I'm wondering if anyone has come across this before? Looks like an interesting proposal, although light on detail.

http://hwkn.com/projects/jfk-vision-2040/

I'm assuming it's in response to the Port Authority's request for master plans for JFK. Are there any other interesting plans floating around out there?

V/F

Wow! That is an amazing "vision". I would love to see this vision become a reality. Great job by all those involved!

Thanks for sharing VirginFlyer!

Certainly a beautiful slideshow, but sadly this is nothing more than a glimpse at "what could be, but can never happen" in a place like NYC. There is simply no money, too many conflicting agendas and an almost total absence of any political will to make it a reality.

Including a picture of airbus' upcoming A747-900 in Delta livery

Looks very nice to me, but i feel like in reality its "2140 Vision". Love all the glass and greenery though, reminds me of a mix of DXB and KUL. Is it just me, or does it seem like an overall net loss of gates? Certainly seems like a net loss of terminals (6 to 4).

does anyone find the taxiways around the gates a bit narrow? Or is that just the angle?

This is an excellent concept. Are any details like cost and capacity available?

What's the point though? JFK never seemed to have problems with gate shortages. Rather, slots are valuable, and I don't see a new runway. It looks very nice, but it also includes demolishing all of todays terminals, some of which are working quite well, and replacing them with a new construction offering better connectivity at most.

mikegigs wrote:

Is it just me, or does it seem like an overall net loss of gates? Certainly seems like a net loss of terminals (6 to 4).

At the moment there are:
Terminal 1 - 11 gates
Terminal 2 - 11 gates (3 of which appear to be connected to a structure to accept, by my count, 14 regional jets)
Terminal 4 - 38 gates
Terminal 5 - 29 gates
Terminal 7 - 12 gates
Terminal 8 - 29 gates
Total - 130 gates

Looking at the two renderings, it looks like the HWKN plan has (give or take a few):

Central terminal ring - 66 gates
Northwestern satellite - 25 gates
Southeastern satellite - 18 gates
Total - 109 gates

On the face of it, a reduction. That said, for the central terminal ring at least it appears all 66 are code F gates (as evidenced by the A380s, 747s, and the odd A347 parked at each one) that could potentially handle 2 code C or smaller aircraft each. The two satellites sppear to show aircraft more tightly spaced, so I think those would stay at 43 gates. All up that could mean as many as 177 gates.

danj555 wrote:

does anyone find the taxiways around the gates a bit narrow? Or is that just the angle?

It's a little difficult to tell from the renderings. The space between the central ring and the northwestern satellite seems a bit tight with aircraft in there. It's hard to tell whether they are intending this satellite to be the current Terminal 8 satellite, or one more widely spaced; I'm fairly sure the current one wouldn't permit code F aircraft parking in the area between the satellite and the main terminal.

V/F

Looks certainly nice. What I am missing is how to get there by land

rebr wrote:

Including a picture of airbus' upcoming A747-900 in Delta livery

I think you're slightly mistaken, that's the
A747-900SP

Looks nice, but also like a huge waste of space. A modern version of ATL would be appropriate.

I am sorry, but this makes no sense. Demolishing a lot of modern facilities in order to gain what? The only JFK terminal that needs rebuilding is T2. Nothing really can be gained from reconfiguring the other terminals.

If you could start from a clean sheet, sure you would configure everything differently. But at this point, the cost of rebuilding would outweigh the benefits.

What JFK needs is more runways.

When Governor Cuomo's vision for LaGuardia was shared, it was stated:

The Governor also announced today plans to move forward to develop a full master plan for future development at JFK airport. The Governor has directed the Advisory Panel to report back in the next twelve months with its recommendations for an implementable master plan for the development of a 21st century JKF International Airport. Within the next 60 days, the Panel will work with the Port Authority to issue an RFP to retain a master planning firm to advise the Governor, the Panel, and the Port Authority on the future development of the airport.

Are there any other master plan proposals floating around out there? Has there been any progress on this?

V/F

A quick concept I made:

VirginFlyer wrote:

mikegigs wrote:

Is it just me, or does it seem like an overall net loss of gates? Certainly seems like a net loss of terminals (6 to 4).

At the moment there are:
Terminal 1 - 11 gates
Terminal 2 - 11 gates (3 of which appear to be connected to a structure to accept, by my count, 14 regional jets)
Terminal 4 - 38 gates
Terminal 5 - 29 gates
Terminal 7 - 12 gates
Terminal 8 - 29 gates
Total - 130 gates


Wrong, Wrong. More Wrong. Terminal 2 has 11 standard 757-capable gates, and the RJ spider web was removed long ago. Terminal 4 has 42 gates. What we need is to EXTEND THE A PIER OF T4, like the B concourse was. Terminal 2/space of 3 should be replaced by t1 extension

jfkflyer wrote:

VirginFlyer wrote:

mikegigs wrote:

Is it just me, or does it seem like an overall net loss of gates? Certainly seems like a net loss of terminals (6 to 4).

At the moment there are:
Terminal 1 - 11 gates
Terminal 2 - 11 gates (3 of which appear to be connected to a structure to accept, by my count, 14 regional jets)
Terminal 4 - 38 gates
Terminal 5 - 29 gates
Terminal 7 - 12 gates
Terminal 8 - 29 gates
Total - 130 gates


Wrong, Wrong. More Wrong. Terminal 2 has 11 standard 757-capable gates, and the RJ spider web was removed long ago. Terminal 4 has 42 gates. What we need is to EXTEND THE A PIER OF T4, like the B concourse was. Terminal 2/space of 3 should be replaced by t1 extension

Thanks, Thanks. More Thanks. I should have said where I sourced those numbers from. I was going by Wikipedia for the numbers of gates (yes I know the pro visos around Wikipedia), which said:

Terminal 4 has 38 gates in two concourses: A2–A7, B18, B22–B55 with the exclusion of B40, B50 and B52.

Perhaps for completeness' sake you could point out which are the extra 4 gates missed out here?

For T2, I was going by images on both Google and Apple Maps which showed the "spider web". I just looked on my desktop and saw the Google Maps image is from 2 years ago. It looked like the T4 extension was already complete so I thought maybe they had kept the "spider web", but zooming in I see it is still a work site in the image. I assume the "spider web" disappeared once the T4 extension opened?

So the total should read 134 gates. In regards to the topic, its still in the same magnitude compared to the 109-177 potential gates I could count in the HWKN plan.

V/F

Dutchy wrote:

Looks certainly nice. What I am missing is how to get there by land

Land?

It's an airport !!

It looks pretty, but is absolutely ridiculous for so many reasons.

First and foremost being, several airlines have ownership stakes/interests/equities in their terminals, and hell will freeze over before they'd go for something like this.

That, and it's horribly space inefficient.

Varsity1 wrote:

Looks nice, but also like a huge waste of space. A modern version of ATL would be appropriate.

Exact opposite.

ATL's layout is great for airports with higher connections percentage, but for higher O&D operations, you need more roadside access to individual areas.

Did they put sharklets on a B747?! And are those China Airlines B747-400?! WHAT KIND OF PREDICTIONS ARE THESE?!!!!!!!!

VirginFlyer wrote:

jfkflyer wrote:

VirginFlyer wrote:

Wrong, Wrong. More Wrong. Terminal 2 has 11 standard 757-capable gates, and the RJ spider web was removed long ago. Terminal 4 has 42 gates. What we need is to EXTEND THE A PIER OF T4, like the B concourse was. Terminal 2/space of 3 should be replaced by t1 extension

Thanks, Thanks. More Thanks. I should have said where I sourced those numbers from. I was going by Wikipedia for the numbers of gates (yes I know the pro visos around Wikipedia), which said:

Terminal 4 has 38 gates in two concourses: A2–A7, B18, B22–B55 with the exclusion of B40, B50 and B52.

Perhaps for completeness' sake you could point out which are the extra 4 gates missed out here?

For T2, I was going by images on both Google and Apple Maps which showed the "spider web". I just looked on my desktop and saw the Google Maps image is from 2 years ago. It looked like the T4 extension was already complete so I thought maybe they had kept the "spider web", but zooming in I see it is still a work site in the image. I assume the "spider web" disappeared once the T4 extension opened?




V/F

Actually your google earth is outdated. it(Spider web) was removed in 2013.

Why did they remove Terminal 1 from the plan?

jfkflyer wrote:

Actually your google earth is outdated. it(Spider web) was removed in 2013.

I believe you're incorrect on that - it seems to be very much present in this photo taken in September 2014 (assuming we're both talking about the same thing - the RJ gate complex on the end of T2):



It would appear from this article that it was in fact in use until January 2015:

http://crankyflier.com/2015/01/12/delta ... -tomorrow/

And here's a thread on this website about it from that time:

viewtopic.php?t=583011

Anyway, coming back to topic...

blacksoviet wrote:

Why did they remove Terminal 1 from the plan?

Presumably because it didn't fit into their design scheme in the same way that T4, T5, and T8 do (note that the piers of T4 are gone, as are T2 and T7)

V/F

rebr wrote:

Including a picture of airbus' upcoming A747-900 in Delta livery

If you look closely at some of the interior mockups, you can see a DL aircraft departing in the "Wavy Gravy" livery, and even one taxiing in the Widget! They are predicting some retro liveries for DL...

IF Jetblue takes over the lease on T7, will they demolish the terminal or leave it as is?

FSDan wrote:

rebr wrote:

Including a picture of airbus' upcoming A747-900 in Delta livery

If you look closely at some of the interior mockups, you can see a DL aircraft departing in the "Wavy Gravy" livery, and even one taxiing in the Widget! They are predicting some retro liveries for DL...

Is the Ron Allen livery older than Wavy Gravy?

blacksoviet wrote:

Is the Ron Allen livery older than Wavy Gravy?

Yes .... the Ron Allen livery came out in 1997 ..... Wavy Gravy came out in 2000

https://www.deltamuseum.org/exhibits/de ... elta-brand

Note - According to deltamuseum.org the Ron Allen livery was called the "Interim" livery ... and Wavy Gravy was "Colors in Motion"

I think the Interim livery was better than Wavy Gravy.

kaitak744 wrote:

I am sorry, but this makes no sense. Demolishing a lot of modern facilities in order to gain what? The only JFK terminal that needs rebuilding is T2. Nothing really can be gained from reconfiguring the other terminals.

If you could start from a clean sheet, sure you would configure everything differently. But at this point, the cost of rebuilding would outweigh the benefits.

What JFK needs is more runways.

T7 is a dump and needs to be torn down and something usable built. Probably will not happen before I retire, but then again I try to avoid JFK trips.

This is one of those things where I really have to question the design establishment that produced someone who would put forward a plan like this. Although I'm not a huge fan of the modernist aesthetic, especially not as applied by Hollwich Kushner, and I understand that I'm in the minority on that one, I do think a lot of airports have been done extremely well with that aesthetic because it works very well and creates an environment that's perfect for an airport. That said, while apartment buildings in Williamsburg can get away with being form over function, one of the busiest and most important major airports in the world cannot. The arrogance of this design is really mind-blowing, and I know a ton of architects, so I'm doubly shocked at how shocked I am by this.

While challenging due to building over the old international terminal and T3, T4 should have been constructed similar to T8 with parallel concourses and underground connector vs the A and B fingers design. When A is extended, similar to B, the walk between concourses for connecting flights is going to be long.

A nice design study, but neither space efficient nor otherwise practical. The real problem in JFK (or NY airspace in general) is not the gates, but the, well, airspace. And aircraft movements in general. Although that isn't to say that ALL three NYC airports require a major overhaul of their terminal space from a passenger point of view (not operational, mind); and considering Trump's infrastructure agenda and what's already happening at LGA, it makes me hopeful to see people spending their thoughts on how to make US infrastructure more appealing.
How a new terminal can be built step by step over an old one was and is demonstrated at LHR with T2, so it is well within the realm of possibilities.