Quoting braniff (Reply 83): Someone else in the private sector may indeed want T3 - as obsolete as it might be for a major, with a little work it can still be functional, plus it has the benefit of being FIS-capable. A consortium like JFK-IAT could take it over and offer LCCs or international carriers unhappy with their current lease costs cheaper alternatives for space there, but Delta's lease is a huge obstacle. You'd need someone the likes of Richard Branson or Donald Trump to wrestle the lease from Delta - which we hope might (but is unlikely to) happen.

Dream on.

Delta's deal with PANYNJ and JFK-IAT requires T3 to be demolished. PANYNJ wants it down. It is not going to be saved and it certainly isn't going to be saved by anyone who has a profit motive. If that was possible, Delta would have done it.

Quoting jetlanta (Reply 84):

big part of this thing is the handstand land at T3.

With T4B extended T4 loses some hard stands, plus Delta wants more hardstands for aircraft staging.

T3 is gone. time to grow up and move along.

Quoting Deltal1011man (Reply 85): big part of this thing is the handstand land at T3.

I wonder why PANYNJ does not make Green Parking a scapegoat, instead of the historic building of T3.
Given that JFK's terminal system has one of the largest landside area, it is time for part of it becomes airside and enable an expansion like this [poorly edited] image suggests:

Too many great NY pieces of archetectural masterpieces have been lost - it has been getting far better - but once gone, it's gone forever. Only pictures of the Singer Building and the like is what we have. We lost the Palladum for the same lame reasons from the landmarks commission. The World Port should have been saved like the High Line. The fact PanAm was bad at the end and the World Port leaky is such a numb excuse.

I was born and raised in NYC and NONE of the big 3 have contributed back to the things lost.

Quoting AwysBSB (Reply 86):

1)The PANYNJ, Delta, nor Skyteam own T1. You can't just tear that down without appeasing LH and JL.

2) Assuming by "Green Parking lot" you mean T2, T2 is in far better shape than T3, and while ugly and crowded still better suited for today's travels needs

3) You can't have an effective "First Class terminal" if you have a concourse jutting off the back of it- economy and business class passengers need to get to the plane too, so now you have to cut out space in T3 so they have access. The T3 saucer is too small to effectively do that (unless you want to ruin its "Golden Age" interior design). DL also doesn't have a first class. Whats the point of creating a first class terminal for what, 10 skyteam flights a day with first class?

Quoting VC10er (Reply 87): The World Port should have been saved like the High Line. The fact PanAm was bad at the end and the World Port leaky is such a numb excuse.

The High Line was saved because someone found an excellent, and functional, way to utilize it so that everyone can enjoy it. Nobody has done that with T5. Nobody has come up with a viable option for T3.

[Edited 2013-05-12 14:43:32]

[Edited 2013-05-12 14:46:19]

Quoting Polot (Reply 88): The High Line was saved because someone found an excellent, and functional, way to utilize it so that everyone can enjoy it. Nobody has done that with T5. Nobody has come up with a viable option for T3.

Maybe you haven't come up with a "viable option" for T3, but - having been in the business of urban and infrastructure design and development for a quarter of a century - I have seen at least two viable suggestions.

Using T3 exclusively for DL's transcontinental flights is the first; it would accentuate the importance of those flights (someting DL is trying hard to do); give them an "exclusive" feel; and provide a dedicated area for those passengers.

Using T3 exclusively for JFK-LHR operations would do the same for those cherished customers. This is another route where DL is trying to build its prestige and image, and basing it in restored, unique, and elecant T3 (alongside VS flights - are you listening, Sir Richard?) would be step that the competition can't duplicate.

All of this would and should be contingent on getting rid of the ugly and crowded add-on to PA's original terminal, and eliminating the equally ugly sexond-floor concourse additions (the overhead Burger King, et al., thus opening up the space both visually and in reality. I only wish this had been proposed before VS new Clubroom was completed in T4, because it seems like the type of project RB would embace - and encourage DL to join. Regardless, it still isn't too late, if someone will have the imagination and determination to make the effort.

Quoting alfa164 (Reply 89): Using T3 exclusively for DL's transcontinental flights is the first; it would accentuate the importance of those flights (someting DL is trying hard to do); give them an "exclusive" feel; and provide a dedicated area for those passengers.

But it is the on board product that people on the route care about, not the really the airport terminals. It also screws people who want to connect with those flights, and makes ground operations needlessly more complicated.

Quoting alfa164 (Reply 89): Using T3 exclusively for JFK-LHR operations would do the same for those cherished customers. This is another route where DL is trying to build its prestige and image, and basing it in restored, unique, and elecant T3 (alongside VS flights - are you listening, Sir Richard?) would be step that the competition can't duplicate.

Well you can take that option off the table. There are only 6-7 daily JFK-LHR flights between VS and DL- all of them departing after 5:00p (and most after 7:00p). Certainly makes no sense to renovate and operate T3 when it will be empty most of the day.

Quoting alfa164 (Reply 89): All of this would and should be contingent on getting rid of the ugly and crowded add-on to PA's original terminal, and eliminating the equally ugly sexond-floor concourse additions (the overhead Burger King, et al., thus opening up the space both visually and in reality. I only wish this had been proposed before VS new Clubroom was completed in T4, because it seems like the type of project RB would embace - and encourage DL to join. Regardless, it still isn't too late, if someone will have the imagination and determination to make the effort.

The problem is people want those ugly add-ons such as the Burger King, especially if you are making it a dedicated terminal. Those "exclusive" transcon passengers are not really going to care about that open space when they have little options for food.

Quoting alfa164 (Reply 89): I only wish this had been proposed before VS new Clubroom was completed in T4, because it seems like the type of project RB would embace - and encourage DL to join. Regardless, it still isn't too late, if someone will have the imagination and determination to make the effort.

Building a new Clubroom does not cost 100s of millions of dollars. Tearing down half of T3 while basically gutting and rebuilding the other half does. SRB embraces making money above all...the image of him being "hip", "savvy", and "cool" is just that, an image. He won't do something if he knows it won't make him any money.

[Edited 2013-05-12 16:36:00]

Nobody is more of an airport romantic than I am. Yet I cannot wait for the day that T3 is torn down. I'm sorry, but this building simply doesn't belong in the same class with, for example, Saarinen's TWA building.

IM Pei's National Airlines terminal (the old T5) was a more significant structure, yet its destruction a year or so ago got almost no mention anywhere.


Patrick Smith

Quoting Polot (Reply 88):

I emphasize that the image I shared is as poorly edited as its proposal is not developed yet.
Of course it would be an absurd Green parking lot, T1 and T2 be made scapegoats for expansion of airside, if they are in good shape. Thus, the proposal in that image is for a future expansion.
For the present, the T3 saucer becoming the Sky Team First Class Terminal is the best choice, since it could be also used by any Sky Miles passenger with Diamond Medallion status.
DL and Sky Team do need to offer that not just keep but to help increase their number of Diamond Medallion members.

Quoting aviateur (Reply 91): Nobody is more of an airport romantic than I am. Yet I cannot wait for the day that T3 is torn down. I'm sorry, but this building simply doesn't belong in the same class with, for example, Saarinen's TWA building.

I was one of those "Save the Pan Am Worldport" folks. And then I had a layover there. I remember walking into T3 and not realising it was T3. The Pan Am Worldport was bright and airy. Delta T3 is dark, cluttered, leaking, and decayed. The damn roof looks like it's going to collapse.

Furthermore, the Worldport has no architectural significance. In fact, the only relatively significant thing about it is the fact that Pan Am used to own it. But even with that... what saved the Saarinen Terminal isn't that "TWA used to own it," instead it's that it's the *Saarinen* Terminal.

Eventually T2 will go. Why wasn't the plan:
- expand T4B and move DL partially in
- demolish T2
- expand T1 and move non SkyTeam airlines from T4 to T1
- expand T4B for regional aircraft capability
- move the rest of DL into T4
- demolish T3
- expand T4A if needed

Quoting questions (Reply 94):

Because T2 is in much better shape than T3. Also your plan requires the cooperation of not just DL, PANYNJ and the Schipol group, as the current one does, but also the T1 group...which complicates things. Why would LH and JL (members of the T1 group along with KE and AF) want to help out DL/Skyteam?

Quoting ghifty (Reply 93): The damn roof looks like it's going to collapse.

The very thing that makes people want to save it IS the reason the building needs to go. The roof. It is a beautiful, albeit impractical design that from what I've read and heard wasn't designed to age very well. And it hasn't. There's a reason you don't see it copied anywhere else. It's the product of an era where flash and style meant everything--we can argue whether that was romance or superficiality in another place--and we all know that ship has sailed. The world changes, get used to it or be miserable.

And let's be real, intercontinental flights? The original, flying saucer roof portion was designed in an era when the biggest thing around was a 707, when flights were multiple leg, less-than-daily frequencies. Delta's smallest intercontinental aircraft, the 757, seats more than Pan Am's 707s did, and just about all of its routes are DAILY. There is not room in the terminal for security + amenities + waiting areas for the amount of people that will be placed on to these aircraft and the amount of people that will come with the amount of flights.

Could someone please explain their thought process RE: architectural treasure? One can barely see T3 from the road as it is. It is surrounded by roadways and signs--it typifies everything that is ugly about New York City. If you're driving into JFK you're not going to be looking up at it. If you're on the AirTrain you'll see it for about 30 seconds before it's obstructed by the AirTrain infrastructure. If you're not flying Delta you won't be passing through it, and otherwise you aren't allowed in it, and that is an arrangement that given space constraints would probably remain. It is not a painting that can be moved to another wall, or a sculpture that can be disassembled and put somewhere else. This is a massive building in a very busy place, that actually serves a purpose. It has been ill-suited to the needs of air travel since about ten years after it was built. If it cannot serve it's purpose then it needs to come down. We already have a terminal museum at JFK, and it's vacant, sucking up precious resources like space, electricity, and cash.

Quoting luckyone (Reply 96): It is a beautiful, albeit impractical design that from what I've read and heard wasn't designed to age very well.

Well I can't imagine it being practical.. the roof overhangs the actual building by, what, 100 feet? How is someone supposed to go under and clean/replace the concrete or tiles? With some large scaffolding.. requiring the area below to be closed from use. And then you need specialists to deal with the structure since that's so uncommon, etc. It's just a problem--and having seen it in person, I can't understand why it's still standing.

Quoting luckyone (Reply 96): One can barely see T3 from the road as it is. It is surrounded by roadways and signs--it typifies everything that is ugly about New York City.

It's been ruined by the times. Unlike the Saarinen Terminal which remained untouched, JFK T3 has had it's Zodiac sculpture removed.. and Delta's 1980's typeface sits cheesily on top of the supports. The airtrain covers it. Concrete jetbridges jut out of it's sides.. it just looks like a mess.

Quoting ghifty (Reply 97): The airtrain covers it. Concrete jetbridges jut out of it's sides.. it just looks like a mess.

And a hundred years from now, people would look at it and wonder WHY it was ever saved.

Quoting ghifty (Reply 97): It's been ruined by the times. Unlike the Saarinen Terminal which remained untouched, JFK T3 has had it's Zodiac sculpture removed.. and Delta's 1980's typeface sits cheesily on top of the supports. The airtrain covers it. Concrete jetbridges jut out of it's sides.. it just looks like a mess.

"A point made in the defense of the demolition of the old Penn Station at the time was that the cost of maintaining the old structure had become prohibitive. The question of whether it made sense to preserve a building, intended to be a cost-effective and functional piece of the city's infrastructure, simply as a monument to the past was raised in defense of the plans to demolish it. As a New York Times editorial critical of the demolition noted at the time, a "city gets what it wants, is willing to pay for, and ultimately deserves."" wikipedia.com


Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

Quoting luckyone (Reply 96): And let's be real, intercontinental flights? The original, flying saucer roof portion was designed in an era when the biggest thing around was a 707, when flights were multiple leg, less-than-daily frequencies. Delta's smallest intercontinental aircraft, the 757, seats more than Pan Am's 707s did, and just about all of its routes are DAILY. There is not room in the terminal for security + amenities + waiting areas for the amount of people that will be placed on to these aircraft and the amount of people that will come with the amount of flights.

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.