I'd be curious to hear your analysis of the PA Worldport (current Delta terminal 3). I know it's not as celebrated as Saarinen's terminal for its materials -- ie, the emotive use of concrete in the Saarinen building -- but I think that formally and programatically it's as complicated and interesting. Especially in its orientation to the street it anounces itself to a greater extent than Saarinen's terminal, which sits flat as if it had been "plunked down" onto the site.
Also, its treatment of both vehicular and pedestrian traffic is quite unusual. For instance, whereas at the Saarinen building vehicular traffic moves in a linear direction in front of the terminal, at the Worldport it threads through the interstitial spaces between the two components of the terminal, exploring the inner world of the building and engaging with it in a more involved way.
The contrast in pedestrian traffic flow at the two terminal is also bears analysis. At the Saarinen terminal pedestrians move linearly from the street, through the terminal, to the gate. The pedestrian journey at the Worldport is far more labyrinthine -- to the point where passengers often find it difficult to know where, exactly, they are in the terminal (a criticism of the building, perhaps, but interesting nonetheless). In all, I think the intertwined pedestrian and vehicular travel routes makes for a more experential journey from the car or bus to the plane at the Worldport than at Saarinen's terminal. Though not analogous to flight the way Saarinen's building is, it remains interesting on its own merits.
Just some thoughts. I'd be really interested in your opinions.