management, rather then pre-merger Delta, in some of these decisions.

So you are telling me that you would pay more to fly Delta had they built some amazing terminal?

and you are willing to pay a high premium to fly AA via T8?

Quoting AwysBSB (Reply 71):

No all of T3 is in the way. You wanting to save it doesn't put it on some remote island. Its in they way, period.
In a little bit it won't be in the way though.

Quoting alfa164 (Reply 65):

I have just returned through T4 (and then departed), and I must say LDV has a much more accurate picture than 1011 (and, by the way, I loved the L1011.... but that's another issue)..

So how does that work? I mean he is right and i am wrong kinda thing?

Good for you, I have also been inside the new T4. Its a terminal. T8 is a terminal. I spend maybe an hour in them. I like the walk before and after a flight(but I'm not lazy). I want Delta to invest in its product. I don't want a dump like T3 is, but I am completely happy with T4, Atlanta, T5 at LAX etc. They are terminals. I'd much rather they save the money and add IFE or lie-flats or better food or whatever to the aircraft I am in for 8 hours....not the 30 minute gate.

and honestly, T8 isn't much better than T4......



yep.
User currently offlinealfa164 From United States of America, joined Oct 2012, 435 posts, RR: 0
Reply 80, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 3573 times:

Quoting Deltal1011man (Reply 79):
and honestly, T8 isn't much better than T4......

As a DL employee, I might suspect you have a jaundiced view. I will admit I have been a Delta fanatic; I flew more than 200,000 miles with them last year (yes, I am a DM), but I have also been in T8, LAX T5 (which I like, excepted for the compromised security checkpoint and the pitifully small customs/immigration area), and many other terminals. To pharaphrase someone else:

"I know T8. I have flown through T8. And T4... you are no T8."

Apologies to the late Lloyd Bentsen.


User currently offlinecloudboy From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 809 posts, RR: 0
Reply 81, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 3419 times:

Quoting luckyone (Reply 77):
We have proven that we aren't willing to pay extra for it. I don't understand why people yearn for something they most likely wouldn't have been able to access. 1960's Pan Am would be unfeasible for me. 2013 Delta is feasible.

Haven't you just disproven your point then? People, contrary to the bean counter's opinion, are not cargo containers. Why is it such a huge jump for anyone associated with aviation to think that maybe passengers aren't willing to pay any more because the experience - and I am talking about from the moment they climb into whatever means of transportation they use to get to the airport to the moment they check into their hotel - is such a painful and unengaging one? I agree a dirty claustrophobic terminal is non helpful. That isn't a function of the terminal itself here - that is trying to cram too many profit generating points and poor interior planning. Clean it up and make it an attractive place and a welcome experience. And get passengers to choose your flight because the change of flights is much nicer in JFK than in EWR.

B6 got this terribly wrong. Their whole market campaign was a return to the thrill of flying in the 60s. Yet they take what was arguably one of the top icons of that notion and then block it off and complain about it not being useable. There are lots of things they could do with it -they just don't want to do any of those, and so it sits. Personally I think they should take it from B6 AND the Port Authority. Let someone else do something with it.



"Six becoming three doesn't create more Americans that want to fly." -Adam Pilarski
User currently offlineDTWPurserBoy From United States of America, joined Feb 2010, 1617 posts, RR: 7
Reply 82, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 3376 times:

[quote=sankaps,reply=70]NWA drove the design and layout of the DTW terminal. One difference from T4 is that one was a new terminal from the ground up, and the other is an extension of an existing terminal.

The old DTW terminal had all the warmth and charm of a 1959 bomb shelter. NW worked well with the airport commission to design a terminal complex that was simple to use and pleasing to the eye.

A few things they could have improved upon. Food sources are scattered everywhere and the tunnel with the moving sidewalks connecting Terminal A with B and C is creepy. Most people loath the computer generated music and flashing lights. The B and C terminals have grown to the point where they need a tram system of their own.

One complaint which I never understood was why people had so much difficulty in finding their gates. They come in at Gate A5 and depart out of gate 55. It is a straight line! STILL they get lost.

They also think DTW is on CST...it is on EST so they have to make announcements telling passengers this--people were showing up at their gates an hour after their flight had left--even though all the flight monitors have clocks on them.



Qualified on Concorde/B707/B720/B727/B737/B747/B757/B767/B777/DC-8/DC-9/DC-10/A319/A320/A330/MD-88-90
User currently offlineluckyone From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 2168 posts, RR: 0
Reply 83, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 3338 times:

Quoting cloudboy (Reply 81):
Haven't you just disproven your point then?

I'm not sure how. NOt saying that you are wrong but I just don't see how you could extrapolate that I disproved myself from what I stated. I said that to pine for something as iconic as Pan Am for what it was in the 1960's as anything but a member of the elite or wealthy would likely have put Pan Am out of one's reach. And that once the "special" was taken away from Pan Am because everyone was given free access, it stopped being special because it stopped being unique. With regards to the facilities, T3 is being torn down because it is dysfunctional (abhorrently so based on just one experience for me) and is being replaced by a facility that is functional and more flexible. I don't recall saying anything about Delta being glamorous. I was using it as an example. I could've easily said any of the other airlines, because they aren't glamorous either. Pan Am of its heyday was a Rolls Royce. Well, I don't need nor want a Rolls Royce, and even if I did I wouldn't be able to have one. I need, and can afford a Ford or a Toyota.

Quoting cloudboy (Reply 81):
B6 got this terribly wrong. Their whole market campaign was a return to the thrill of flying in the 60s. Yet they take what was arguably one of the top icons of that notion and then block it off and complain about it not being useable.

I think you proved my point here, just in different words. Just because something is iconic, doesn't mean that the effort to preserve it is worth it in the long run.


User currently offlinerichierich From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 4247 posts, RR: 6
Reply 84, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 3305 times:

Quoting cloudboy (Reply 81):
B6 got this terribly wrong. Their whole market campaign was a return to the thrill of flying in the 60s. Yet they take what was arguably one of the top icons of that notion and then block it off and complain about it not being useable. There are lots of things they could do with it -they just don't want to do any of those, and so it sits. Personally I think they should take it from B6 AND the Port Authority. Let someone else do something with it.

I don't think you'll find too many people at B6 that regret opening the new T5 at JFK in 2008. I like B6 - and always have - but nobody who was around in the 50s and 60s will mistake their operations at JFK for anything close to TWA or Pan Am in their heyday, so despite what the airline's marketing may imply, capturing the nostalgia of a bygone era was never Jetblue's objective. Times change, and using the Saarinen building was not an option given the number of flights they planned on flying or for achieving their long term goals at the airport.

I have a respect for the past and for airline/airport memorabilia but one cannot horde every building just because it has one or two historical elements. An airport like JFK is a living, evolving environment with significant space constraints, and for reasons that maybe obvious to some, less obvious to others, DL decided to invest their money in a new terminal rather than try to make fit the square peg in a round hole that was T3.

I will miss T3 - or the "Pan Am Terminal" as it was known for so long - but I accept that it has, like Saarinen's T5, outlived its usefulness a long time ago.



None shall pass!!!!
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7877 posts, RR: 52
Reply 85, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 3162 times:

Quoting alfa164 (Reply 75):
Worse than that, no airline seems to want to be prestigious like PanAm... and thus we get cookie-cutter edifices like T4.

More like no one wants to pay extra money for prestigious airlines like PanAm

Consumers (at least in the US) are demanding 2 things: rock bottom prices and much better service. You have to pick one or the other, we can't blame the US's carriers race to the bottom solely on the airlines



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
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...
Bay Runway Is Open For Business At JFK posted Mon Jun 28 2010 16:20:36 by contrails15
4L-22R Open For Business At JFK Again. posted Fri May 1 2009 11:58:38 by Contrails15
What Is Final Day For YX MD-80? posted Mon Sep 1 2008 07:29:36 by 727LOVER
Comair 5637 Sits For Hours At JFK posted Tue Jun 26 2007 17:18:23 by B6ramprat
Any Pan Am Remnants At T3 At JFK? posted Fri Jun 17 2005 15:38:00 by RJpieces
First Day For TED At MDW (04/03) posted Mon Apr 4 2005 17:59:00 by ORD777
Emergency Landing For BWIA At JFK? posted Mon Sep 20 2004 16:02:13 by Jetblue15
Today: Final Day For Dornier 328s Of US Express posted Tue Sep 7 2004 17:09:23 by Supa7E7
It Was A Strange Day For Cargo At SEA, Why? posted Thu Oct 10 2002 05:27:50 by Clickhappy
Dates For N707JT At JFK posted Fri Aug 16 2002 18:01:00 by Setjet