Let's suppose that somehow, there was the opportunity to add a single new runway at one of the three big New York City airports (LGA, JFK, or EWR). What and where do you build it and why? I tend to think that the answer is not another runway at LGA, and that the answer is either a third parallel at EWR (the 'Ikea Store Runway') or another parallel to 13R/31L at JFK (where the need is arguably greatest and you can add terminal capacity to handle the additional traffic).

IMO what would work the best is another 31/13 over rulers island (shut down 4/22) and another parallel at jfk 31/13 in Jamaica bay. Then run the rnav arrivals departures to come over Newark at ~5000 feet and limit Newark climbs in the area, kind of a similar situation to what SFO does with Oakland.

Now, the problem with my plan is no one would ever approve a runway on Jamaica bay. Perhaps though a new parallel to the north of 31R similar to distance in LAX between their north or south parallels.

Sorry, not rulers Rikers Island. So jfk and lga would all run 31s and 13s.

None of these are possible, the land is all occupied otherwise. That's one of the disadvantages of having airports within the city limits. They cannot be expanded.

Eventually there will be need for a relief airport outside the city limits, Stewart seems the most logical for this. Build some good high-speed connections between Stewart Airport and New York City and you don't need to expand any airport within the city.

GSP psgr wrote:

Let's suppose that somehow, there was the opportunity to add a single new runway at one of the three big New York City airports (LGA, JFK, or EWR). What and where do you build it and why? I tend to think that the answer is not another runway at LGA, and that the answer is either a third parallel at EWR (the 'Ikea Store Runway') or another parallel to 13R/31L at JFK (where the need is arguably greatest and you can add terminal capacity to handle the additional traffic).

You're not the first to ask. As an NYC resident, I deal with these airports on the regular.

If you'd like some idea of what's planned and realistic ideas of what will (hopefully) be built, you can read the recommendations from RPA. Being a Avgeek and nerd when it comes to city/airport planning, this was an insightful read, and gave me a bit of hope of spending less time circling in the air, and waiting forever on a taxiway coming and going at some later date.

http://library.rpa.org/pdf/RPA-Upgrading-to-World-Class-Revisited.pdf

What is the maximum capacity in passengers and aircraft movements for all three airports?

Just adding runways does not automatically add capacity. The reason this is not often seriously brought up to this point is that the *airspace* around NY has been a limiting factor, although my understanding is that that will change somewhat with NextGen. But even if you solve the airspace problem (and I'm not sure how much additional capacity NextGen will really provide), you still have issues like gate capacity, taxiway capacity and routings, etc. Already, at JFK you can get planes stacked up on the taxiways waiting to cross 4L/22R for 15 minutes or more. There's no obvious way around that with a new parallel runway unless you were to build it on the Queens side, which is borderline impossible and at best highly impractical. It would have to be so far away from the terminals and would further disrupt the 13's and 31's (which are typically in use at the same time as the 4's/22's) so that the benefits would never outweigh the costs and disruption that building it would cause.

You run into problems like this with additional runways at all three airports. There's just no obvious place to put an additional runway where the (probably limited) additional capacity would justify the disruption.

Another 13/31 just north of 13L/31R at JFK where the northern cargo area is. Plenty of space there and all the cargo ops can be consolidated at the western side of the airport. I guess you could also add another 4/22 runway between 4R/22L and 4L/22R, but the runways would be really close together and there would be taxiing issues.

The real problem, though, is the airspace. That hampers all three airports from running efficiently, even with their current runway configurations.

PatrickZ80 wrote:

None of these are possible, the land is all occupied otherwise. That's one of the disadvantages of having airports within the city limits. They cannot be expanded.

Eventually there will be need for a relief airport outside the city limits, Stewart seems the most logical for this. Build some good high-speed connections between Stewart Airport and New York City and you don't need to expand any airport within the city.

Uhhh...no. Stewart is much too far and there is no money or will to build a high-speed rail connection there (or anywhere else in this country, for that matter). Not going to happen. Even PANYNJ has given up on this airport.

The RPA did a pretty good study on expanding airports in the NYC area. It's the first time I've seen anyone write about the idea I've always favored for another runway at EWR to the west of the terminals. There's enough room east of US-1 for another parallel runway that's separated enough from the existing runway for independent approaches. A full independent parallel runway at EWR would probably be the best possible runway project at this point. It would require rebuilding the terminals on more of an ATL-style arrangement, but that would also be a good thing. The current arrangement is clearly obsolete. The best approach would put the new terminal west of the new runway, near the railway station, and it would then be connected to the midfield concourses by ATL-style train. The key issue is that the current new Terminal A design would preclude the change, so it should clearly be revised for something that doesn't preclude long term expansion.

The RPA also talks about another parallel 4/22 runway west of the terminals at JFK, which would also be very useful, but it would require ATC tech to be improved so that aircraft could continue to take off from 13 at LGA while the new runway at JFK is in use.

leader1 wrote:

Uhhh...no. Stewart is much too far and there is no money or will to build a high-speed rail connection there (or anywhere else in this country, for that matter). Not going to happen. Even PANYNJ has given up on this airport.

If there is no money to build a high speed rail connection to Stewart, there is no money to build an additional runway at one of the primary New York airports either. It would cost just as much.

For expansion of those airports you'd have to tear down parts of the city. Given that this is very expensive ground it would cost a fortune to tear it down. And then you have empty ground, you do not yet have a runway.

With a bit of smart planning, you could build a high speed railway line to Stewart without having to tear anything down. You could start at Hoboken and build it elevated on top of the existing railway line through the suburbs. That's what they did with the Airport Express line in Bangkok too, it was built elevated on top of the existing railway line. Once outside the suburbs the HSR could be lowered to ground level and follow it's own route to Stewart. Those are just woods, cutting a couple of trees doesn't cost that much.

Of course, Hoboken isn't in the heart of New York City. Neither are the terminals of JFK, Newark or even LaGuardia. But it's very well reachable on public transport, so what's the big deal?

You need to actually close LaGuardia

You would actually increase runway capacity by simplifying the airspace

I'll give my usual short speech regarding New York City, it's airports and airspace, tailored to this thread. For what it's worth.

Politically, none of the three airports are going anywhere. NYC isn't going to be the only major Northeastern business center without its own downtown airport (BOS, DCA, and PHL are all effectively downtown airports). So LGA isn't going anywhere.

Politically, none of the three airports are getting new runways. But, if I had anything to say about it, EWR and JFK would get those nice new runways discussed in the RPA report.

Politically, how much airspace reconfiguration can be done? If I had anything to say, airspace would be reconfigured for maximum capacity, period. But I'd guess there's limited ability to do that. For instance, DC's wealthy neighborhoods got all up in arms over DCA's airspace realignment. All those environmentally-conscious progressives in Georgetown and Potomac don't care about reducing fuel burn when there are more AA E175's over their house.

As I see it, to make New York City work and stop being a nationally-impacting congestion-and-delay hairball, two steps are needed. (If things have improved significantly recently, please correct me, but my understanding is that NYC still has delay issues.)

First, re-slot EWR at 10 percent lower than its old total, and cut slots at JFK and LGA 10 percent. That should make the airspace less congested in all weather conditions. Cut each carrier proportionally, except say those with fewer than 10 daily departures

Second, require that all smaller markets that currently have service to each airport keep it. So, sorry, you're flying a few flights a day from LGA to Greensboro and Rochester and Columbus, you're going to keep serving them. Deal with it. Airports are public facilities. Cut frequencies at larger markets and upgauge.

Fewer airplanes and upgauging would make New York City work.

Jim

The most useful runway at JFK?

Closing down LGA permanently! Then the runways at EWR and JFK could be used more efficiently.

Sully had the right idea! All that unused space!!!

leader1 wrote:

Another 13/31 just north of 13L/31R at JFK where the northern cargo area is. Plenty of space there and all the cargo ops can be consolidated at the western side of the airport. I guess you could also add another 4/22 runway between 4R/22L and 4L/22R, but the runways would be really close together and there would be taxiing issues.

The real problem, though, is the airspace. That hampers all three airports from running efficiently, even with their current runway configurations.

I always thought that if anything was ever actually going to get built, it is another 13L/31R at Kennedy. It doesn't require building into Jamaica Bay, it's all on airport property already, and there's space elsewhere at JFK to accommodate who needs to be moved. Compared to a new runway at Newark, it would probably also be a bargain. I also wonder if through moving enough cargo/hangers to the far Southeast part of the airport, you could shoehorn in a shorter parallel to 13R/31L, maybe 6-7k feet long, enough for 737s/320s at least.

jfklganyc wrote:

You need to actually close LaGuardia

You would actually increase runway capacity by simplifying the airspace

JFK & EWR would not be able to absorb the LGA flights.

The biggest problem in NYC is not the addition of runways, but rather the fact that EWR/TEB need to coordinate their runway configurations and LGA/JFK need to also do the same to avoid traffic conflicts even in perfect weather. Of course terminal space at EWR/JFK to absorb LGA flights is another problem if LGA is closed, but that's a discussion for another day...

As it stands, JFK can only ever use 1 pair of parallel runways at a time (either the 13/31s or the 4/22s, but not both at the same time) depending on which configuration LGA is running for its departures and arrivals, with the longer runway serving departures and the shorter one for arrivals. The only exception is when running a runway 4L/R or 22L/R pattern, where the tower occasionally also runs a few departures off 31L at the same time, but shortened in length so that traffic on 31L begins its takeoff roll after the 4L/22R intersection. Removing LGA would allow JFK to handle a much higher number of departures/arrivals per hour by allowing JFK to better utilize its existing 4 runways.

In bad weather with winds out of the southeast, the situation gets significantly worse with more traffic conflicts. When winds dictate use of the ILS on the 13's for landing at JFK and LGA, JFK can no longer use the visual Canarsie approach onto the 13s that allows their arrivals onto 13 without conflicting with EWR traffic and LGA can no longer do the approach 22 circle to land 13 to avoid TEB traffic. In these cases, all the traffic into and out of EWR/TEB/LGA/JFK needs to be coordinated as a single system and slotted as if they were essentially "one" airport to avoid traffic conflicts.

One final note, although TEB is a private jet only airport, due to the sheer number of wealthy people in NYC, it is still significantly busier than commercial airports in smaller US cities. It alone handled 174,884 aircraft movements in 2017. To put that into context, CLE only handled 119,268 movements in 2018! LGA handled 369,135, JFK 447,848, and EWR 438,578 in 2017.

Definitely EWR. I say built one over I-95 and make it a tunnel below it for cars like at LAX.

N649DL wrote:

Definitely EWR. I say built one over I-95 and make it a tunnel below it for cars like at LAX.

The problem with building another 4/22 runway at EWR is there's no way to get arrivals onto it or departures off it without compromising traffic flow to an existing runway due to traffic conflicts with LGA. This is because all the arrivals to LGA from the south fly over the Hudson when LGA is landing on 22 at just 4000 ft, which limits EWR to only a left hand traffic pattern on the 4s and a right hand traffic pattern on the 22s, both of which are to the west of the airport over NJ and essentially the same, just with the planes flying in opposite directions.

In order for any type of parallel arrival to be performed, you need both a left hand and a right hand traffic pattern, one for each runway, like how SFO does it for 28L/R. The same thing is needed for departures, with the left hand runway turning left after departure and the right hand runway turning right (again see SFO departures off 1LR). This is currently not possible due to airspace constraints, and since a 3rd runway will only really be beneficial if you can run dual arrivals and dual departures (what would be the point of a 3rd runway if you can only have 1 runway departing and 1 runway arriving at any given moment), unless some airspace magic happens, an extra runway over I95 can't really improve the traffic situation all that much.

As a result, the current traffic pattern uses 1 runway for departures and 1 runway for arrivals. Arrivals approach over NJ before making a final left turn for 4R or right turn for 22L (4L/22R is used exclusively for departures). Departures off the 4s stay west of the Hudson over NJ until the aircraft passes LGA before turning east if that's were the flight is headed. Departures from the 22s, if going east, make a right hand 180 degree turn and then follow the same path as the departures off 4s to stay clear of LGA traffic. UA has been trying for years to get parallel departure/arrival operations at EWR, but was never approved due to the lack of airspace available on the east side of the airport to give 4R/22L its own separate traffic pattern.

Reading this post makes me realize how close the 3 major NYC area airports are to one another. I now have a better understanding to how quickly and easily things go down hill during not so perfect weather conditions. Then to add TEB into the mix.

leader1 wrote:

Another 13/31 just north of 13L/31R at JFK where the northern cargo area is. Plenty of space there and all the cargo ops can be consolidated at the western side of the airport. I guess you could also add another 4/22 runway between 4R/22L and 4L/22R, but the runways would be really close together and there would be taxiing issues.

The real problem, though, is the airspace. That hampers all three airports from running efficiently, even with their current runway configurations.

PatrickZ80 wrote:

None of these are possible, the land is all occupied otherwise. That's one of the disadvantages of having airports within the city limits. They cannot be expanded.

Eventually there will be need for a relief airport outside the city limits, Stewart seems the most logical for this. Build some good high-speed connections between Stewart Airport and New York City and you don't need to expand any airport within the city.

Uhhh...no. Stewart is much too far and there is no money or will to build a high-speed rail connection there (or anywhere else in this country, for that matter). Not going to happen. Even PANYNJ has given up on this airport.

REALLY??

https://www.recordonline.com/news/20190 ... ate=ampart

airlineworker wrote:

jfklganyc wrote:

You need to actually close LaGuardia

You would actually increase runway capacity by simplifying the airspace

JFK & EWR would not be able to absorb the LGA flights.

Runway wise they would come close.

Everything would be more efficient

Gate wise way short!

DCA-ROCguy wrote:

I'll give my usual short speech regarding New York City, it's airports and airspace, tailored to this thread. For what it's worth.

Politically, none of the three airports are going anywhere. NYC isn't going to be the only major Northeastern business center without its own downtown airport (BOS, DCA, and PHL are all effectively downtown airports). So LGA isn't going anywhere.

Politically, none of the three airports are getting new runways. But, if I had anything to say about it, EWR and JFK would get those nice new runways discussed in the RPA report.

Politically, how much airspace reconfiguration can be done? If I had anything to say, airspace would be reconfigured for maximum capacity, period. But I'd guess there's limited ability to do that. For instance, DC's wealthy neighborhoods got all up in arms over DCA's airspace realignment. All those environmentally-conscious progressives in Georgetown and Potomac don't care about reducing fuel burn when there are more AA E175's over their house.

As I see it, to make New York City work and stop being a nationally-impacting congestion-and-delay hairball, two steps are needed. (If things have improved significantly recently, please correct me, but my understanding is that NYC still has delay issues.)

First, re-slot EWR at 10 percent lower than its old total, and cut slots at JFK and LGA 10 percent. That should make the airspace less congested in all weather conditions. Cut each carrier proportionally, except say those with fewer than 10 daily departures

Second, require that all smaller markets that currently have service to each airport keep it. So, sorry, you're flying a few flights a day from LGA to Greensboro and Rochester and Columbus, you're going to keep serving them. Deal with it. Airports are public facilities. Cut frequencies at larger markets and upgauge.

Fewer airplanes and upgauging would make New York City work.

Jim

Quote, " So, sorry, you're flying a few flights a day from LGA to Greensboro and Rochester and Columbus, you're going to keep serving them. Deal with it. Airports are public facilities."
You are right, airports are public facilities, but airlines are not. A good way is to cut frequencies at ALL markets and yes, eliminate the 50 seat RJ's. AA runs 2 44 seat RJ's RIC-LGA in the AM. Same with ORF and ILM,Upgauge to one 70-90 seater and free up 3 slots. RDU has 7 to LGA, 5 are 44 seaters, replace with 2-3 larger planes, more slots saved and less air traffic.This could be repeated with other cities. It took 20 years for BOS to add a 5000 foot runway entirely on its own property, the New York area airports will never see another runway but with larger planes and reduced frequencies, it can be made a bit better.
CMH has 4 flights to LGA and 3 are 44 seaters. Cut to 2 larger planes, sort of like the highways that have HOV lanes for cars with more than 3 or 4 passengers. Can't make the highway bigger, but move more people quickly. The 50 seat RJ's waste slots but as time goes by the 50 seater will be a thing of the past in the coming years.

Delete

United857 wrote:

N649DL wrote:

Definitely EWR. I say built one over I-95 and make it a tunnel below it for cars like at LAX.

The problem with building another 4/22 runway at EWR is there's no way to get arrivals onto it or departures off it without compromising traffic flow to an existing runway due to traffic conflicts with LGA. This is because all the arrivals to LGA from the south fly over the Hudson when LGA is landing on 22 at just 4000 ft, which limits EWR to only a left hand traffic pattern on the 4s and a right hand traffic pattern on the 22s, both of which are to the west of the airport over NJ and essentially the same, just with the planes flying in opposite directions.

In order for any type of parallel arrival to be performed, you need both a left hand and a right hand traffic pattern, one for each runway, like how SFO does it for 28L/R. The same thing is needed for departures, with the left hand runway turning left after departure and the right hand runway turning right (again see SFO departures off 1LR). This is currently not possible due to airspace constraints, and since a 3rd runway will only really be beneficial if you can run dual arrivals and dual departures (what would be the point of a 3rd runway if you can only have 1 runway departing and 1 runway arriving at any given moment), unless some airspace magic happens, an extra runway over I95 can't really improve the traffic situation all that much.

As a result, the current traffic pattern uses 1 runway for departures and 1 runway for arrivals. Arrivals approach over NJ before making a final left turn for 4R or right turn for 22L (4L/22R is used exclusively for departures). Departures off the 4s stay west of the Hudson over NJ until the aircraft passes LGA before turning east if that's were the flight is headed. Departures from the 22s, if going east, make a right hand 180 degree turn and then follow the same path as the departures off 4s to stay clear of LGA traffic. UA has been trying for years to get parallel departure/arrival operations at EWR, but was never approved due to the lack of airspace available on the east side of the airport to give 4R/22L its own separate traffic pattern.

Great info, thanks. You seem very knowledgeable on the subject. Do you know why departures off 4L and 22R veer slightly left after departure? Also, do you know how 11/29 ops work? For 29, I've seen planes fly south parallel to 22L landings (but a bit to the east), and turn right for final very close to the airport.

I've been on that odd 180 and tracking up before turning left across north NJ when departing from 22R before. It's somewhat annoying.

maps4ltd wrote:

United857 wrote:

N649DL wrote:

Definitely EWR. I say built one over I-95 and make it a tunnel below it for cars like at LAX.

The problem with building another 4/22 runway at EWR is there's no way to get arrivals onto it or departures off it without compromising traffic flow to an existing runway due to traffic conflicts with LGA. This is because all the arrivals to LGA from the south fly over the Hudson when LGA is landing on 22 at just 4000 ft, which limits EWR to only a left hand traffic pattern on the 4s and a right hand traffic pattern on the 22s, both of which are to the west of the airport over NJ and essentially the same, just with the planes flying in opposite directions.

In order for any type of parallel arrival to be performed, you need both a left hand and a right hand traffic pattern, one for each runway, like how SFO does it for 28L/R. The same thing is needed for departures, with the left hand runway turning left after departure and the right hand runway turning right (again see SFO departures off 1LR). This is currently not possible due to airspace constraints, and since a 3rd runway will only really be beneficial if you can run dual arrivals and dual departures (what would be the point of a 3rd runway if you can only have 1 runway departing and 1 runway arriving at any given moment), unless some airspace magic happens, an extra runway over I95 can't really improve the traffic situation all that much.

As a result, the current traffic pattern uses 1 runway for departures and 1 runway for arrivals. Arrivals approach over NJ before making a final left turn for 4R or right turn for 22L (4L/22R is used exclusively for departures). Departures off the 4s stay west of the Hudson over NJ until the aircraft passes LGA before turning east if that's were the flight is headed. Departures from the 22s, if going east, make a right hand 180 degree turn and then follow the same path as the departures off 4s to stay clear of LGA traffic. UA has been trying for years to get parallel departure/arrival operations at EWR, but was never approved due to the lack of airspace available on the east side of the airport to give 4R/22L its own separate traffic pattern.

Great info, thanks. You seem very knowledgeable on the subject. Do you know why departures off 4L and 22R veer slightly left after departure? Also, do you know how 11/29 ops work? For 29, I've seen planes fly south parallel to 22L landings (but a bit to the east), and turn right for final very close to the airport.

I've been on that odd 180 and tracking up before turning left across north NJ when departing from 22R before. It's somewhat annoying.

Are you referring to that short runway that's like 6,800 feet and runs perpendicular to the larger ones? If so, I've flown in on that one and it's for when the winds are getting screwy. I did it one time on an AA 757 from LAX and *apparently* another time from BTV back when I was a kid and slept through it. Apparently the line up to it was so bad that everyone on the place thought the CO ATR was going to crash as it was during a snowstorm. My parents said it was a nosedive into it.

For whatever reason, I really do believe the person who designed EWR's terminal & runway layout wanted to see the world burn. It's always bumpy, there's no room for any kind of expansion (and I agree with all your analysis BTW, it needs to copy SFO's layout more or less). The only solution would be to do what they did with the historic terminal back in 2000 and do it to the entire airport. Move it back, and demolish Elizabeth, NJ I suppose.

DCA-ROCguy wrote:

I'll give my usual short speech regarding New York City, it's airports and airspace, tailored to this thread. For what it's worth.

Politically, none of the three airports are going anywhere. NYC isn't going to be the only major Northeastern business center without its own downtown airport (BOS, DCA, and PHL are all effectively downtown airports). So LGA isn't going anywhere.

Politically, none of the three airports are getting new runways. But, if I had anything to say about it, EWR and JFK would get those nice new runways discussed in the RPA report.

Politically, how much airspace reconfiguration can be done? If I had anything to say, airspace would be reconfigured for maximum capacity, period. But I'd guess there's limited ability to do that. For instance, DC's wealthy neighborhoods got all up in arms over DCA's airspace realignment. All those environmentally-conscious progressives in Georgetown and Potomac don't care about reducing fuel burn when there are more AA E175's over their house.

As I see it, to make New York City work and stop being a nationally-impacting congestion-and-delay hairball, two steps are needed. (If things have improved significantly recently, please correct me, but my understanding is that NYC still has delay issues.)

First, re-slot EWR at 10 percent lower than its old total, and cut slots at JFK and LGA 10 percent. That should make the airspace less congested in all weather conditions. Cut each carrier proportionally, except say those with fewer than 10 daily departures

Second, require that all smaller markets that currently have service to each airport keep it. So, sorry, you're flying a few flights a day from LGA to Greensboro and Rochester and Columbus, you're going to keep serving them. Deal with it. Airports are public facilities. Cut frequencies at larger markets and upgauge.

Fewer airplanes and upgauging would make New York City work.

Jim

your plan is to regulate air travel. Not gonna happen. It’s illegal.

bpat777 wrote:

Reading this post makes me realize how close the 3 major NYC area airports are to one another. I now have a better understanding to how quickly and easily things go down hill during not so perfect weather conditions. Then to add TEB into the mix.

There’s like 40 airports inside of New York approach.

maps4ltd wrote:

United857 wrote:

N649DL wrote:

Definitely EWR. I say built one over I-95 and make it a tunnel below it for cars like at LAX.

The problem with building another 4/22 runway at EWR is there's no way to get arrivals onto it or departures off it without compromising traffic flow to an existing runway due to traffic conflicts with LGA. This is because all the arrivals to LGA from the south fly over the Hudson when LGA is landing on 22 at just 4000 ft, which limits EWR to only a left hand traffic pattern on the 4s and a right hand traffic pattern on the 22s, both of which are to the west of the airport over NJ and essentially the same, just with the planes flying in opposite directions.

In order for any type of parallel arrival to be performed, you need both a left hand and a right hand traffic pattern, one for each runway, like how SFO does it for 28L/R. The same thing is needed for departures, with the left hand runway turning left after departure and the right hand runway turning right (again see SFO departures off 1LR). This is currently not possible due to airspace constraints, and since a 3rd runway will only really be beneficial if you can run dual arrivals and dual departures (what would be the point of a 3rd runway if you can only have 1 runway departing and 1 runway arriving at any given moment), unless some airspace magic happens, an extra runway over I95 can't really improve the traffic situation all that much.

As a result, the current traffic pattern uses 1 runway for departures and 1 runway for arrivals. Arrivals approach over NJ before making a final left turn for 4R or right turn for 22L (4L/22R is used exclusively for departures). Departures off the 4s stay west of the Hudson over NJ until the aircraft passes LGA before turning east if that's were the flight is headed. Departures from the 22s, if going east, make a right hand 180 degree turn and then follow the same path as the departures off 4s to stay clear of LGA traffic. UA has been trying for years to get parallel departure/arrival operations at EWR, but was never approved due to the lack of airspace available on the east side of the airport to give 4R/22L its own separate traffic pattern.

Great info, thanks. You seem very knowledgeable on the subject. Do you know why departures off 4L and 22R veer slightly left after departure? Also, do you know how 11/29 ops work? For 29, I've seen planes fly south parallel to 22L landings (but a bit to the east), and turn right for final very close to the airport.

I've been on that odd 180 and tracking up before turning left across north NJ when departing from 22R before. It's somewhat annoying.

The departures of 4L/22R do a small "s-turn" to keep the flight path and thus noise over the highway spaghetti around the airport as long as possible (the specific flight path is actually published in the SID). Off of 4L you typically make a slight right turn after departure before turning back left while off 22R you make a slight left turn before turning back right.

11/29 ops are really only done when crosswinds on the 4/22s get very significant.

Usually what happens is that the wind is blowing very strong out of the west, and as a result arrivals run on 29. Again, to keep traffic spacing with LGA traffic over the Hudson, the flights fly the normal 22L arrival flight path, before breaking off to the left over the Meadowlands Sports Complex and making a sharp right turn to line up with 29 on an arrival called the "Stadium Visual." Departures in this case are also on 29 doing a normal straight out departure, except for the heavies to Asia that can't make it off 29. They will still use 22R. However, ATC is very reluctant to go to 29 ops simply because running both arrivals and departures on the same runway vs splitting them between 22L and 22R means almost a 50% capacity reduction that causes major delays.

Runway 11 ops on the other hand are very very rare. Arrivals don't use the standard 4R approach and is instead vectored to the west of that arrival path before making a right hand turn onto final. Departures make a sharp left turn after liftoff to stay clear of LGA traffic.

United857 wrote:

maps4ltd wrote:

United857 wrote:

The problem with building another 4/22 runway at EWR is there's no way to get arrivals onto it or departures off it without compromising traffic flow to an existing runway due to traffic conflicts with LGA. This is because all the arrivals to LGA from the south fly over the Hudson when LGA is landing on 22 at just 4000 ft, which limits EWR to only a left hand traffic pattern on the 4s and a right hand traffic pattern on the 22s, both of which are to the west of the airport over NJ and essentially the same, just with the planes flying in opposite directions.

In order for any type of parallel arrival to be performed, you need both a left hand and a right hand traffic pattern, one for each runway, like how SFO does it for 28L/R. The same thing is needed for departures, with the left hand runway turning left after departure and the right hand runway turning right (again see SFO departures off 1LR). This is currently not possible due to airspace constraints, and since a 3rd runway will only really be beneficial if you can run dual arrivals and dual departures (what would be the point of a 3rd runway if you can only have 1 runway departing and 1 runway arriving at any given moment), unless some airspace magic happens, an extra runway over I95 can't really improve the traffic situation all that much.

As a result, the current traffic pattern uses 1 runway for departures and 1 runway for arrivals. Arrivals approach over NJ before making a final left turn for 4R or right turn for 22L (4L/22R is used exclusively for departures). Departures off the 4s stay west of the Hudson over NJ until the aircraft passes LGA before turning east if that's were the flight is headed. Departures from the 22s, if going east, make a right hand 180 degree turn and then follow the same path as the departures off 4s to stay clear of LGA traffic. UA has been trying for years to get parallel departure/arrival operations at EWR, but was never approved due to the lack of airspace available on the east side of the airport to give 4R/22L its own separate traffic pattern.

Great info, thanks. You seem very knowledgeable on the subject. Do you know why departures off 4L and 22R veer slightly left after departure? Also, do you know how 11/29 ops work? For 29, I've seen planes fly south parallel to 22L landings (but a bit to the east), and turn right for final very close to the airport.

I've been on that odd 180 and tracking up before turning left across north NJ when departing from 22R before. It's somewhat annoying.

The departures of 4L/22R do a small "s-turn" to keep the flight path and thus noise over the highway spaghetti around the airport as long as possible (the specific flight path is actually published in the SID). Off of 4L you typically make a slight right turn after departure before turning back left while off 22R you make a slight left turn before turning back right.

11/29 ops are really only done when crosswinds on the 4/22s get very significant.

Usually what happens is that the wind is blowing very strong out of the west, and as a result arrivals run on 29. Again, to keep traffic spacing with LGA traffic over the Hudson, the flights fly the normal 22L arrival flight path, before breaking off to the left over the Meadowlands Sports Complex and making a sharp right turn to line up with 29 on an arrival called the "Stadium Visual." Departures in this case are also on 29 doing a normal straight out departure, except for the heavies to Asia that can't make it off 29. They will still use 22R. However, ATC is very reluctant to go to 29 ops simply because running both arrivals and departures on the same runway vs splitting them between 22L and 22R means almost a 50% capacity reduction that causes major delays.

Runway 11 ops on the other hand are very very rare. Arrivals don't use the standard 4R approach and is instead vectored to the west of that arrival path before making a right hand turn onto final. Departures make a sharp left turn after liftoff to stay clear of LGA traffic.

Great info mate! Thanks for sharing.

Ive always wondered about those turns! They make for great spotting when visiting ikea or the mall. Someone here told me that those turns were because of the close proximity of KTEB but the 22R turn didnt make sense. Noise abatment certainly does.

That stadium visual is very thrilling. I had the pleasure of being on one aboard a lufthansa 744 back in 2013 when it did that approach, it was quite an experience as it was heavy braking action alll the way to last exit on the runway. I guess the pilots prefered that over the crosswind.

I once talked to a former EWR tower controller who said that the owner of a hotel (or what used to be a hotel) on the 11 approach path had somehow obtained the direct telephone number to the tower so when they were departing 29 or landing 11 she would call them to complain and request rerouting the planes.


As for new runways: i think the two slot controlled airport can probably use one. Certainly JFK this summer can use one. The only place i can imagine to put them is north of 13/31 at LGA and south of 13R at JFK. Maybe they can get the MTA to pay for it with all the money they are getting from Verrezano tolls.

Realistically i highly doubt a new runway would happen at these airports in the foreseeable future.