Islander
Topic Author
Posts: 160
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2001 8:05 pm

When JFK Was Idlewild

Sun Jun 30, 2002 11:31 pm

Can anyone tell me what the three letter code for the airport was when it was called Idlewild?And does anyone agree that Idlewild is a name which is evocative of the days when flying was truly glamorous?JFK just doesn't do it for me.

Thanks.
 
User avatar
STT757
Posts: 13173
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 1:14 am

RE: When JFK Was Idlewild

Mon Jul 01, 2002 12:04 am

I think JFK is a much more prestigous name, how many people outside Queens know what Idlewild was ( a golf course).

Almost everybody no matter what country they're from know who JFK was, and where JFK airport is located.
Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
 
User avatar
PW100
Posts: 2723
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 9:17 pm

RE: When JFK Was Idlewild

Mon Jul 01, 2002 12:09 am

Well, the name JFK has gone down with the airport as it was deteriorating through the years, with minimal quality improvements since construction of the Sarinen designed TWA terminal. The airport authority [port of NY] has really let the airport slip, and allowed it to go down the drain [just like LHR]. The reason may very well be that these cities [London, New York] have so much O&D traffic, that they do not need to invest in quality improvements in order to draw extra pax, they will come anyway...

However, in the coming 10 years, JFK will be almost totally rebuilt. After terminal 1 [late nineties] and IAB terminal 4 [just finished phase 1], lots of other projects are in progress or will start soon including;
* total rebuild of terminal 8, 9 by AA 2000-2008
* total rebuild of Delta termnals 2, 3
* phase 2 terminal 4, connecting with Delta terminals
* JFK air train

I may have missed some projects, but these projects total about 5 to 7 Billion dollars. Expect that JFK will regain some of the lost glamour once these projects are finished! JFK has a great future!

Does anyone knows if there are any plans for more runways? Is there space around/at JFK for one or two additonal parallel runways?

PW100
Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
 
garuda
Posts: 573
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2000 10:53 pm

RE: When JFK Was Idlewild

Mon Jul 01, 2002 1:43 am

Hmm.. nobody seems to answer the question...

Btw, Idlewild was IDL
 
User avatar
STT757
Posts: 13173
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 1:14 am

RE: When JFK Was Idlewild

Mon Jul 01, 2002 1:50 am

It's the Port Authority of NY and NJ, and they control the 4 NY airports (EWR, LGA, JFK and Teterboro), the Wall Street Heliport, World Trade Center, PATH trains, Port Authority bus terminal, Holland and Lincoln tunnels, George Washington Bridge, Bayonne Bridge, Outerbridge, Geothals bridge.

They've sunk Billions into JFK, it's the airlines that don't invest in JFK. There's no hub flights from JFK, only one flight to ORD!..

The AA Terminal project will open the new mid-field concourse by late 2003 or early 2004. The whole project will be complete by 2006. Terminal 4 is completet and looks great, Terminal One was completed in 1997. The DL Terminal projects is all but forgotten, DL is concentrating it's efforts elsewhere (BOS). The replacement terminal for Terminal 6 to house UA and B6 has been scrapped, BA is in the midst of doing a great renovation of their Terminal. I was in Terminal 7 last year and the place looks great, although they still are working on the arrivals area.

The first segement of the JFK Airtrain will open late this year, the first segemtn will be the Terminal area loop and the connection to the A train station at Howard Beach. The connection to the LIRR at Jamaica will be complete in 2003.

As for new runways they're not needed. The runways they have a well placed, it's just the noise abatements (Canarsie approach) routings over less populated areas that cause the problems. Adding more runways will not solve the capacity issues at JFK, re-mapping the area's flight paths and spreading out the peak period departures and arrivals are whats needed.

EWR is the airport the needs new runways the most.
Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
 
concorde1518
Posts: 723
Joined: Thu May 17, 2001 12:02 pm

RE: When JFK Was Idlewild

Mon Jul 01, 2002 4:33 am

What's the deal with the new AA terminal.... I've heard of it, and that it will redo the 8 and 9 terminals, and add a midfield concourse, but can anyone give me some more info on it, or a picture of the artist's conception/ master plan?


Thanks
 Smile
 
strickerje
Posts: 706
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2001 1:35 pm

RE: When JFK Was Idlewild

Mon Jul 01, 2002 4:50 am

That's right, back when it was called Idlewild, its code was IDL. Of course, when it was renamed and its code became JFK, the code IDL became available. So, since it was reasonably well known, a mid-sized general aviation airport near where I live decided to grab it - IDL is now Indianola, MS.

Just a bit of trivia.  Smile

-Jeffrey
 
Rai
Posts: 1697
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2008 6:12 pm

RE: When JFK Was Idlewild

Mon Jul 01, 2002 5:12 am

Strickerjie says:
Of course, when it was renamed and its code became JFK, the code IDL became available.

Actually, the code became KIA (Kennedy International Airport). It was changed to JFK in the 70's.

Personally, I like the name John F. Kennedy International Airport. He may have been a creep of a President, but it's a really cool name! It's strong, has fortitude. It should stick around.

I agree with STT757's comments for the most part. JFK is currently way under capacity and can handle a lot more flights with it's current runway configuration. The runways are spaced far enough apart to allow multiple simultaneous movements. I've actually wittnessed three planes landing simultaneously before and they can even pull off simultaneous departures (without even using the parallel runways). They seem to be doing the latter a lot more than before. I don't see a need for new runways just yet. If the need ever arises, they can always reclaim land from Jamaica Bay.

EWR is the airport the needs new runways the most.

Very true, but where are they going to get the space for that? I don't see how EWR can grow anymore.
 
CMK10
Posts: 1826
Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2004 10:56 am

RE: When JFK Was Idlewild

Mon Jul 01, 2002 5:12 am

What most people don't know is that it wasn't JFK until after the Vietnam War. Before hand it was KIA (Kennedy International Airport) but we assumed people would mistake it for Killed In Action and not be too happy.
Free Trivia!
DC-10's Forever
"Traveling light is the only way to fly" - Eric Clapton
 
User avatar
PW100
Posts: 2723
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 9:17 pm

RE: When JFK Was Idlewild

Mon Jul 01, 2002 5:21 am

Trivia all over the place indeed...
KIA. You don't like flying; all those high profile hijacking and airliner crashes in seventies. Now you're about to board a PanAm or TWA [talking about high profile airliners, were nr.1 on black septemebers list] and you're departure airport is K I A. . .

I agree that JFK doesn't require an additional runway anytime soon. However after AA finished their new terminal [will they build JFK to hub-status?], with 50-60 gates, and jetBlue increasing their presence at JFK, JFK just might need some additional runway capacity...

How about Delta? Will they grow their JFK operations?

PW100
Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
 
FrequentFlier
Posts: 410
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2000 10:45 am

RE: When JFK Was Idlewild

Mon Jul 01, 2002 5:50 am

"The replacement terminal for Terminal 6 to house UA and B6 has been scrapped"

Has it really? Where did this information come from?
 
Rai
Posts: 1697
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2008 6:12 pm

RE: When JFK Was Idlewild

Mon Jul 01, 2002 6:44 am

Hi. I don't believe that AA will dramatically increase their operations out of JFK. The only reason they are completing construction on the new terminal is because they were beyond the point of no return post-9/11, and it wouldn't make economic sense for them to halt or even postpone the project. AA has never had hub operations, don't have hub operations and probably never will have hub operations at JFK. Right now they fly to LHR, CDG, LAX, SFO, RDU, DFW, LGB, ONT, MCO, MIA, NRT, BOS, DCA and I'm sure there are a few others. But it's not a huge selection of destinations and AA has never stated any intention to increase the scope of their operations here. Besides, they have three hubs already -- DFW, ORD and STL. JFK would make a great gateway city for them and I think that's what they intend to do. I could be wrong though and I hope I am -- I would LOVE to have a major have hub operations out of JFK.

With the exception of LHR, Delta operates the old TWA routes to Europe. They have a few domestic flights to ATL, LAX, SFO, MIA, MCO, FLL and perhaps a few others, plus a flight to YYZ (which is essentially a feeder flight for SA's flight to JHB). No major hub operations from them. I believe they do operate the most of flights out of here though. Delta just has gateway city operations at JFK and their present facilities suit them fine. The terminal upgrade was for cosmetics only. Why they're continuing with the terminal construction at Boston is beyond me, especially since they axed the flight to LGW.

JetBlue, on the other hand, is dramatically increasing their presence here. They are the biggest domestic carrier at JFK and will soon be number one in movements too. I don't see too, too aggressive expansion, maybe adding some more frequencies to routes they presently serve. Prior to 9/11, JetBlue wanted to increase their operations by 300 flights within the next year. I don't think they'll do that anytime, especially with AA lurking around. AA has been aggressively targeting JetBlue routes, trying to run them out of business. I hope JetBlue's management is smart enough to realize this and hold off on their aggressive expansion for now.

Even so, I don't think JFK will need new runways soon. What they have now is more than enough for a large scale growth in airline operations. I cannot emphasize enough how UNDER capacity JFK is now -- even before 9/11. But things are somewhat back to normal now, which still means there's always room for more.
 
User avatar
STT757
Posts: 13173
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 1:14 am

RE: When JFK Was Idlewild

Mon Jul 01, 2002 9:17 am

The new terminal to replace Terminal 6 at JFK was taken out of the Port Authority's ten year plan recently passed, higher security costs associated with the tunnels, bridges, airports and the PATH have eaten up most of that funding.

Also the PA is in the midst of rebuilding the WTC PATH line and the destroyed stations, that's estimated to cost $2-3 Billion. And don't forget all the lost revenue the Port Authority is missing with the destruction of the various buildings they owned at the WTC.

DL quietly announced they were shelving their JFK plans, with B6 eating up domestic revenue's and AA building up it's international presence at JFK when their new Terminal is complete the oportunity for DL to grow at JFK is no longer realistic. They're going to concentrate on BOS, LGA, and ATL.

The AA Terminal project involves tearing down the current Terminals 8 and 9 and replacing them with a single Terminal and mid field concourse.

I'll see if I can post a rendering later, the thing to keep in mind about AA's JFK plans is that out of those 50 gates 20-25 are for regional jets. And One World partners will be in there as well.

As for EWR, there's three solutions for new runways. Reclaim some land from the Port and move 14 R futher from 14 L by placing it across the Turnpike on the East side of the Turnpike where there's a CSX yard. That should put the distance between 14L and the new 14 R at 3,000-4,000 ft. Which should permit either dual approaches, and or getting rid of the staggered approach/takeoffs.

Then extending runway 11/29 further to the West will eliminate the intersections with the other two runways.

And finally a new runway could be built between rt.27 and the Airport, the West side of rt 27 in EWR which parrells EWR's 14-22 runways is nothing but row after row of abandoned warehouses. The tough part their would be land aquasition from the various owners and 2 or 3 apartment buildings nearby which might or might not be a problem, however I think those buildings are housing projects which the City of Newark is slowly tearing down.
Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
 
timz
Posts: 6081
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 1999 7:43 am

KIA/JFK

Tue Jul 02, 2002 5:47 am

7/64 North Amer OAG shows JFK as JFK, not KIA. I'm guessing KIA was just a media term, like DIA for the new Denver airport (which has always been DEN, hasn't it?).

That OAG lists 60 three-letter codes beginning with K; none of them was in the lower 48 states.

 
cedarjet
Posts: 8101
Joined: Mon May 24, 1999 1:12 am

RE: When JFK Was Idlewild

Tue Jul 02, 2002 5:56 am

Kennedy's official three letter code was definitely KIA for a while. Maybe only a few months (it was changed from Idlewild on 31/12/63). The Viet Nam war was in full swing by then, so I guess KIA only lasted from 31/12/63 til about halfway through 64. I know KIA didn't last into the 70s (Black September had nothing to do with the code change, it was cos of Viet Nam). I'm glad Fukuoka have resisted the tide of PC and stuck doggedly to FUK.
fly Saha Air 707s daily from Tehran's downtown Mehrabad to Mashhad, Kish Island and Ahwaz
 
timz
Posts: 6081
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 1999 7:43 am

JFK/KIA

Tue Jul 02, 2002 10:21 am

From New York Times, 1 January 1964, page 40-- story datelined 31 Dec:

The Federal Aviation Agency made up its mind today on what initials to give the John F. Kennedy Airport in New York: JFK.

All airports are assigned a three-letter code. The New York airport, formerly known as Idlewild, had carried the code IDL.

The choice of JFK for a new code seemed obvious, but it was not that simple.


The story goes on to say that the FAA preferred to reserve J-codes for heliports (despite JAX) but decided JFK could be another exception.

No indication when the code change was to be officially in effect; the airport rededication was on 24 December.
 
PANYNJ
Posts: 204
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2001 5:03 am

RE: When JFK Was Idlewild

Tue Jul 02, 2002 4:32 pm

STT757 bascially said it all.

The Delta project was shelved which is a shame because terminal 3 is really a miserable place, grungym ugly, inefficient, upsetting, and a terrible entry to New York City. I understand at one time it was a glamorous terminal, but the international arrivals areas A, B, and C are really about the worst I've seen anywhere in the US.

Getting from international arrivals back up to the departure level during the summer 3-7pm rush is an unbelievably difficult task. Getting from international arrivals to domestic arrivals (Area D) where many lost family members go to pick up travellers is another impossible and dangerous task.

Walking from any of Terminal 3's arrivals areas to Delta's Terminal 2's arrival areas (Area E and Area F) is also dangerous and inconvenient.

Terminals 3 and 2 also pose difficutlties to the FAA's new security procedures after the 9/11 attacks because anyone wanting to enter the terminals has to pass through security, not just ticketed passengers. This overburdens security screeners and violates the FAAs rules on ticketed pax only.

Lots of work needed at Delta's Terminal 3 and Terminal 2 complex.

AA is better, but soon AA will be world-class.

What to do about empty Terminal 5? Thats the question? Museum? meeting center attatched to hotel? mall? conference rooms? executive offices? restaurants? return to use as airline terminal??

panynj
 
User avatar
STT757
Posts: 13173
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 1:14 am

RE: When JFK Was Idlewild

Mon Jul 08, 2002 1:11 pm

I came across this rendering, it's not that great but it gives you an idea of what the Terminal layout will look like.

http://www.panynj.gov/airtrain/map2.htm

As for Terminal 5, I would move the FBO/ General aviation operations at JFK to that building. All those private jets and chartered flights would fit perfectly into that buidling, and it can be sprused up to cater to a few elite travelers (which it was designed for, as opposed to the hordes of travelers that quickly overwhelmed the facility).
Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 777PHX, asqx, ek17, F9Animal, Google Adsense [Bot], josciak, NYCRuss, Tugger, TWA772LR, vhabr, Viscount724, Yahoo [Bot] and 209 guests