A380MSN004
Topic Author
Posts: 509
Joined: Sat Jun 03, 2017 9:07 am

JFK EWR Versus HPN ISP SWF for TATL low cost Flights

Sat Jun 30, 2018 8:35 pm

Hi everyone,

Question to our US a.net friends. Regarding New York destination, in the case of Long Haul Low Cost TATL operations for an airline operating narrowbodies such as A321 LR or B737 8 MAX on routes like London => NYC or Paris => NYC.

Does the following plateforms HPN / ISP / SWF could really offer an alternative to the usual (busy and expensive) JFK / EWR plateforms?

Do you guys here, see any other alternative plateform to those listed above? Please note the operation are with narrowbody so runnway can be shorter than the usual runnway operating long haul flights.

Also, does HPN / ISP / SWF plateforms could be under interest for biz smart travelers, traveling in Eco Premium as an alternative to JFK & EWR?

Thanks for your feedback.
 
Cunard
Posts: 2393
Joined: Fri Nov 11, 2016 6:45 pm

Re: JFK EWR Versus HPN ISP SWF for TATL low cost Flights

Sat Jun 30, 2018 8:50 pm

Although I admire your enthusiasm with all of your recent posts but I have a question,

Why do you always use the word PLATEFORM and what are you referring it as?
94 Countries, 327 Destinations Worldwide, 32 Airlines, 29 Aircraft Types, 182 Airports, 335 Flights.
 
User avatar
jfklganyc
Posts: 5401
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 2:31 pm

Re: JFK EWR Versus HPN ISP SWF for TATL low cost Flights

Sat Jun 30, 2018 8:57 pm

No.

The problem is JFK and EWR have so much capacity to Europe, that relatively speaking, the fares are already cheap.

SWF is starting something...but now you are going after bottom feeder stuff
 
User avatar
janders
Moderator
Posts: 826
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2017 4:27 pm

Re: JFK EWR Versus HPN ISP SWF for TATL low cost Flights

Sat Jun 30, 2018 9:11 pm

No FIS at HPN or ISP so you can forget those.
"We make war that we may live in peace." -- Aristotle
 
A380MSN004
Topic Author
Posts: 509
Joined: Sat Jun 03, 2017 9:07 am

Re: JFK EWR Versus HPN ISP SWF for TATL low cost Flights

Sat Jun 30, 2018 9:54 pm

Cunard wrote:
Although I admire your enthusiasm with all of your recent posts but I have a question,

Why do you always use the word PLATEFORM and what are you referring it as?


Ahah my english is not perfect. It meant (for me) "airport"
 
A380MSN004
Topic Author
Posts: 509
Joined: Sat Jun 03, 2017 9:07 am

Re: JFK EWR Versus HPN ISP SWF for TATL low cost Flights

Sat Jun 30, 2018 9:58 pm

janders wrote:
No FIS at HPN or ISP so you can forget those.


Ok then, there's almost no debate.

It's JFK / EWR or SWF which is far away...
 
travelsonic
Posts: 71
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2007 8:59 am

Re: JFK EWR Versus HPN ISP SWF for TATL low cost Flights

Sat Jun 30, 2018 10:59 pm

The politics surrounding HPN are absolutely disgusting... mainly that surrounding the construction of, and expansion/lack thereof of the terminal. Doubt intl flights would ever be able to happen. Hell, with the terminal, due to the politics surrounding it, it took a lot before any expansion of space, even slight, could happen - new jetway(s), more space for check-in and baggage handling, etc... and even the mere idea of expanding terminal space brings out idiotic fear mongering, and whatnot, that it would lead to more flights and noise, when one can expand the terminal space to meet the demand without resulting in more flights (and restrict flights in other ways).

That's the problem with trying to restrict departures by terminal size alone (versus laying down rules and penalties): you provide no flexibility for things that need to change (like, for example, all the space eaten up when the TSA needed more space for bag scanners and body scanners in the past decade).
 
Galwayman
Posts: 707
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2017 10:20 am

Re: JFK EWR Versus HPN ISP SWF for TATL low cost Flights

Sun Jul 01, 2018 12:08 am

janders wrote:
No FIS at HPN or ISP so you can forget those.



If Norwegian uses preclearance at Dublin airport does the USA airport still need FIS in The USA??
 
Cubsrule
Posts: 13858
Joined: Sat May 15, 2004 12:13 pm

Re: JFK EWR Versus HPN ISP SWF for TATL low cost Flights

Sun Jul 01, 2018 12:22 am

Galwayman wrote:
janders wrote:
No FIS at HPN or ISP so you can forget those.



If Norwegian uses preclearance at Dublin airport does the USA airport still need FIS in The USA??


They need a way - not necessarily elegant or convenient - to re-clear the passengers if necessary. HPN doesn’t currently have that.
I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
 
rj1385
Posts: 91
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2007 9:09 am

Re: JFK EWR Versus HPN ISP SWF for TATL low cost Flights

Sun Jul 01, 2018 4:59 am

HPN would not work with seat limits per hour for any flights of this sort.
It amazes me now that the other airlines use small enough aircraft and time it right so that jetBlue can bring in A320s.

I would love to know the actual demographics of people using the Norwegian flights.
 
A380MSN004
Topic Author
Posts: 509
Joined: Sat Jun 03, 2017 9:07 am

Re: JFK EWR Versus HPN ISP SWF for TATL low cost Flights

Sun Jul 01, 2018 9:52 am

Galwayman wrote:
janders wrote:
No FIS at HPN or ISP so you can forget those.



If Norwegian uses preclearance at Dublin airport does the USA airport still need FIS in The USA??


Can you guys tell us the exact FIS procedure ?
 
MIflyer12
Posts: 5429
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 11:58 pm

Re: JFK EWR Versus HPN ISP SWF for TATL low cost Flights

Sun Jul 01, 2018 11:51 am

FIS = Federal Inspection Services. It's the general immigration and customs procedure for international arrivals.
 
DaveFly
Posts: 384
Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2016 9:35 pm

Re: JFK EWR Versus HPN ISP SWF for TATL low cost Flights

Sun Jul 01, 2018 12:17 pm

The Norwegian service, according to local news reports, is doing quite well with service to/from Ireland and the United Kingdom.

There is dedicated bus service to meet the flights and shuttle passengers directly to New York City (midtown Manhattan).

I haven’t used the service yet myself, but I know a lot of local friends/family who have. They have unanimously praised the service.

Having said that, there is no question that Newark and JFK offer far more service with competitive fares.
717,727,737,747,757,767,777,787
L1011,DC8,DC9,DC10,MD80/90
A300,A319,320,321,330,340,
CRJ,E135/45/190,
DH8,Avro85,DHBeaver,AstarHelo,F100,ATR42
 
BENAir01
Posts: 411
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 7:42 pm

Re: JFK EWR Versus HPN ISP SWF for TATL low cost Flights

Sun Jul 01, 2018 1:00 pm

I know many people from Westchester that have also used Norwegian from SWF, and it’s very convenient for people in Mt. Kisco, Edgemont, even White Plains and Scarsdale. SWF takes less time to get to than JFK or EWR, and I’ve heard nothing but praise.
Why is flying so expensive? And why is flying well so much more?
 
fanuvisp
Posts: 2
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2018 1:15 am

Re: JFK EWR Versus HPN ISP SWF for TATL low cost Flights

Sun Jul 01, 2018 1:08 pm

According to ISP airport officials and FIS facility will be up and running in 2019... these same folks also stated that they have multiple airlines that are interested in starting service once the facility is operational.
 
jetblueguy22
Posts: 3191
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2007 12:26 am

Re: JFK EWR Versus HPN ISP SWF for TATL low cost Flights

Sun Jul 01, 2018 5:39 pm

travelsonic wrote:
The politics surrounding HPN are absolutely disgusting... mainly that surrounding the construction of, and expansion/lack thereof of the terminal. Doubt intl flights would ever be able to happen. Hell, with the terminal, due to the politics surrounding it, it took a lot before any expansion of space, even slight, could happen - new jetway(s), more space for check-in and baggage handling, etc... and even the mere idea of expanding terminal space brings out idiotic fear mongering, and whatnot, that it would lead to more flights and noise, when one can expand the terminal space to meet the demand without resulting in more flights (and restrict flights in other ways).

That's the problem with trying to restrict departures by terminal size alone (versus laying down rules and penalties): you provide no flexibility for things that need to change (like, for example, all the space eaten up when the TSA needed more space for bag scanners and body scanners in the past decade).

The most amazing part about the whole thing to me is that the people in that area would probably jump at the chance to fly to Europe out of HPN. Huge concentration of money and business leaders
Look at sweatpants guy. This is a 90 million dollar aircraft, not a Tallahassee strip club
 
zrs70
Posts: 3694
Joined: Sun Dec 10, 2000 4:08 am

Re: JFK EWR Versus HPN ISP SWF for TATL low cost Flights

Sun Jul 01, 2018 6:14 pm

Low cost carriers using tertiary airports is really misleading... While the cost of the flight and parking may be less, the cost (and effort) of getting to the airport is often much more.
19 year airliners.net vet! 2000-2019
 
A380MSN004
Topic Author
Posts: 509
Joined: Sat Jun 03, 2017 9:07 am

Re: JFK EWR Versus HPN ISP SWF for TATL low cost Flights

Sun Jul 01, 2018 9:03 pm

zrs70 wrote:
Low cost carriers using tertiary airports is really misleading... While the cost of the flight and parking may be less, the cost (and effort) of getting to the airport is often much more.


We all know that here, but we have to admit Most of the ppl Flying lcc dont think the same Way, look at the success of Ryanair for instance.
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3639
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: JFK EWR Versus HPN ISP SWF for TATL low cost Flights

Sun Jul 01, 2018 10:11 pm

zrs70 wrote:
Low cost carriers using tertiary airports is really misleading... While the cost of the flight and parking may be less, the cost (and effort) of getting to the airport is often much more.


Lots of wealthy people live in Westchester, Rockland and Putnam counties in New York. SWF parking is $10 a day and traffic is easy compared to the treck to EWR or JFK. Manhattan is different since there us public transit options
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 3391
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: JFK EWR Versus HPN ISP SWF for TATL low cost Flights

Sun Jul 01, 2018 11:27 pm

The most amazing part about the whole thing to me is that the people in that area would probably jump at the chance to fly to Europe out of HPN. Huge concentration of money and business leaders


Have you driven thru Greenwich, Chappaqua and the surrounding area? Many do fly to Europe out of HPN; they just ride on private jets. FIS, rather CIQ, is provided on-board, no problem. If you don’t have a jet, limo service to JFK is fine and doesn’t involve flying a LCC.

GF
 
jetstar
Posts: 1414
Joined: Mon May 19, 2003 2:16 am

Re: JFK EWR Versus HPN ISP SWF for TATL low cost Flights

Mon Jul 02, 2018 12:28 am

janders wrote:
No FIS at HPN or ISP so you can forget those.


HPN does have customs and Immigration on field and it has been there for many years, I went through customs many times back in the 70's and 80's during my JetStar flying days and it is still there today, but because of a lack of space they do not have a facility at the passenger terminal to process airline passengers, so it is limited to private aircraft and corporate jets and is based at a corporate fixed base operation, so to clear customs you have to taxi up to their ramp.

JetStar
 
User avatar
Super80Fan
Posts: 1528
Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2017 4:14 am

Re: JFK EWR Versus HPN ISP SWF for TATL low cost Flights

Mon Jul 02, 2018 1:38 am

travelsonic wrote:
The politics surrounding HPN are absolutely disgusting... mainly that surrounding the construction of, and expansion/lack thereof of the terminal. Doubt intl flights would ever be able to happen. Hell, with the terminal, due to the politics surrounding it, it took a lot before any expansion of space, even slight, could happen - new jetway(s), more space for check-in and baggage handling, etc... and even the mere idea of expanding terminal space brings out idiotic fear mongering, and whatnot, that it would lead to more flights and noise, when one can expand the terminal space to meet the demand without resulting in more flights (and restrict flights in other ways).

That's the problem with trying to restrict departures by terminal size alone (versus laying down rules and penalties): you provide no flexibility for things that need to change (like, for example, all the space eaten up when the TSA needed more space for bag scanners and body scanners in the past decade).


Glad I'm not the only one who thinks this. I love HPN, I fly out of there/into there when I can, and I love the small terminal. That being said, the politics against expanding the terminal/more traffic are awful and the TSA checkpoint is a mess of wherever they can get their hands on space, even if it means basically going out all the way into the check in area.

I also find it interesting that Delta flies basically all CRJ-900's into there (and a couple 717's) while JetBlue is back to flying mainly A320's. Makes me think AA/UA had to give up a lot of their flights/capacity.

It's also annoying that all of the food options (quick mart, Dunkin Donuts, and the bar & diner) are all pre-security while the only option post security is a little quick mart.
RIP McDonnell Douglas
 
User avatar
spinkid
Posts: 1866
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2001 5:59 am

Re: JFK EWR Versus HPN ISP SWF for TATL low cost Flights

Mon Jul 02, 2018 1:56 am

Norwegian currently flys to SWF, and I certainly showed my passport to some FIS to come back home from the UK.. It is a waste of a slot at JFK or EWR for small aircraft.

The short answer for HPN is No. Too much in the way of local politics will never allow for the terminal to be expanded.

SWF, still has room to grow using the gate and terminal space they already have. I love the fact that I can use long term parking and walk to the departure area. Just through word of mouth people are aware of their service and I haven't heard any complaints. SWF seems to be doing the best for them in the Northeast. They cut service to BDL and PVD and have added to SWF.

I'd like to see them add more destinations and also more connecting opportunities on the European end. For example, Belfast doesn't offer any connection opportunities. The Europeans who I chatted with had no problem meeting a connecting bus to take them down to NYC. I would venture to guess that is the case for most. I don't know how many New Yorkers are actually taking the bus up from Manhattan.

SWF is only 40 minutes from the Connecticut border and Northern Fairfield County. You have a large chunk of territory from Western CT, upstate NY and even Northern NJ that will drive to SWF. Even if it was over an hour ride, its an easier trip than trekking to JFK or EWR. To quote an episode of Seinfeld "they say no one has ever beaten the Van Wyck" and I believe that statement is still true today, and will be for the foreseeable future.

ISP has a geography problem. It really only serves Long Island and to some extend Brooklyn and Queens, however getting to JFK from Brookly and Queens is relatively easy than getting yourself out to ISP. People in New Jersey, upstate NY and Connecticut would never even consider using ISP as an alternative.
 
travelsonic
Posts: 71
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2007 8:59 am

Re: JFK EWR Versus HPN ISP SWF for TATL low cost Flights

Mon Jul 02, 2018 2:13 pm

Super80Fan wrote:
It's also annoying that all of the food options (quick mart, Dunkin Donuts, and the bar & diner) are all pre-security while the only option post security is a little quick mart.


How long did it take before they finally added any kind of concessions beyond security? I remember for the longest of time the post-security area was quite barren.

I remember recently reading a letter on LoHud from I believe it was local members of the Sierra Club (?) - one concern they had with airport expansion was with the use of "bigger aircraft," specifically citing the Airbus A320s... to which I thought "Where the hell have you been?" - seeing both that the A320 of today is a lot more advanced (particularly in regards to the engines that are used) than the A320 the year it first came out, and jetBlue had been flying A320s in/out of the airport for AT LEAST 10 years now (and American had for a short while, following the retirement of the Fokker 100s, flown 737-800s in/out, and the world didn't end).
 
evank516
Posts: 1944
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2017 12:15 am

Re: JFK EWR Versus HPN ISP SWF for TATL low cost Flights

Mon Jul 02, 2018 2:38 pm

Super80Fan wrote:
travelsonic wrote:
The politics surrounding HPN are absolutely disgusting... mainly that surrounding the construction of, and expansion/lack thereof of the terminal. Doubt intl flights would ever be able to happen. Hell, with the terminal, due to the politics surrounding it, it took a lot before any expansion of space, even slight, could happen - new jetway(s), more space for check-in and baggage handling, etc... and even the mere idea of expanding terminal space brings out idiotic fear mongering, and whatnot, that it would lead to more flights and noise, when one can expand the terminal space to meet the demand without resulting in more flights (and restrict flights in other ways).

That's the problem with trying to restrict departures by terminal size alone (versus laying down rules and penalties): you provide no flexibility for things that need to change (like, for example, all the space eaten up when the TSA needed more space for bag scanners and body scanners in the past decade).


Glad I'm not the only one who thinks this. I love HPN, I fly out of there/into there when I can, and I love the small terminal. That being said, the politics against expanding the terminal/more traffic are awful and the TSA checkpoint is a mess of wherever they can get their hands on space, even if it means basically going out all the way into the check in area.

I also find it interesting that Delta flies basically all CRJ-900's into there (and a couple 717's) while JetBlue is back to flying mainly A320's. Makes me think AA/UA had to give up a lot of their flights/capacity.

It's also annoying that all of the food options (quick mart, Dunkin Donuts, and the bar & diner) are all pre-security while the only option post security is a little quick mart.


I've never flown out of HPN since I live on Long Island, but it's quite a fascinating little airport. Delta's inclusion of mainline on HPN-ATL was really only a matter of time since they were flying the largest RJs they could into HPN for many years now. The 717 is clearly a smart move if other airlines have dropped capacity (UA and AA), and it wouldn't surprise me to see them upgauge one more flight out of there as well sometime in the future if they can.

As for international service, ISP can barely sustain any domestic flights nowadays. Growth has been relatively stagnant there until recently with F9's little experiment going on over there. The thing about Long Island is that pretty much everyone can make it to JFK despite the ridiculous traffic, and even LGA as well if it suits one better. As for 321s going transatlantic from ISP I'm not sure the 7,006 foot runway is long enough to fly an A321 across the pond. They'll take weight penalties flying LGA-ATL and that's only 760 miles as opposed to 2,000 miles. A321s are runway hogs from what I've noticed. Now the 737 MAX on the other hand, those would work, and you do have a roundabout public transit option to get from ISP into the city.
 
jetstar
Posts: 1414
Joined: Mon May 19, 2003 2:16 am

Re: JFK EWR Versus HPN ISP SWF for TATL low cost Flights

Mon Jul 02, 2018 9:04 pm

Super80Fan wrote:
travelsonic wrote:
The politics surrounding HPN are absolutely disgusting... mainly that surrounding the construction of, and expansion/lack thereof of the terminal. Doubt intl flights would ever be able to happen. Hell, with the terminal, due to the politics surrounding it, it took a lot before any expansion of space, even slight, could happen - new jetway(s), more space for check-in and baggage handling, etc... and even the mere idea of expanding terminal space brings out idiotic fear mongering, and whatnot, that it would lead to more flights and noise, when one can expand the terminal space to meet the demand without resulting in more flights (and restrict flights in other ways).

That's the problem with trying to restrict departures by terminal size alone (versus laying down rules and penalties): you provide no flexibility for things that need to change (like, for example, all the space eaten up when the TSA needed more space for bag scanners and body scanners in the past decade).


Glad I'm not the only one who thinks this. I love HPN, I fly out of there/into there when I can, and I love the small terminal. That being said, the politics against expanding the terminal/more traffic are awful and the TSA checkpoint is a mess of wherever they can get their hands on space, even if it means basically going out all the way into the check in area.

I also find it interesting that Delta flies basically all CRJ-900's into there (and a couple 717's) while JetBlue is back to flying mainly A320's. Makes me think AA/UA had to give up a lot of their flights/capacity.

It's also annoying that all of the food options (quick mart, Dunkin Donuts, and the bar & diner) are all pre-security while the only option post security is a little quick mart.



HPN’s capacity will always be controlled by the NIMBY’s, their fear is that with no capacity controls HPN would turn into a mini LaGuardia.

Abutting HPN on the north side is Greenwich CT, one of the wealthiest towns in the country and on the other 3 sides are Rye Brook, North Castle and Purchase, all affluent towns themselves and they have the money to fight any expansion and have been fighting expansion since way back to the late 70’s.

When I first started to work at HPN, the airline terminal was nothing but a surplus WW2 Quonset hut, put up the early fifties. As airlines started to fly into HPN, Mohawk was the first with prop airliners and then FH-227 prop jets and then changing over to the BAC 1-11 the terminal was deemed insufficient, but there was loud opposition from the NIMBY’s so the country did not pursue it but they did grade out property by the tower side of the airport and put in dirt road as site preparation, but due to cost overruns at the new County Courthouse the County took the remaining funds for the terminal site and diverted it to the Courthouse and that ended the plans to relocate the terminal to the other side of the airport.

Between my JetStar flying jobs I worked as an inspector for a repair station and one day the chief pilot of an air taxi service based at HPN, who I knew real well because we maintained their airplanes came in to the shop and told my manager they needed a co-pilot real fast for a quick trip that came in for their Beech Queen Air and since I had my ratings they commandeered me for the trip. It turned out the passengers was the County Executive, I think his name was Al Dibello and some of his staff and the purpose of the trip was to check out some other small cities airline terminals, we flew to Redding and Lancaster PA and the passengers got a quick tour of their terminals.

Once the County announced they were going to replace the Quonset Hut terminal the NIMBY’s filed numerous lawsuits and it took almost 20 years to reach a settlement. But the terminal was built before 9-11 and the TSA and there was insufficient space for today’s security and baggage screening and it has been an ongoing battle even to expand just to accommodate the security needs.

At one time there were 2 flying schools at HPN and the County wanted to build a shorter 3000 foot parallel runway next to 16-34 for mainly safety reasons to move the slow trainers from the main runway and approach paths because of the large amount of corporate jets operating in and out of HPN and the NIMBY’s shot that plan down in a heartbeat, claiming it would lead to expansion, that was their battle cry, no expansion.

So again HPN will always be tightly controlled and will never grow past its current capacity, the NIMBY’s will make sure of that.

JetStar
 
A380MSN004
Topic Author
Posts: 509
Joined: Sat Jun 03, 2017 9:07 am

Re: JFK EWR Versus HPN ISP SWF for TATL low cost Flights

Mon Jul 02, 2018 9:18 pm

jetstar wrote:
Super80Fan wrote:
travelsonic wrote:
The politics surrounding HPN are absolutely disgusting... mainly that surrounding the construction of, and expansion/lack thereof of the terminal. Doubt intl flights would ever be able to happen. Hell, with the terminal, due to the politics surrounding it, it took a lot before any expansion of space, even slight, could happen - new jetway(s), more space for check-in and baggage handling, etc... and even the mere idea of expanding terminal space brings out idiotic fear mongering, and whatnot, that it would lead to more flights and noise, when one can expand the terminal space to meet the demand without resulting in more flights (and restrict flights in other ways).

That's the problem with trying to restrict departures by terminal size alone (versus laying down rules and penalties): you provide no flexibility for things that need to change (like, for example, all the space eaten up when the TSA needed more space for bag scanners and body scanners in the past decade).


Glad I'm not the only one who thinks this. I love HPN, I fly out of there/into there when I can, and I love the small terminal. That being said, the politics against expanding the terminal/more traffic are awful and the TSA checkpoint is a mess of wherever they can get their hands on space, even if it means basically going out all the way into the check in area.

I also find it interesting that Delta flies basically all CRJ-900's into there (and a couple 717's) while JetBlue is back to flying mainly A320's. Makes me think AA/UA had to give up a lot of their flights/capacity.

It's also annoying that all of the food options (quick mart, Dunkin Donuts, and the bar & diner) are all pre-security while the only option post security is a little quick mart.



HPN’s capacity will always be controlled by the NIMBY’s, their fear is that with no capacity controls HPN would turn into a mini LaGuardia.

Abutting HPN on the north side is Greenwich CT, one of the wealthiest towns in the country and on the other 3 sides are Rye Brook, North Castle and Purchase, all affluent towns themselves and they have the money to fight any expansion and have been fighting expansion since way back to the late 70’s.

When I first started to work at HPN, the airline terminal was nothing but a surplus WW2 Quonset hut, put up the early fifties. As airlines started to fly into HPN, Mohawk was the first with prop airliners and then FH-227 prop jets and then changing over to the BAC 1-11 the terminal was deemed insufficient, but there was loud opposition from the NIMBY’s so the country did not pursue it but they did grade out property by the tower side of the airport and put in dirt road as site preparation, but due to cost overruns at the new County Courthouse the County took the remaining funds for the terminal site and diverted it to the Courthouse and that ended the plans to relocate the terminal to the other side of the airport.

Between my JetStar flying jobs I worked as an inspector for a repair station and one day the chief pilot of an air taxi service based at HPN, who I knew real well because we maintained their airplanes came in to the shop and told my manager they needed a co-pilot real fast for a quick trip that came in for their Beech Queen Air and since I had my ratings they commandeered me for the trip. It turned out the passengers was the County Executive, I think his name was Al Dibello and some of his staff and the purpose of the trip was to check out some other small cities airline terminals, we flew to Redding and Lancaster PA and the passengers got a quick tour of their terminals.

Once the County announced they were going to replace the Quonset Hut terminal the NIMBY’s filed numerous lawsuits and it took almost 20 years to reach a settlement. But the terminal was built before 9-11 and the TSA and there was insufficient space for today’s security and baggage screening and it has been an ongoing battle even to expand just to accommodate the security needs.

At one time there were 2 flying schools at HPN and the County wanted to build a shorter 3000 foot parallel runway next to 16-34 for mainly safety reasons to move the slow trainers from the main runway and approach paths because of the large amount of corporate jets operating in and out of HPN and the NIMBY’s shot that plan down in a heartbeat, claiming it would lead to expansion, that was their battle cry, no expansion.

So again HPN will always be tightly controlled and will never grow past its current capacity, the NIMBY’s will make sure of that.

JetStar


Really interesting, thanks Jetstar.
 
DaveFly
Posts: 384
Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2016 9:35 pm

Re: JFK EWR Versus HPN ISP SWF for TATL low cost Flights

Mon Jul 02, 2018 11:16 pm

I used that Quonset Hut quite a few times, particularly on the long-defunct New York Air DC-9s. Later on, I flew on USAir’s F100s. As far as I know, HPN is named for the neighboring towns: Harrison, Purchase, North Castle.
717,727,737,747,757,767,777,787
L1011,DC8,DC9,DC10,MD80/90
A300,A319,320,321,330,340,
CRJ,E135/45/190,
DH8,Avro85,DHBeaver,AstarHelo,F100,ATR42
 
User avatar
Super80Fan
Posts: 1528
Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2017 4:14 am

Re: JFK EWR Versus HPN ISP SWF for TATL low cost Flights

Tue Jul 03, 2018 12:41 am

jetstar wrote:
Super80Fan wrote:
travelsonic wrote:
The politics surrounding HPN are absolutely disgusting... mainly that surrounding the construction of, and expansion/lack thereof of the terminal. Doubt intl flights would ever be able to happen. Hell, with the terminal, due to the politics surrounding it, it took a lot before any expansion of space, even slight, could happen - new jetway(s), more space for check-in and baggage handling, etc... and even the mere idea of expanding terminal space brings out idiotic fear mongering, and whatnot, that it would lead to more flights and noise, when one can expand the terminal space to meet the demand without resulting in more flights (and restrict flights in other ways).

That's the problem with trying to restrict departures by terminal size alone (versus laying down rules and penalties): you provide no flexibility for things that need to change (like, for example, all the space eaten up when the TSA needed more space for bag scanners and body scanners in the past decade).


Glad I'm not the only one who thinks this. I love HPN, I fly out of there/into there when I can, and I love the small terminal. That being said, the politics against expanding the terminal/more traffic are awful and the TSA checkpoint is a mess of wherever they can get their hands on space, even if it means basically going out all the way into the check in area.

I also find it interesting that Delta flies basically all CRJ-900's into there (and a couple 717's) while JetBlue is back to flying mainly A320's. Makes me think AA/UA had to give up a lot of their flights/capacity.

It's also annoying that all of the food options (quick mart, Dunkin Donuts, and the bar & diner) are all pre-security while the only option post security is a little quick mart.



HPN’s capacity will always be controlled by the NIMBY’s, their fear is that with no capacity controls HPN would turn into a mini LaGuardia.

Abutting HPN on the north side is Greenwich CT, one of the wealthiest towns in the country and on the other 3 sides are Rye Brook, North Castle and Purchase, all affluent towns themselves and they have the money to fight any expansion and have been fighting expansion since way back to the late 70’s.

When I first started to work at HPN, the airline terminal was nothing but a surplus WW2 Quonset hut, put up the early fifties. As airlines started to fly into HPN, Mohawk was the first with prop airliners and then FH-227 prop jets and then changing over to the BAC 1-11 the terminal was deemed insufficient, but there was loud opposition from the NIMBY’s so the country did not pursue it but they did grade out property by the tower side of the airport and put in dirt road as site preparation, but due to cost overruns at the new County Courthouse the County took the remaining funds for the terminal site and diverted it to the Courthouse and that ended the plans to relocate the terminal to the other side of the airport.

Between my JetStar flying jobs I worked as an inspector for a repair station and one day the chief pilot of an air taxi service based at HPN, who I knew real well because we maintained their airplanes came in to the shop and told my manager they needed a co-pilot real fast for a quick trip that came in for their Beech Queen Air and since I had my ratings they commandeered me for the trip. It turned out the passengers was the County Executive, I think his name was Al Dibello and some of his staff and the purpose of the trip was to check out some other small cities airline terminals, we flew to Redding and Lancaster PA and the passengers got a quick tour of their terminals.

Once the County announced they were going to replace the Quonset Hut terminal the NIMBY’s filed numerous lawsuits and it took almost 20 years to reach a settlement. But the terminal was built before 9-11 and the TSA and there was insufficient space for today’s security and baggage screening and it has been an ongoing battle even to expand just to accommodate the security needs.

At one time there were 2 flying schools at HPN and the County wanted to build a shorter 3000 foot parallel runway next to 16-34 for mainly safety reasons to move the slow trainers from the main runway and approach paths because of the large amount of corporate jets operating in and out of HPN and the NIMBY’s shot that plan down in a heartbeat, claiming it would lead to expansion, that was their battle cry, no expansion.

So again HPN will always be tightly controlled and will never grow past its current capacity, the NIMBY’s will make sure of that.

JetStar


Thanks for your informative & interesting answer, that definitely makes a lot of sense.
RIP McDonnell Douglas
 
jetstar
Posts: 1414
Joined: Mon May 19, 2003 2:16 am

Re: JFK EWR Versus HPN ISP SWF for TATL low cost Flights

Tue Jul 03, 2018 1:33 pm

DaveFly wrote:
I used that Quonset Hut quite a few times, particularly on the long-defunct New York Air DC-9s. Later on, I flew on USAir’s F100s. As far as I know, HPN is named for the neighboring towns: Harrison, Purchase, North Castle.


There has been a longstanding debate to the origins of this code. Many believe that it is derived from the name of the city, wHite PlaiNs, the letter W is not used as a first letter for airport identifications because it is reserved for radio stations east of the Mississippi. others believe the IATA code represents the first letter of the three neighboring communities, Harrison, Purchase, and North Castle. And after working on HPN for over 20 years as far as I know no one has officially confirmed either one.

HPN was built in 1942 as an Army Air National Guard base to protect New York City and the nearby Rye Lake, which is part of the New York City water supply system and is located in the towns of Harrison, North Castle and then Rye, now a separate town called Rye Brook and is located about 3 miles as the crow flies from the center of the White Plains NY business district.

The common one, named from the nearby towns of Harrison, Purchase and North Castle, but Purchase is not a town, it is part of the town of Harrison so I go with the version that it came it came from wHite PlaiNs, the nearest big city.

Since the planners of HPN in 1942 are long since gone, unless it is in writing on some dusty documents stored deep down in a military vault somewhere this debate as to where the HPN designation came from will keep going on and on.

JetStar
 
Socrates17
Posts: 150
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2003 3:47 am

Re: JFK EWR Versus HPN ISP SWF for TATL low cost Flights

Tue Jul 03, 2018 2:50 pm

The difficulty in getting from one place to another in the NYC Metro area can't be discounted. While there is public transit, it's mostly designed for commuters and isn't very luggage-friendly. I currently live in northern NJ and it would take a lot (like a free J ticket to ICN on OZ or to Tokyo on NH) to get me to JFK. If I still lived on Long Island, it would take something like a free J ticket to HKG on CX to get me to drag my luggage out to EWR. LGA is actually closest in miles to me, but the traffic is horrific and they don't in any case do TATL. I have flown out of LGA to YYZ (and also to the small and charming YTZ when there was still a direct flight). EWR & SWF are equidistant from me and only slightly farther than LGA. I'd certainly consider DY out of SWF for the right price (and with trip insurance in case they collapse). If I was still living on Long Island, I'd be delighted in the fairly unlikely event that TATL service started from ISP, but would never consider SWF. I'd think that anyone in the northern suburbs would appreciate TATL service from HPN, if that was ever feasible, which seems even less likely. Airline/price/amenities/parking matter, but so does the issue of just getting your family and your stuff to and from the airport.
You Can't Take the Sky from Me
 
User avatar
aemoreira1981
Posts: 2780
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2017 12:17 am

Re: JFK EWR Versus HPN ISP SWF for TATL low cost Flights

Tue Jul 03, 2018 3:22 pm

Even without the issue of FIS facilities, HPN and ISP really have runways that are too short for fully-loaded international flights.The runway at SWF has 9800 feet available for landing in the RWY 27 direction and 8800 feet for landing in the RWY 9 direction, with 11,800 feet available for takeoffs, making it ideal for long-haul. That said, what SWF really might need down the line is a CAT III approach in the 27 end.

Down the line, maybe Norwegian could use the A321LR to build up a nice secondary network to Europe, similar to what Continental did before its merger with United (20 secondary destinations in Europe using the TATL 757, including year-round service to LIS).
 
User avatar
PatrickZ80
Posts: 3825
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:33 am

Re: JFK EWR Versus HPN ISP SWF for TATL low cost Flights

Tue Jul 03, 2018 5:23 pm

A380MSN004 wrote:
zrs70 wrote:
Low cost carriers using tertiary airports is really misleading... While the cost of the flight and parking may be less, the cost (and effort) of getting to the airport is often much more.


We all know that here, but we have to admit Most of the ppl Flying lcc dont think the same Way, look at the success of Ryanair for instance.


It just depends on where you're coming from and where you're going to, the biggest airport is not always the most convenient. Besides, most of those small airport have got some kind of shuttle service into the city they're supposed to serve. Look at PlusAirportLine for example, they're the biggest in Europe in cheap airport shuttle services. Many LCC passengers make use of it.

In the case of New York, the big airports (JFK, Newark) may be convenient for the city center but not if you need to be in the outskirts of New York. Then Stewart is far easier to get to. Besides, I can imagine one day there'll be a train service to Stewart. It can easily be done, there's a railway line passing closeby. Just extend the line from Salisbury Mills to the airport. Then you can have a shuttle train between Stewart and Hoboken, very convenient if you need to be in the city.
 
User avatar
LAXintl
Posts: 23641
Joined: Wed May 24, 2000 12:12 pm

Re: JFK EWR Versus HPN ISP SWF for TATL low cost Flights

Tue Jul 03, 2018 5:32 pm

jetstar wrote:
HPN does have customs and Immigration on field and it has been there for many years, I went through customs many times back in the 70's and 80's during my JetStar flying days and it is still there today, but because of a lack of space they do not have a facility at the passenger terminal to process airline passengers, so it is limited to private aircraft and corporate jets and is based at a corporate fixed base operation, so to clear customs you have to taxi up to their ramp.

JetStar


CBP inspection services for GA activity is not equivalent to having the authority, facility, and staffing to work planeloads of commercial flights.

So at the end as another poster first stated, HPN does not have FIS with the ability to hand international commercial flying.
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
 
DaveFly
Posts: 384
Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2016 9:35 pm

Re: JFK EWR Versus HPN ISP SWF for TATL low cost Flights

Tue Jul 03, 2018 7:47 pm

jetstar wrote:
DaveFly wrote:
I used that Quonset Hut quite a few times, particularly on the long-defunct New York Air DC-9s. Later on, I flew on USAir’s F100s. As far as I know, HPN is named for the neighboring towns: Harrison, Purchase, North Castle.


There has been a longstanding debate to the origins of this code. Many believe that it is derived from the name of the city, wHite PlaiNs, the letter W is not used as a first letter for airport identifications because it is reserved for radio stations east of the Mississippi. others believe the IATA code represents the first letter of the three neighboring communities, Harrison, Purchase, and North Castle. And after working on HPN for over 20 years as far as I know no one has officially confirmed either one.

HPN was built in 1942 as an Army Air National Guard base to protect New York City and the nearby Rye Lake, which is part of the New York City water supply system and is located in the towns of Harrison, North Castle and then Rye, now a separate town called Rye Brook and is located about 3 miles as the crow flies from the center of the White Plains NY business district.

The common one, named from the nearby towns of Harrison, Purchase and North Castle, but Purchase is not a town, it is part of the town of Harrison so I go with the version that it came it came from wHite PlaiNs, the nearest big city.

Since the planners of HPN in 1942 are long since gone, unless it is in writing on some dusty documents stored deep down in a military vault somewhere this debate as to where the HPN designation came from will keep going on and on.

JetStar


I guess this is one of those rare instances where there really are ‘alternative facts!’ Either theory could be right. I have no preference in the debate: I have family in Harrison, attend concerts in Purchase, and spent many years working in White Plains. It all works for me! As for the airport itself, apart from its convenience, it is truly a mess.
717,727,737,747,757,767,777,787
L1011,DC8,DC9,DC10,MD80/90
A300,A319,320,321,330,340,
CRJ,E135/45/190,
DH8,Avro85,DHBeaver,AstarHelo,F100,ATR42
 
DaveFly
Posts: 384
Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2016 9:35 pm

Re: JFK EWR Versus HPN ISP SWF for TATL low cost Flights

Tue Jul 03, 2018 7:57 pm

aemoreira1981 wrote:
Even without the issue of FIS facilities, HPN and ISP really have runways that are too short for fully-loaded international flights.The runway at SWF has 9800 feet available for landing in the RWY 27 direction and 8800 feet for landing in the RWY 9 direction, with 11,800 feet available for takeoffs, making it ideal for long-haul. That said, what SWF really might need down the line is a CAT III approach in the 27 end.

Down the line, maybe Norwegian could use the A321LR to build up a nice secondary network to Europe, similar to what Continental did before its merger with United (20 secondary destinations in Europe using the TATL 757, including year-round service to LIS).


You summed it up very well. I’d like to add that SWF also has an intersecting runway (16/34) that is 6000 feet long. It’s mostly used for general aviation, although I’ve landed on it in an E-190, and taken off in an F-100. When I asked the pilots, in one instance they said the winds were very strong from the north. In another instance, they said 09/27 was closed for maintenance. (btw, when taking off on 34, you can see the wreck of the FedEx DC-10 that burned shortly after landing. I’m not sure it’s still there, but it was last time I was there)
717,727,737,747,757,767,777,787
L1011,DC8,DC9,DC10,MD80/90
A300,A319,320,321,330,340,
CRJ,E135/45/190,
DH8,Avro85,DHBeaver,AstarHelo,F100,ATR42
 
A380MSN004
Topic Author
Posts: 509
Joined: Sat Jun 03, 2017 9:07 am

Re: JFK EWR Versus HPN ISP SWF for TATL low cost Flights

Tue Jul 03, 2018 10:43 pm

aemoreira1981 wrote:
Even without the issue of FIS facilities, HPN and ISP really have runways that are too short for fully-loaded international flights.The runway at SWF has 9800 feet available for landing in the RWY 27 direction and 8800 feet for landing in the RWY 9 direction, with 11,800 feet available for takeoffs, making it ideal for long-haul. That said, what SWF really might need down the line is a CAT III approach in the 27 end.

Down the line, maybe Norwegian could use the A321LR to build up a nice secondary network to Europe, similar to what Continental did before its merger with United (20 secondary destinations in Europe using the TATL 757, including year-round service to LIS).


Very interesting aemoreira1981 thanks.

Do you remember what was those 20 secondary destinations in Europe operated on 757s?

Many thanks
 
User avatar
aemoreira1981
Posts: 2780
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2017 12:17 am

Re: JFK EWR Versus HPN ISP SWF for TATL low cost Flights

Tue Jul 03, 2018 11:26 pm

A380MSN004 wrote:
aemoreira1981 wrote:
Even without the issue of FIS facilities, HPN and ISP really have runways that are too short for fully-loaded international flights.The runway at SWF has 9800 feet available for landing in the RWY 27 direction and 8800 feet for landing in the RWY 9 direction, with 11,800 feet available for takeoffs, making it ideal for long-haul. That said, what SWF really might need down the line is a CAT III approach in the 27 end.

Down the line, maybe Norwegian could use the A321LR to build up a nice secondary network to Europe, similar to what Continental did before its merger with United (20 secondary destinations in Europe using the TATL 757, including year-round service to LIS).


Very interesting aemoreira1981 thanks.

Do you remember what was those 20 secondary destinations in Europe operated on 757s?

Many thanks

Off the top of my head, I can think of Hamburg, Stuttgart, Berlin Tegel, Glasgow, Edinburgh, Manchester, Dublin, Shannon, Barcelona, and Lisbon. I wouldn’t be surprised to see Brussels National and Düsseldorf on that list. Someone else can fill in the others.
 
rj1385
Posts: 91
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2007 9:09 am

Re: JFK EWR Versus HPN ISP SWF for TATL low cost Flights

Wed Jul 04, 2018 1:31 am

DaveFly wrote:
aemoreira1981 wrote:
(btw, when taking off on 34, you can see the wreck of the FedEx DC-10 that burned shortly after landing. I’m not sure it’s still there, but it was last time I was there)


The plane has been removed for a bit. But it was there for a long time sitting behind tower hill hiding it from the terminal.
 
strfyr51
Posts: 3830
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

Re: JFK EWR Versus HPN ISP SWF for TATL low cost Flights

Wed Jul 04, 2018 2:26 am

Galwayman wrote:
janders wrote:
No FIS at HPN or ISP so you can forget those.



If Norwegian uses preclearance at Dublin airport does the USA airport still need FIS in The USA??

Yes, for the outbound Travelers, Unless the flight is only going one way..

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos