Natflyer wrote:

Billthe3rd wrote:

For everyone complaining about the current state of EWR, Do you live there? Its an Airport, Your there for a few hours. Your will survive. Once JFK and LGA are completed, you might see EWR completely redone.

JFK and LGA completed??? Is that ever going to happen?

Have you been anywhere near LGA recently?

codc10 wrote:

Perhaps in 20 or so years when it has outlasted its useful life, but until then, no.

IMO, it’s an above-average facility. Not the best, but far from the worst. EWR C is often called a “dump”, but I think that’s more because of anti-UA/EWR/New Jersey bias than actual shortcomings of the Terminal C facility. No better or worse than lots of US airports.

It is a bit of dump, IMHO. The UC in one of the piers is stuck in the 1980s, they have such a problem with club space that UA had to open a pop up club, security is lousy, walkways are crammed and gate areas are oddly arranged ever since they let Westfield have free reign.

The ugliest part of C is the base for check-in which is no different from A which is a relic from the 1970s. Terminal B's check-in areas are actually newly renovated.

That said, I don't see much of anything changing at C anytime soon except for a new UA club coming along.

B737900ER wrote:

Because it would cost eleventy billion dollars and take 25 years. This is PANYNJ we’re talking about.

Best reply ever!!! Lol


Seriously if any UA hub needs leveled and rebuilt it is IAD. But the money isn’t there to support much investment at IAD so just glad it is sticking around unlike CLE.

Haven’t been through EWR in a long time now


The WORST thing about that airport used to be the INCESSANT, very loud, pointless and inane PA announcements, they go on and on



I realize it’s an American airport ‘thing’ but it’s godawful, do we really need ‘this is the last and final call for flight 123 to Chicago’ repeated SEVEN times



Doing away with PA announcements would go a long way towards a calmer travel experience, the rest of the world does it, EWR is the worst example of this obnoxious practice

I remember when all 3 Terminals were built in the early 1970’s and really not liking the way it “looked”, even when new. It was designed in the worst VERY 1973 style with browns and tan and brown airplanes like PeopleExress, Laker and CO meatball. But TC sat empty for many years.
I’m actually astonished at how well CO, and now UA today has fixed it up given what is “was”. The deep tan cement 80ft ceilings needed something like 3 or 4 coats of white paint to become “white” and now looks pretty darn good with the bright blue lights etc. The Global Services check-in room is gorgeous. The soaring white columns and ceilings, natural light makes it extremely airy! The check-gates (premier anyway) are never really crowded and very fast and FINALLY (while I’m not a CO globe fan) the blue branded designed walls behind check-in are beautiful as are the counters and white and chrome computers.
I’m in TC almost once a week for years, so it seems (to me) like it took a very long time to renovate. But while “currently squished and crowded- security is a breeze if you have TSA PreCheck, the new conveyor belt and bin system rocks! But it’s under construction right now to open it all up.

The new gate areas are wonderful, with the new PristmanGoode modern seating and lit tables- like a mini United Club for the masses to comfortably sit. Great stores and every angle is great looking.

I never really understood the middle floor before airside- although I see how it’s used today.

Airside is FINALLY very attractive, beautiful bars and restaurants with iPads at each seat, where you can pay with money or miles, The Polaris Lounge is like the Four Seasons but there is DIRE need for more regular United Clubs now.

Even if your gate is one that’s far away, it’s still so easy to deplane>baggage>Uber/taxi or whatever to get out.

I LOVE TC EXCEPT FOR ONE THING: the public toilets are extremely disgusting and the stench is like a latrine for ogres! That said; I saw ONE regular Lav that was all fixed up, it was beautiful, but I cannot recall exactly where, or what concourse but it also needs powerful ventilation.
There are the little satisfaction buttons with the red, yellow and green faces and I always hit the RED sad face button - twice!

TC is probably one of the all time best “makeovers” of a dingy OLD and dated terminal into something attractive and easy to navigate. Is it knock your socks off new and ultra modern? No. Is it one of the better terminals in the USA that is easy to use? YES.
United made great lemonade out of a huge lemon of a dated horrible terminal.

Max Q wrote:

Haven’t been through EWR in a long time now


The WORST thing about that airport used to be the INCESSANT, very loud, pointless and inane PA announcements, they go on and on



I realize it’s an American airport ‘thing’ but it’s godawful, do we really need ‘this is the last and final call for flight 123 to Chicago’ repeated SEVEN times



Doing away with PA announcements would go a long way towards a calmer travel experience, the rest of the world does it, EWR is the worst example of this obnoxious practice

I think those particular PA’s are gone. There’s another one though of a super friendly computer voice of a lady reminding people not to take packages from strangers, leave your luggage unattended etc. it’s not so bad. On a concourse though you may get the occasional “Mr John Doe please get to gate UA123 to Kathmandu, the flight is ready to close”

Although I REALLY miss the lady at Brazilian airports with the slow sexy gravely voice! They actually digitally recreated her voice for all airports in Brazil- not just Rio.

winginit wrote:

kimimm19 wrote:

Please... With the amount of people that fly through US airports, it should be easy to get the funds to improve facilities through a small fee.

You mean like... landing fees? What a novel concept... if only we had those...

kimimm19 wrote:

So no, there is plenty of opportunity but all funds that could go to these projects are pocketed by airports and airlines.

Airports are government entities... their revenue streams aren't 'pocketed' as profits...

Like airport imporvement fees as they have in Canada

And without making this a political discussion, you clearly don't know how the US gov't works as it goes up the chain.

Even the new renderings at new Terminal 1 throw a nod to EWRs 70s headhouse look...which is cool.

Anyone know how all the jetways became poop brown? that is also a unique EWR thing

SurlyBonds wrote:

spinotter wrote:

Yes, but if you are thinking HKG, SIN, or ICN, you are never going to get it at EWR. Terminal A is a mess. C is not too bad for an American airport.

Ladies and gentlemen, in a nutshell, we have the case for American decline.

I agree. Not one mile of high-speed rail, no new and world-class airports, no subway to LGA, no Schiphol/Frankfurt/Paris CDG/Incheon/Shanghai/etc./etc. mass transit options to any airport in the USA, pulling out of the Paris agreement, watering down vehicle mileage targets - we live in a PITIFUL country.

jasoncrh wrote:

When was the last time you were at LAX United? They've COMPLETELY redone the check in and security area. It's much better and nicer than it's ever been. It definitely use to be a disaster, but nowadays it's nice, spacious, and airy.

drdisque wrote:

Honestly, even compare it to UA's other hubs:

T1 at ORD is more dated pretty much everywhere, just easier to navigate. Check in is fine, very functional, but not "nice" or modern by any stretch. Security is adequate but only because UA forced staff ups. When TSA was understaffed the shortcomings of the security design were very glaring (although still better than ORD T3).

DEN uses common landside. Airside concourse B is maybe more spacious but doesn't have the same level of amenities or modernities of EWR C

IAD, common landside, and, well, you know C/D, far worse than EWR C.

IAH C is better than EWR C by most metrics (other than being somewhat labyrinthine) but honestly not by much, the concourses are wider, but it's a really big awkward terminal.

SFO T3 is cramped, and has an average level of amenities.

LAX T7/8 is cramped and outdated throughout (although I know they're working on cosmetic updates and renovations there, at least airside).Check-in/Security is terrible.

All the airports you listed are either under renovation or just finished renovation!

ORD is need of a major overhaul.......

IAD---i have no good comments about IAD....

DEN is good where they are at IMO.

IAH-i haven't flown into IAH in a while, so i dont remember

SFO-Spaced constraint, they are limited on they can do, but they did improve the security and check in areas.

LAX-Entire check in area is brand new, they are still finishing up some retrofits but they are pretty much done. The new UA club right past security is one of the nicest in the network.

spinotter wrote:

no Schiphol/Frankfurt/Paris CDG/Incheon/Shanghai/etc./etc. mass transit options to any airport in the USA

EWR has NJT and Amtrak NEC trains connecting directly to its AirTrain.

Mass Transit trains run to ATL, DCA, ORD, MDW, PHL, SFO, OAK, JFK, BOS and soon LAX and IAD

Light Rail runs to MSP, STL, DEN, PHX, SEA, PDX, CLE, DFW

MIA is connected to commuter rail

So the only big airports in the US with no existing or planned train connection are DTW, LGA, CLT, IAH, FLL and LAS.

drdisque wrote:

spinotter wrote:

no Schiphol/Frankfurt/Paris CDG/Incheon/Shanghai/etc./etc. mass transit options to any airport in the USA

EWR has NJT and Amtrak NEC trains connecting directly to its AirTrain.

Mass Transit trains run to ATL, DCA, ORD, MDW, PHL, SFO, OAK, JFK, BOS and soon LAX and IAD

Light Rail runs to MSP, STL, DEN, PHX, SEA, PDX, CLE, DFW

MIA is connected to commuter rail

So the only big airports in the US with no existing or planned train connection are DTW, LGA, CLT, IAH, FLL and LAS.

You cannot compare the mass transit systems of any city in the USA to those of most European and Asian nations. Wake me up when we have the equivalent of Amsterdam Schiphol, with dozens of long-distance trains per hour. Same with FRA. Even LHR and CDG have current and future plans that put every American airport to shame. When was the last new airport opened in the USA? DEN? AUS? Long time ago. Or even if we kept the airports we have in good shape. SIN is some decades old but still lives up to the expectations of perfection travelers have of it. Same ICN. Same HKG. Where is such an airport in the USA? Or anything else new, energy-efficient, and beautiful in this sad, old, tired country of ours?

spinotter wrote:

SurlyBonds wrote:

spinotter wrote:

Yes, but if you are thinking HKG, SIN, or ICN, you are never going to get it at EWR. Terminal A is a mess. C is not too bad for an American airport.

Ladies and gentlemen, in a nutshell, we have the case for American decline.

I agree. Not one mile of high-speed rail, no new and world-class airports, no subway to LGA, no Schiphol/Frankfurt/Paris CDG/Incheon/Shanghai/etc./etc. mass transit options to any airport in the USA, pulling out of the Paris agreement, watering down vehicle mileage targets - we live in a PITIFUL country.

My point is even more basic. People are lowering their standards. They concede that the rest of the world is "better" and are satisfied when something is "not too bad by American standards." This is terrible and must not stand.

jfklganyc wrote:

You are comparing it next to two dogs. Out of the 3 terminals at EWR, it is the best.

It is not a modern, 2020 terminal for a crown jewel hub.

EWR is not a crown jewel. EWR is a hub, just like IAD is a hub. The goal is to make money and not make it aesthetically pleasing to you while in baggage claim. Some things can be improved upon and they have done that with EWR. The moving walkways were removed and in place are the OTG dining options. Most of the seating areas have power in the seats and there are many windows offering good views of the NYC skyline. What do you want and would those changes cause you to choose UAL as your NYC carrier? Do you buy on loyalty, facilities or like most consumers....price?

SurlyBonds wrote:

spinotter wrote:

SurlyBonds wrote:

Ladies and gentlemen, in a nutshell, we have the case for American decline.

I agree. Not one mile of high-speed rail, no new and world-class airports, no subway to LGA, no Schiphol/Frankfurt/Paris CDG/Incheon/Shanghai/etc./etc. mass transit options to any airport in the USA, pulling out of the Paris agreement, watering down vehicle mileage targets - we live in a PITIFUL country.

My point is even more basic. People are lowering their standards. They concede that the rest of the world is "better" and are satisfied when something is "not too bad by American standards." This is terrible and must not stand.

May sound stupid but I prefer American airports over Asian ones (I am Asian-American btw). Airports like those in the ME and Pacific are great but require way too much walking to get anywhere and have tons of frivolous extras like gardens and movie theaters and not enough stuff that people actually need like affordable food and ample seating. US airports aren’t that fancy but are damn practical and I love that. Might not be able to watch a movie in EWR but you probably won’t have an issue finding somewhere to sit or getting something to eat.

spinotter wrote:

drdisque wrote:

spinotter wrote:

no Schiphol/Frankfurt/Paris CDG/Incheon/Shanghai/etc./etc. mass transit options to any airport in the USA

EWR has NJT and Amtrak NEC trains connecting directly to its AirTrain.

Mass Transit trains run to ATL, DCA, ORD, MDW, PHL, SFO, OAK, JFK, BOS and soon LAX and IAD

Light Rail runs to MSP, STL, DEN, PHX, SEA, PDX, CLE, DFW

MIA is connected to commuter rail

So the only big airports in the US with no existing or planned train connection are DTW, LGA, CLT, IAH, FLL and LAS.

You cannot compare the mass transit systems of any city in the USA to those of most European and Asian nations. Wake me up when we have the equivalent of Amsterdam Schiphol, with dozens of long-distance trains per hour. Same with FRA. Even LHR and CDG have current and future plans that put every American airport to shame. When was the last new airport opened in the USA? DEN? AUS? Long time ago. Or even if we kept the airports we have in good shape. SIN is some decades old but still lives up to the expectations of perfection travelers have of it. Same ICN. Same HKG. Where is such an airport in the USA? Or anything else new, energy-efficient, and beautiful in this sad, old, tired country of ours?

With all due respect you can't compare a lot of the US to Europe because of sheer size. AMS--even though it's pretty far west-- is within 1000 km of the majority of major cities in Europe. So train makes sense there. Versus DEN, which is 1400 km from the nearest city that is comparable in size to it, or LAX, which only has a few major cities within 1000 km. Trains would only make sense in the northeast part of the US, where there is density to support it.

There also are a lot of airports that are being redesigned and rebuilt in the US. IND, MEM, SLC, LGA, PIT, DTW, ORD just to name a few have either recently finished large projects or are in various stages from planning to under construction at each of these mid-to-large airports. So there are a lot of examples of "new" airports in the US.

SurlyBonds wrote:

spinotter wrote:

SurlyBonds wrote:

Ladies and gentlemen, in a nutshell, we have the case for American decline.

I agree. Not one mile of high-speed rail, no new and world-class airports, no subway to LGA, no Schiphol/Frankfurt/Paris CDG/Incheon/Shanghai/etc./etc. mass transit options to any airport in the USA, pulling out of the Paris agreement, watering down vehicle mileage targets - we live in a PITIFUL country.

My point is even more basic. People are lowering their standards. They concede that the rest of the world is "better" and are satisfied when something is "not too bad by American standards." This is terrible and must not stand.

As someone who has lived both in the US and Europe (Denmark) don’t confuse “shinier,” “newer,” and “flashier” with “better.” Many European airports (been to very few Asian ones) fit the the first three descriptors relative to US airports, but I wouldn’t necessary say they are better airports. Many actually suck unless you absolutely love shopping.

drdisque wrote:

spinotter wrote:

no Schiphol/Frankfurt/Paris CDG/Incheon/Shanghai/etc./etc. mass transit options to any airport in the USA

EWR has NJT and Amtrak NEC trains connecting directly to its AirTrain.

Mass Transit trains run to ATL, DCA, ORD, MDW, PHL, SFO, OAK, JFK, BOS and soon LAX and IAD

Light Rail runs to MSP, STL, DEN, PHX, SEA, PDX, CLE, DFW

MIA is connected to commuter rail

So the only big airports in the US with no existing or planned train connection are DTW, LGA, CLT, IAH, FLL and LAS.

Except EWR's AirTrain is ridiculously small and connects to another station before going to Penn and then NJT to NYC. It's not as fast, cheap, and easy as people want to make of it.

N649DL wrote:

drdisque wrote:

spinotter wrote:

no Schiphol/Frankfurt/Paris CDG/Incheon/Shanghai/etc./etc. mass transit options to any airport in the USA

EWR has NJT and Amtrak NEC trains connecting directly to its AirTrain.

Mass Transit trains run to ATL, DCA, ORD, MDW, PHL, SFO, OAK, JFK, BOS and soon LAX and IAD

Light Rail runs to MSP, STL, DEN, PHX, SEA, PDX, CLE, DFW

MIA is connected to commuter rail

So the only big airports in the US with no existing or planned train connection are DTW, LGA, CLT, IAH, FLL and LAS.

Except EWR's AirTrain is ridiculously small and connects to another station before going to Penn and then NJT to NYC. It's not as fast, cheap, and easy as people want to make of it.

It is much better than the options at the other two NYC airports in ease of use.

mcdu wrote:

N649DL wrote:

drdisque wrote:

EWR has NJT and Amtrak NEC trains connecting directly to its AirTrain.

Mass Transit trains run to ATL, DCA, ORD, MDW, PHL, SFO, OAK, JFK, BOS and soon LAX and IAD

Light Rail runs to MSP, STL, DEN, PHX, SEA, PDX, CLE, DFW

MIA is connected to commuter rail

So the only big airports in the US with no existing or planned train connection are DTW, LGA, CLT, IAH, FLL and LAS.

Except EWR's AirTrain is ridiculously small and connects to another station before going to Penn and then NJT to NYC. It's not as fast, cheap, and easy as people want to make of it.

It is much better than the options at the other two NYC airports in ease of use.

JFK is definitely easier. LIRR trains are new and have more frequency and less delays to Penn Station.

N649DL wrote:

mcdu wrote:

N649DL wrote:

Except EWR's AirTrain is ridiculously small and connects to another station before going to Penn and then NJT to NYC. It's not as fast, cheap, and easy as people want to make of it.

It is much better than the options at the other two NYC airports in ease of use.

JFK is definitely easier. LIRR trains are new and have more frequency and less delays to Penn Station.

I have taken both and don't find the JFK trains to be any better. The mass of humanity at the JFK transfer station is beyond painful. Going directly to Penn Station from EWR is more convenient in my personal experience. The new train from EWR to low Manhattan will also be very beneficial.

N649DL wrote:

mcdu wrote:

N649DL wrote:

Except EWR's AirTrain is ridiculously small and connects to another station before going to Penn and then NJT to NYC. It's not as fast, cheap, and easy as people want to make of it.

It is much better than the options at the other two NYC airports in ease of use.

JFK is definitely easier. LIRR trains are new and have more frequency and less delays to Penn Station.

I would wager that from the most distant gate at T4 or T5 to Penn Station, average elapsed time from blocking in to alighting at NYP, is longer than the comparable time from the most distant gates at EWR, even taking into account the slightly less frequent EWR train service.

It can take a LONG time to get from the far reaches of T4/T5 to Jamaica.

Neither EWR nor JFK has a top-tier mass transit option, but it works.

Like most commenters, I don’t understand the issue. I’ve flown out of EWR terminal B and C in the last two months. Everything was fine. It’s not as if I’m buying an apartment there. It’s functional, that’s all I expect.

mcdu wrote:

N649DL wrote:

mcdu wrote:

It is much better than the options at the other two NYC airports in ease of use.

JFK is definitely easier. LIRR trains are new and have more frequency and less delays to Penn Station.

I have taken both and don't find the JFK trains to be any better. The mass of humanity at the JFK transfer station is beyond painful. Going directly to Penn Station from EWR is more convenient in my personal experience. The new train from EWR to low Manhattan will also be very beneficial.

Mass hysteria? The only hysteria I've ever encountered is the pushing and shoving to squeeze into the EWR AirTrain since the cars are so small.

As another user said, neither are great but I personally can't stand how terrible NJT is to get into and of Manhattan with all the waiting with the Amtrak traffic into the tunnels.

N649DL wrote:

Mass hysteria? The only hysteria I've ever encountered is the pushing and shoving to squeeze into the EWR AirTrain since the cars are so small.

As another user said, neither are great but I personally can't stand how terrible NJT is to get into and of Manhattan with all the waiting with the Amtrak traffic into the tunnels.

Now you’re just making things up.
The air train runs every three minutes. It’s hardly ever crowded.
And in all the times I’ve taken NJT to the city I’ve rarely run into any significant delay. I’m at a loss as to why you think it’s so terrible. It’s at the very least comparable to JFK, and often times faster.

kimimm19 wrote:

There's a reason why EWR and most of the major airports including ORD and IAD rank low on the best airports survey...

America is not willing to invest in public transport services in comparison to pretty much everywhere else in the world. It's just how it is.

I’d like to point out a few errors in your post.

For starters, nearly every major airport in the US is locked in by development or environmental preserves/sanctuaries.
Beyond that, the US has some of the busiest airports in the world. Knocking down entire terminals and building new is too disruptive to the operation, especially given the throughput of most major US airports. Also, consider that many of the major US airports are also some of the oldest. Comparing HKG to EWR/ORD is an unfair comparison as EWR/ORD predate HKG by decades.

You also mention ORD being ranked poorly on some list and go on to say that there is no investment in infrastructure. This is laughable considering ORD has been completely redesigned from an air field perspective and the City of Chicago announced a major terminal expansion project some months ago.

I think the other thing to consider is the politics and laws in the US vs other countries. It’s easy to build in China as the government simply takes the land it needs from its citizens. It’s not that simple in the US and other places. The new Istanbul airport saw the clear cutting of hundreds of acres of forest. Guarantee such a proposal would be tossed immediately in the US.

Additionally, I think it’s important to note that the US has hundreds of public use airports. HKG and SIN have 1 a piece. It’s easy to create a masterpiece when funding isn’t split amongst hundreds of airports needing improvements.

77H

B737900ER wrote:

N649DL wrote:

Mass hysteria? The only hysteria I've ever encountered is the pushing and shoving to squeeze into the EWR AirTrain since the cars are so small.

As another user said, neither are great but I personally can't stand how terrible NJT is to get into and of Manhattan with all the waiting with the Amtrak traffic into the tunnels.

Now you’re just making things up.
The air train runs every three minutes. It’s hardly ever crowded.
And in all the times I’ve taken NJT to the city I’ve rarely run into any significant delay. I’m at a loss as to why you think it’s so terrible. It’s at the very least comparable to JFK, and often times faster.

Fake news. Why it sucks? I grew up in NJ and know how inefficient and decrepit the train lines are (not to mention how expensive it is as well). The NJT and UA delay one-two punch is something I'd rather not deal with going over to JFK on DL and dealing with LIRR. The worst thing about T4 is the long walk out of the terminal.

If I fly into EWR, at least I'm at Terminal B with the brand new SC and can walk out to an Uber or family to pick me up. The train to Penn out of EWR is a nonstarter. Tourist bait.

77H wrote:

kimimm19 wrote:

There's a reason why EWR and most of the major airports including ORD and IAD rank low on the best airports survey...

America is not willing to invest in public transport services in comparison to pretty much everywhere else in the world. It's just how it is.

I’d like to point out a few errors in your post.

For starters, nearly every major airport in the US is locked in by development or environmental preserves/sanctuaries.
Beyond that, the US has some of the busiest airports in the world. Knocking down entire terminals and building new is too disruptive to the operation, especially given the throughput of most major US airports. Also, consider that many of the major US airports are also some of the oldest. Comparing HKG to EWR/ORD is an unfair comparison as EWR/ORD predate HKG by decades.

You also mention ORD being ranked poorly on some list and go on to say that there is no investment in infrastructure. This is laughable considering ORD has been completely redesigned from an air field perspective and the City of Chicago announced a major terminal expansion project some months ago.

I think the other thing to consider is the politics and laws in the US vs other countries. It’s easy to build in China as the government simply takes the land it needs from its citizens. It’s not that simple in the US and other places. The new Istanbul airport saw the clear cutting of hundreds of acres of forest. Guarantee such a proposal would be tossed immediately in the US.

Additionally, I think it’s important to note that the US has hundreds of public use airports. HKG and SIN have 1 a piece. It’s easy to create a masterpiece when funding isn’t split amongst hundreds of airports needing improvements.

77H

Thanks for pointing out these ''errors'...

Many major airports somehow manage large projects while still shuttling through many people... Think of LHR, AMS, FRA, etc... So there's no excuse..

ORD has investmented into facilities that promote growth, not update or enhance exisiting infrastructure... And T5 is included in this.

There is simply no desire to invest and that's the truth of it.

kimimm19 wrote:

77H wrote:

kimimm19 wrote:

There's a reason why EWR and most of the major airports including ORD and IAD rank low on the best airports survey...

America is not willing to invest in public transport services in comparison to pretty much everywhere else in the world. It's just how it is.

I’d like to point out a few errors in your post.

For starters, nearly every major airport in the US is locked in by development or environmental preserves/sanctuaries.
Beyond that, the US has some of the busiest airports in the world. Knocking down entire terminals and building new is too disruptive to the operation, especially given the throughput of most major US airports. Also, consider that many of the major US airports are also some of the oldest. Comparing HKG to EWR/ORD is an unfair comparison as EWR/ORD predate HKG by decades.

You also mention ORD being ranked poorly on some list and go on to say that there is no investment in infrastructure. This is laughable considering ORD has been completely redesigned from an air field perspective and the City of Chicago announced a major terminal expansion project some months ago.

I think the other thing to consider is the politics and laws in the US vs other countries. It’s easy to build in China as the government simply takes the land it needs from its citizens. It’s not that simple in the US and other places. The new Istanbul airport saw the clear cutting of hundreds of acres of forest. Guarantee such a proposal would be tossed immediately in the US.

Additionally, I think it’s important to note that the US has hundreds of public use airports. HKG and SIN have 1 a piece. It’s easy to create a masterpiece when funding isn’t split amongst hundreds of airports needing improvements.

77H

Thanks for pointing out these ''errors'...

Many major airports somehow manage large projects while still shuttling through many people... Think of LHR, AMS, FRA, etc... So there's no excuse..

ORD has investmented into facilities that promote growth, not update or enhance exisiting infrastructure... And T5 is included in this.

There is simply no desire to invest and that's the truth of it.

I wouldn’t call LHR a shining example of airfield efficiency nor stellar facilities outside the new build BA terminals and the Queen’s Terminal. LHR is a jumbled collection of terminals.

As for ORD, the biggest issue ORD had was the number of arrivals and departures it could handle due to all the parallel runways which often lead to stacks of holding patterns and long departure queues. Inclement weather only compounded the issue.

You may recall, ORD had quite a few years of passenger numbers declining or staying stagnant. I’d argue that investing in the airfield itself first was the right call. ORD has seen the growth it has in the last few years in part due the air field improvements. Now that the work is nearly finished, CDA can focus on terminal projects which has already been announced.

77H

Max Q wrote:

Haven’t been through EWR in a long time now


The WORST thing about that airport used to be the INCESSANT, very loud, pointless and inane PA announcements, they go on and on



I realize it’s an American airport ‘thing’ but it’s godawful, do we really need ‘this is the last and final call for flight 123 to Chicago’ repeated SEVEN times



Doing away with PA announcements would go a long way towards a calmer travel experience, the rest of the world does it, EWR is the worst example of this obnoxious practice

Very much in agreement. I never understood why you need to hear gate-specific announcements more than 50 feet from the podium. If you don't know that you need to look at your boarding pass and get there at the time it states, you deserve to miss your plane.

I don't understand why EWR gets so much criticism in a.net and flyertalk. In september I made a connection there (from Terminal B to Terminal C) in less than 2hrs and it was a blast. I really like the natural lighting in Terminal C.

It would be better if the USA can make I to I connections easier.

If only terminal C had the low ceilings, long walks and few windows like they have in ATL then all would be right with UA. <tic>

N649DL wrote:

B737900ER wrote:

N649DL wrote:

Mass hysteria? The only hysteria I've ever encountered is the pushing and shoving to squeeze into the EWR AirTrain since the cars are so small.

As another user said, neither are great but I personally can't stand how terrible NJT is to get into and of Manhattan with all the waiting with the Amtrak traffic into the tunnels.

Now you’re just making things up.
The air train runs every three minutes. It’s hardly ever crowded.
And in all the times I’ve taken NJT to the city I’ve rarely run into any significant delay. I’m at a loss as to why you think it’s so terrible. It’s at the very least comparable to JFK, and often times faster.

Fake news. Why it sucks? I grew up in NJ and know how inefficient and decrepit the train lines are (not to mention how expensive it is as well). The NJT and UA delay one-two punch is something I'd rather not deal with going over to JFK on DL and dealing with LIRR. The worst thing about T4 is the long walk out of the terminal.

If I fly into EWR, at least I'm at Terminal B with the brand new SC and can walk out to an Uber or family to pick me up. The train to Penn out of EWR is a nonstarter. Tourist bait.

Welcome back Tommy

C has improved.

C works even if it's not a masterpiece can't see a reason to spend billions. Delta's old terminal in jfk was a nightmare , can't say C is the same.

kimimm19 wrote:

America is not willing to invest in public transport services in comparison to pretty much everywhere else in the world. It's just how it is.

Myth.

kimimm19 wrote:

77H wrote:

kimimm19 wrote:

77H

Thanks for pointing out these ''errors'...

Many major airports somehow manage large projects while still shuttling through many people... Think of LHR, AMS, FRA, etc... So there's no excuse..

I disagree with you. If you see what's going on at LGA you'd know why. I find the construction of the large new terminal and concourses taking place on top of the old structures to be pretty astonishing, and the pace is way faster than anything I would have expected to see at any public works project in NYC. Sure, the construction has made getting in and out of the airport a pain, but that will resolve itself eventually, and I totally disagree with building an Airtrain that goes away from Manhattan rather than extending the subway. But the overall result will be a huge improvement.

airzim wrote:

N649DL wrote:

B737900ER wrote:

Now you’re just making things up.
The air train runs every three minutes. It’s hardly ever crowded.
And in all the times I’ve taken NJT to the city I’ve rarely run into any significant delay. I’m at a loss as to why you think it’s so terrible. It’s at the very least comparable to JFK, and often times faster.

Fake news. Why it sucks? I grew up in NJ and know how inefficient and decrepit the train lines are (not to mention how expensive it is as well). The NJT and UA delay one-two punch is something I'd rather not deal with going over to JFK on DL and dealing with LIRR. The worst thing about T4 is the long walk out of the terminal.

If I fly into EWR, at least I'm at Terminal B with the brand new SC and can walk out to an Uber or family to pick me up. The train to Penn out of EWR is a nonstarter. Tourist bait.

Welcome back Tommy

I don't know what you're referring to but if you can't provide anything meaningful to the conversation, take a hike.

77H wrote:

kimimm19 wrote:

77H wrote:

I’d like to point out a few errors in your post.

For starters, nearly every major airport in the US is locked in by development or environmental preserves/sanctuaries.
Beyond that, the US has some of the busiest airports in the world. Knocking down entire terminals and building new is too disruptive to the operation, especially given the throughput of most major US airports. Also, consider that many of the major US airports are also some of the oldest. Comparing HKG to EWR/ORD is an unfair comparison as EWR/ORD predate HKG by decades.

You also mention ORD being ranked poorly on some list and go on to say that there is no investment in infrastructure. This is laughable considering ORD has been completely redesigned from an air field perspective and the City of Chicago announced a major terminal expansion project some months ago.

I think the other thing to consider is the politics and laws in the US vs other countries. It’s easy to build in China as the government simply takes the land it needs from its citizens. It’s not that simple in the US and other places. The new Istanbul airport saw the clear cutting of hundreds of acres of forest. Guarantee such a proposal would be tossed immediately in the US.

Additionally, I think it’s important to note that the US has hundreds of public use airports. HKG and SIN have 1 a piece. It’s easy to create a masterpiece when funding isn’t split amongst hundreds of airports needing improvements.

77H

Thanks for pointing out these ''errors'...

Many major airports somehow manage large projects while still shuttling through many people... Think of LHR, AMS, FRA, etc... So there's no excuse..

ORD has investmented into facilities that promote growth, not update or enhance exisiting infrastructure... And T5 is included in this.

There is simply no desire to invest and that's the truth of it.

I wouldn’t call LHR a shining example of airfield efficiency nor stellar facilities outside the new build BA terminals and the Queen’s Terminal. LHR is a jumbled collection of terminals.

As for ORD, the biggest issue ORD had was the number of arrivals and departures it could handle due to all the parallel runways which often lead to stacks of holding patterns and long departure queues. Inclement weather only compounded the issue.

You may recall, ORD had quite a few years of passenger numbers declining or staying stagnant. I’d argue that investing in the airfield itself first was the right call. ORD has seen the growth it has in the last few years in part due the air field improvements. Now that the work is nearly finished, CDA can focus on terminal projects which has already been announced.

77H

You're missing the point... LHR (although a cluster-something) is taking steps to improve and at one point had almost 1/3 of the airport under construction...

They knew it would cause operational headaches until it was complete but they saw the payoffs.

ORD expanding as you say is the correct call, but it highlights more than anything else that in the US it's all about profit, whereas at least in other places in the world profit means an improvement of passenger and consumer experience for the most part.

N649DL wrote:

B737900ER wrote:

N649DL wrote:

Mass hysteria? The only hysteria I've ever encountered is the pushing and shoving to squeeze into the EWR AirTrain since the cars are so small.

As another user said, neither are great but I personally can't stand how terrible NJT is to get into and of Manhattan with all the waiting with the Amtrak traffic into the tunnels.

Now you’re just making things up.
The air train runs every three minutes. It’s hardly ever crowded.
And in all the times I’ve taken NJT to the city I’ve rarely run into any significant delay. I’m at a loss as to why you think it’s so terrible. It’s at the very least comparable to JFK, and often times faster.

Fake news. Why it sucks? I grew up in NJ and know how inefficient and decrepit the train lines are (not to mention how expensive it is as well). The NJT and UA delay one-two punch is something I'd rather not deal with going over to JFK on DL and dealing with LIRR. The worst thing about T4 is the long walk out of the terminal.

If I fly into EWR, at least I'm at Terminal B with the brand new SC and can walk out to an Uber or family to pick me up. The train to Penn out of EWR is a nonstarter. Tourist bait.

I stood in the exact same area waiting for a train from Penn to connect to the JFK train as I have with the train to EWR. It’s a shorter walk on the airport end of the line at EWR and I didn’t have to pay for the airtrain to get from the EWR stop the terminal whereas at JFK it was another fare to get from the airport train stop to the terminal. Fairly long walk from train to security at JFK. Not so much of a walk at EWR. That’s my own personal experience, Tommy

So basically the only two people we have on this thread crapping on EWR terminal C are a guy who has always had a hard on for crapping on EWR as not being a “real” NYC airport, and notorious UA hater Tommy who has shown up under a different username. Now that’s credibility.

mcdu wrote:

N649DL wrote:

B737900ER wrote:

Now you’re just making things up.
The air train runs every three minutes. It’s hardly ever crowded.
And in all the times I’ve taken NJT to the city I’ve rarely run into any significant delay. I’m at a loss as to why you think it’s so terrible. It’s at the very least comparable to JFK, and often times faster.

Fake news. Why it sucks? I grew up in NJ and know how inefficient and decrepit the train lines are (not to mention how expensive it is as well). The NJT and UA delay one-two punch is something I'd rather not deal with going over to JFK on DL and dealing with LIRR. The worst thing about T4 is the long walk out of the terminal.

If I fly into EWR, at least I'm at Terminal B with the brand new SC and can walk out to an Uber or family to pick me up. The train to Penn out of EWR is a nonstarter. Tourist bait.

I stood in the exact same area waiting for a train from Penn to connect to the JFK train as I have with the train to EWR. It’s a shorter walk on the airport end of the line at EWR and I didn’t have to pay for the airtrain to get from the EWR stop the terminal whereas at JFK it was another fare to get from the airport train stop to the terminal. Fairly long walk from train to security at JFK. Not so much of a walk at EWR. That’s my own personal experience, Tommy

You think you didn't have to pay for the airtrain at the EWR rail station but you actually did. The fee is included in the njtransit ticket already. Thats why it cost $13 for a one way trip from EWR to NYP. Compared to only $8 from Newark Penn to NYP which is only one stop away

EWRamp wrote:

mcdu wrote:

N649DL wrote:

Fake news. Why it sucks? I grew up in NJ and know how inefficient and decrepit the train lines are (not to mention how expensive it is as well). The NJT and UA delay one-two punch is something I'd rather not deal with going over to JFK on DL and dealing with LIRR. The worst thing about T4 is the long walk out of the terminal.

If I fly into EWR, at least I'm at Terminal B with the brand new SC and can walk out to an Uber or family to pick me up. The train to Penn out of EWR is a nonstarter. Tourist bait.

I stood in the exact same area waiting for a train from Penn to connect to the JFK train as I have with the train to EWR. It’s a shorter walk on the airport end of the line at EWR and I didn’t have to pay for the airtrain to get from the EWR stop the terminal whereas at JFK it was another fare to get from the airport train stop to the terminal. Fairly long walk from train to security at JFK. Not so much of a walk at EWR. That’s my own personal experience, Tommy

You think you didn't have to pay for the airtrain at the EWR rail station but you actually did. The fee is included in the njtransit ticket already. Thats why it cost $13 for a one way trip from EWR to NYP. Compared to only $8 from Newark Penn to NYP which is only one stop away

Fair, but the all-in-one fee is easier than needing to buy a LIRR ticket + swipe a MetroCard (or buy a metrocard).

spinotter wrote:

drdisque wrote:

spinotter wrote:

no Schiphol/Frankfurt/Paris CDG/Incheon/Shanghai/etc./etc. mass transit options to any airport in the USA

EWR has NJT and Amtrak NEC trains connecting directly to its AirTrain.

Mass Transit trains run to ATL, DCA, ORD, MDW, PHL, SFO, OAK, JFK, BOS and soon LAX and IAD

Light Rail runs to MSP, STL, DEN, PHX, SEA, PDX, CLE, DFW

MIA is connected to commuter rail

So the only big airports in the US with no existing or planned train connection are DTW, LGA, CLT, IAH, FLL and LAS.

You cannot compare the mass transit systems of any city in the USA to those of most European and Asian nations. Wake me up when we have the equivalent of Amsterdam Schiphol, with dozens of long-distance trains per hour. Same with FRA. Even LHR and CDG have current and future plans that put every American airport to shame. When was the last new airport opened in the USA? DEN? AUS? Long time ago. Or even if we kept the airports we have in good shape. SIN is some decades old but still lives up to the expectations of perfection travelers have of it. Same ICN. Same HKG. Where is such an airport in the USA? Or anything else new, energy-efficient, and beautiful in this sad, old, tired country of ours?

Major hubs here have “long distance trains” that are right in the terminal. They are called feeder flights/connections.

Lamenting has city center connections is one thing. But Europe is much more densely populated than anywhere but the northeast USA, and train travel makes sense there, just as it does in the northeast USA. I’m a train guy. I’ve taken the train across the USA multiple times. But upgrading rail to compete with the convenience of flying intercity just doesn’t make sense.

kimimm19 wrote:

There's a reason why EWR and most of the major airports including ORD and IAD rank low on the best airports survey...

America is not willing to invest in public transport services in comparison to pretty much everywhere else in the world. It's just how it is.

I don't think that's a fair blanket statement. And it's certainly not correct when you consider the monster investments going on with new terminals and facilities in heretofore worn down places such as MIA, SEA, LGA, etc. There's new airport construction going on and capital projects at more than half of the top 30 airports in the USA right now.

However, looking at EWR in particular, one of the challenges EWR (and LGA, and several others) have is just the footprint of the airport itself. Heck, the Global Gateway Term C3 project at EWR is shaped the way it is so as to be able to park airplanes outside. It's SO landlocked and so limited in terms of real estate and available land that most airports are quite hamstrung.

DTW, IND, PIT--those airports had plenty of land to be able to do wholesale brand new terminal complexes.

To say that America isn't "willing" to invest is a specious argument. When you factor in the bureaucratic and regulatory aspect of things also, it's a real headache. But no other country on earth has as robust, developed and prolific aviation infrastructure as the US.

The block in NY (at all 3 airports) is the Port Authority. A once great agency has become a bloated, corrupt mess that manages a set of crumbling infastructure.

When you drive over or thru an MTA (TBTA) Bridge or Tunnel and compare it to a PANYNJ bridge or tunnel, the difference in state of repair is striking. The PA makes the MTA look like a model of efficiency (even though the MTA itself is a disaster)

The most recent PA capital projects involved privitization...which is the way to go. Admit defeat and pay somebody else to design, build and run the infastructure in question.

The problem with this approach in the airport realm is obvious...without privatizing the whole airport, there is a lack of a cohesive master plan...as is obvious at JFK LGA and post 1970s EWR.

To his credit, Gov Cuomo in NY has forced a developed Master Plan for JFK and LGA with LGA construction commencing to make that plan a reality.

But the fault in that system is obvious. The next governor may not have the same iron clad will as Cuomo and things can backslide.

NJ, much smaller than NY and perpetually in bad financial shape, doesnt have the resources or the political will (Christie or Murphy) to focus on getting a master plan built.

Christie famously cancelled a trans hudson tunnel and ordered the Port Authority to use those funds to rehab a crumbling Pulaski Skyway...a NJ (not PA) run road. That is as un visionary as it gets.

EWR has the space for a rebuild...but it will
involve a total landside repurposing like LGA is doing.

To its credit, the privatized Terminal 1 at EWR provides a new parcel of land where Terminal A now stands. Let's see if the Master Plan can get built at EWR is short order

Regarding a master plan at EWR:

The RPA has worked on one with the Port Authority, and they're basically following through:

They are going to move the terminals to the far West boundaries of the airfield, and build a third pararell runway. They've started this with the new Terminal One, the replacement of Terminal C, which will probably be pursued towards the end of the next decade, will take up land where the current runway 11/29 is located. Terminal B's capacity will be replaced by an expanded Terminal One and the new replacement of Terminal C. Terminal C is fine for now, and can go another ten years easy. There are some improvements that need to be made, elevators come to mind, but I think they've done a great job thus far. They do need more club space.

UA is still in negotiations with the PA over their presence in the new Terminal One, with DL and all the other domestic carriers at B (NK, G4) moving, it gives UA the opportunity to perhaps move their Express operation to B. Just speculating that they could then move their Trans-con flights to the new Terminal One, and build a new large club dedicated to those travelers.

Last week the Port Authority approved the building of the new consolidated rental car facility, which will be built adjacent to the new parking garage.

https://corpinfo.panynj.gov/documents/Newark-Terminal-One-Redevelopment-EWR-ConRAC-LLC-New-Lease/

Also as part of the construction of Terminal One they are building the 42 new footings for what will be a new replacement of the current Air Train, so that's in the works which should be advanced within the next two years. Also there's the PATH extension.

So things are definitely changing at EWR. The new UPS at the North end of the airport just opened a few weeks ago, really cool with the super tall LED light towers. And UA is building a new flight kitchen on the North end to replace the current facility on the South end of the field.

ikramerica wrote:

spinotter wrote:

drdisque wrote:

Major hubs here have “long distance trains” that are right in the terminal. They are called feeder flights/connections.

Lamenting has city center connections is one thing. But Europe is much more densely populated than anywhere but the northeast USA, and train travel makes sense there, just as it does in the northeast USA. I’m a train guy. I’ve taken the train across the USA multiple times. But upgrading rail to compete with the convenience of flying intercity just doesn’t make sense.

Bingo. Thank you.

I'm guessing that with the master plan all non-star alliance carriers go to an expanded terminal one, while United and the other *A carriers go to whatever replaces Terminal C.

Something I'd also like to see is an extension of the Newark Light Rail to EWR. There was originally going to be a Newark to Elizabeth light rail line via EWR and Jersey Gardens (coinciding with the light rail to Broad St) but it fell through.

What I heard from the EWR master plan was basically that terminal one was a short term solution. They would then go thru with a complete overhaul once JFK and LGA were complete. The new area would include a fourth runway, a main terminal head house along with satellites connected underground (similar to ATL).