As we move into September, 13L/31R is starting to take shape. Construction vehicles have moved down to the 13 end and the widening is now visible.

Some questions:

When will this project be finished?
Will the utility be worth the hundreds of millions?
How far down the runway will the new high speed exit be located?
What else has to be done before it opens?

https://www.panynj.gov/aircraft-noise/p ... 7-2019.pdf suggests "substantial completion" on Nov 16th.

Cost: $355M

Worth it? It's expected the new concrete runway will last for 40 years rather than the 12 years one gets from asphalt, and is the last of the four runways to get a major overhaul.

https://www.internationalairportreview. ... k-airport/ says:

The construction of a new high-speed taxiway and taxiway realignment will improve efficiency of runway operations, reducing runway occupancy time per arrival by nearly six seconds on average. The time-savings are cumulative and are estimated to save passengers approximately 1,000 hours annually in delays and taxiing time, for a combined savings to airlines and passengers of about nine million dollars, according to FAA calculations.

My vote is "worth it".

ERAU1 wrote:

As we move into September, 13L/31R is starting to take shape. Construction vehicles have moved down to the 13 end and the widening is now visible.

Some questions:

When will this project be finished?
Will the utility be worth the hundreds of millions?
How far down the runway will the new high speed exit be located?
What else has to be done before it opens?

Replacing a runway that will last several decades and adding high speed exits is always worth it.

Now, let's get that terminal masterplan going and see some real improvements at JFK!

They’re also relocating some radar equipment close to the end of 31R to the North side of the runway. The current location prevents A380s from landing on 31R (and taking off from 13L). The relocation will allow the A380 to use this runway.

Reminds me of the great big hole in my wallet from "investing" thousands of dollars into my twelve year old Lincoln SUV: painful, but absolutely vital. Now that the necessary parts have been replaced, it drives like new, and I get to avoid the pain of a car payment on a different vehicle.

The same is true with JFK. There is no "good time" whatsoever for any busy airport to shut down part of its facilities completely, but it has to happen. And the upgrade will allow the airport to operate at peak efficiency.

And by peak efficiency, I mean whatever Mother Nature and the horrifically restricted airspace will allow. Those issues will always exist, but at least JFK airport can adjust to changing conditions without worrying about ground restrictions.

Worth every penny.

Except, if the work had been done anywhere else in the US by an other quasi-government agency than the Port Authority, it’d have cost half as much.

GF

That's NYC GF, they seem to like it that way.

The runway plan is to open by November

The runway itself is complete, but not all of the exits and taxiways have been finished. The major advantage should be being able to route A380 arrivals onto 31R, and also being able to set two arrival patterns...one from east and north, and one from the west and south (with the exception of T5 and T7 airlines).

Is the high speed exit going to be primarily for short haul 320/737? Because it looks like it's 2/3rds way down the 10,000 foot runway...

ERAU1 wrote:

Is the high speed exit going to be primarily for short haul 320/737? Because it looks like it's 2/3rds way down the 10,000 foot runway...

It would also work for most wide-bodies...2/3 means right at the end of Terminal 7 and the bridge over the JFK Expressway.

aemoreira1981 wrote:

ERAU1 wrote:

Is the high speed exit going to be primarily for short haul 320/737? Because it looks like it's 2/3rds way down the 10,000 foot runway...

It would also work for most wide-bodies...2/3 means right at the end of Terminal 7 and the bridge over the JFK Expressway.

Right, but wouldn't 777s and A330s be forced to use autobrake 3/4 or medium braking (Airbus)? Less than 7,000 for a widebody isn't alot of room...

Revelation wrote:

https://www.panynj.gov/aircraft-noise/pdf/jfk-runway-13L-31R-jul-17-2019.pdf suggests "substantial completion" on Nov 16th.

Cost: $355M

Worth it? It's expected the new concrete runway will last for 40 years rather than the 12 years one gets from asphalt, and is the last of the four runways to get a major overhaul.

https://www.internationalairportreview. ... k-airport/ says:

The construction of a new high-speed taxiway and taxiway realignment will improve efficiency of runway operations, reducing runway occupancy time per arrival by nearly six seconds on average. The time-savings are cumulative and are estimated to save passengers approximately 1,000 hours annually in delays and taxiing time, for a combined savings to airlines and passengers of about nine million dollars, according to FAA calculations.

My vote is "worth it".

New York is historically infamous for corruption in the construction industry. As long as no corrupt contractor swapped the normal concrete for some watered down concrete, it will last 40 years.

Another factor that might reduce the 40 year age is just poor construction quality. I understand New York's construction industry is also known for its low quality work and low level of craftsmanship.

ERAU1 wrote:

aemoreira1981 wrote:

ERAU1 wrote:

Is the high speed exit going to be primarily for short haul 320/737? Because it looks like it's 2/3rds way down the 10,000 foot runway...

It would also work for most wide-bodies...2/3 means right at the end of Terminal 7 and the bridge over the JFK Expressway.

Right, but wouldn't 777s and A330s be forced to use autobrake 3/4 or medium braking (Airbus)? Less than 7,000 for a widebody isn't alot of room...

Less than 7000 feet is more than enough. Wide bodies can stop usually less than 5000 feet.

Scarebus34 wrote:

ERAU1 wrote:

aemoreira1981 wrote:

It would also work for most wide-bodies...2/3 means right at the end of Terminal 7 and the bridge over the JFK Expressway.

Right, but wouldn't 777s and A330s be forced to use autobrake 3/4 or medium braking (Airbus)? Less than 7,000 for a widebody isn't alot of room...

Less than 7000 feet is more than enough. Wide bodies can stop usually less than 5000 feet.[/quote

Airline SOPs don't recommend using medium braking for say an a330. I think this exit is targeted at 32x and 73x airplanes that typically use closer to 8,000

JAAlbert wrote:

Now, let's get that terminal masterplan going and see some real improvements at JFK!

I would take improved access from the Verazanno bridge direction before I'd invest in terminal resources (although yes, terminals are in need of help too). Terminals don't matter if nobody can get to the airport in any decent amount of time.

ERAU1 wrote:

Scarebus34 wrote:

ERAU1 wrote:

Right, but wouldn't 777s and A330s be forced to use autobrake 3/4 or medium braking (Airbus)? Less than 7,000 for a widebody isn't alot of room...

Less than 7000 feet is more than enough. Wide bodies can stop usually less than 5000 feet.[/quote

Airline SOPs don't recommend using medium braking for say an a330. I think this exit is targeted at 32x and 73x airplanes that typically use closer to 8,000

Whose SOPs? I watch 767s take off and land on a 6800 foot runway daily. And this an airport with a 9500 foot runway available.

jetblueguy22 wrote:

ERAU1 wrote:

Scarebus34 wrote:

Less than 7000 feet is more than enough. Wide bodies can stop usually less than 5000 feet.[/quote

Airline SOPs don't recommend using medium braking for say an a330. I think this exit is targeted at 32x and 73x airplanes that typically use closer to 8,000

Whose SOPs? I watched 767s take off and land on a 6800 foot runway daily. And this an airport with a 9500 foot runway available.

Delta for example advises its Airbus pilots, unless due to poor weather or wind, to use low braking. That will result in 8000+ ft of runway used compared to medium which is around 6700'. I can't Imagine any other airlines to advise it's pilots to use anything other than a setting that will cost the airline the least in maintenance costs due to brake wear.

767s won't be the ones using this runway the most... They're on their way out (the -300s at least).

A330, A350, a380 and 747/777/787, under normal conditions won't be using this high speed...it's just not that pertinent.

ERAU1 wrote:

jetblueguy22 wrote:

ERAU1 wrote:

Less than 7000 feet is more than enough. Wide bodies can stop usually less than 5000 feet.[/quote

Airline SOPs don't recommend using medium braking for say an a330. I think this exit is targeted at 32x and 73x airplanes that typically use closer to 8,000

Whose SOPs? I watched 767s take off and land on a 6800 foot runway daily. And this an airport with a 9500 foot runway available.

Delta for example advises its Airbus pilots, unless due to poor weather or wind, to use low braking. That will result in 8000+ ft of runway used compared to medium which is around 6700'. I can't Imagine any other airlines to advise it's pilots to use anything other than a setting that will cost the airline the least in maintenance costs due to brake wear.

767s won't be the ones using this runway the most... They're on their way out (the -300s at least).

A330, A350, a380 and 747/777/787, under normal conditions won't be using this high speed...it's just not that pertinent.

Delta, American, United, Southwest, all uses the runways with Airbus and Boeings. I don’t think this is as pertinent as you think.

jetblueguy22 wrote:

ERAU1 wrote:

jetblueguy22 wrote:

Whose SOPs? I watched 767s take off and land on a 6800 foot runway daily. And this an airport with a 9500 foot runway available.

Delta for example advises its Airbus pilots, unless due to poor weather or wind, to use low braking. That will result in 8000+ ft of runway used compared to medium which is around 6700'. I can't Imagine any other airlines to advise it's pilots to use anything other than a setting that will cost the airline the least in maintenance costs due to brake wear.

767s won't be the ones using this runway the most... They're on their way out (the -300s at least).

A330, A350, a380 and 747/777/787, under normal conditions won't be using this high speed...it's just not that pertinent.

Delta, American, United, Southwest, all uses the runways with Airbus and Boeings. I don’t think this is as pertinent as you think.

Right. I'm with G4 Actually and my buddy is an a330 driver at DL. He says that the airline tells the pilots to use low braking to save techops time and $. That low braking won't put you anywhere near the high speed on 31R. Low braking on the A321 however, will.

767s are designed for shorter runways. A 763ER can make a sea level takeoff at MTOW in 7000 ft. I think the A300 matched that, but since then A and B have gone for higher cruise (and takeoff and landing) speeds. Before anyone says its possible to have your cruise cake along with short field performance, yes that's possible but nobody wants to pay for the larger flaps . . .

ERAU1 wrote:

Scarebus34 wrote:

ERAU1 wrote:

Right, but wouldn't 777s and A330s be forced to use autobrake 3/4 or medium braking (Airbus)? Less than 7,000 for a widebody isn't alot of room...

Less than 7000 feet is more than enough. Wide bodies can stop usually less than 5000 feet.[/quote

Airline SOPs don't recommend using medium braking for say an a330. I think this exit is targeted at 32x and 73x airplanes that typically use closer to 8,000

Hmm. Light to Medium breaking on a 737 usually stops it in 4,000-5,000 ft or so, not 8,000.

Using 8,000 ft upon landing is essentially no breaking and coasting a lot of the way.

Manual breaking on a 777 you can stop in 3565 on a dry runway. I wasn’t saying this was always how it was done, I was saying that it’s possible.

Scarebus34 wrote:

Manual breaking on a 777 you can stop in 3565 on a dry runway. I wasn’t saying this was always how it was done, I was saying that it’s possible.

Yeah I wish they displaced the HSE 1,000' or so feet more down the runway. Then, everyone could use it regardless of braking.

Side note, do these high speed edits actually increase movements per hour? I noticed 31R has a couple

Can't wait for this to be over so I can start using JFK again and keep LGA flying to an absolute minimum.

I never praise the PANYNJ

They have done an Excellent Job replacing all 4 runways at JFK.

Excellent

All under time and on or under budget

jfklganyc wrote:

I never praise the PANYNJ

They have done an Excellent Job replacing all 4 runways at JFK.

Excellent

All under time and on or under budget

But for the one initial hiccup at the outset, agreed. And I can’t believe I’m saying that about the PA...

max999 wrote:

Revelation wrote:

https://www.panynj.gov/aircraft-noise/pdf/jfk-runway-13L-31R-jul-17-2019.pdf suggests "substantial completion" on Nov 16th.

Cost: $355M

Worth it? It's expected the new concrete runway will last for 40 years rather than the 12 years one gets from asphalt, and is the last of the four runways to get a major overhaul.

https://www.internationalairportreview. ... k-airport/ says:

The construction of a new high-speed taxiway and taxiway realignment will improve efficiency of runway operations, reducing runway occupancy time per arrival by nearly six seconds on average. The time-savings are cumulative and are estimated to save passengers approximately 1,000 hours annually in delays and taxiing time, for a combined savings to airlines and passengers of about nine million dollars, according to FAA calculations.

My vote is "worth it".

New York is historically infamous for corruption in the construction industry. As long as no corrupt contractor swapped the normal concrete for some watered down concrete, it will last 40 years.

Another factor that might reduce the 40 year age is just poor construction quality. I understand New York's construction industry is also known for its low quality work and low level of craftsmanship.

Is there corruption in the NYC construction industry? Yes. Is the craftmanship poor? Only if you are using non-union labor. I would put the work/craftsmanship of the NYC union workforce up against anyone. There is a reason why the Empire State Building and a number of other tall towers are still in good shape, the Brooklyn Bridge is going strong more than 100 years later, the WTC withstood a direct hit from a 767 for 40 minutes, and look at the new Tappen Zee and Kosciuszko bridges. Now, the union work rules are a mess and make building more expensive and inefficient, but the work is generally top-notch.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Except, if the work had been done anywhere else in the US by an other quasi-government agency than the Port Authority, it’d have cost half as much.

GF

I was thinking the same thing. I'd be curious to know what the cost of a similar project at DSM or MCI would be.

Scarebus34 wrote:

Manual breaking on a 777 you can stop in 3565 on a dry runway. I wasn’t saying this was always how it was done, I was saying that it’s possible.

Just to clarify here, that's the type of "possible" that is just about at the point of melting the fuse plugs and deflating the tires about five minutes after clearing the runway, with the ARFF trucks standing by for a brake fire.

Think of the scene in "Airplane!" where, after pulling the red handle and it comes out of the console, the brake pedals go to the floor.


While I'm typing here, a typical landing in an A321 with autobrakes medium will get down to taxi speed around 6000-7000 feet from the numbers.

goboeing wrote:

Scarebus34 wrote:

Manual breaking on a 777 you can stop in 3565 on a dry runway. I wasn’t saying this was always how it was done, I was saying that it’s possible.

Just to clarify here, that's the type of "possible" that is just about at the point of melting the fuse plugs and deflating the tires about five minutes after clearing the runway, with the ARFF trucks standing by for a brake fire.

Think of the scene in "Airplane!" where, after pulling the red handle and it comes out of the console, the brake pedals go to the floor.


While I'm typing here, a typical landing in an A321 with autobrakes medium will get down to taxi speed around 6000-7000 feet from the numbers.

Exactly.

gregarious119 wrote:

JAAlbert wrote:

Now, let's get that terminal masterplan going and see some real improvements at JFK!

I would take improved access from the Verazanno bridge direction before I'd invest in terminal resources (although yes, terminals are in need of help too). Terminals don't matter if nobody can get to the airport in any decent amount of time.

True, convenient access is pretty important.

13L is 10,000ft.

Basically 1 million dollars per 3ft of runway. Insanity.

NYC's corruption is pathetic.

Interesting that this project was obviously conceived to accommodate the A380, and it is not even completed when the A380’s production end is announced. Oh, well.

This is ridiculous. A new 9100' runway, taxiway system and relocated ATC and fire, not to mention a terminal expansion down at RSW is $419 million... This one runway is three quarters that cost.

Any update on runway opening date?

josciak wrote:

Any update on runway opening date?

An FAA coworker of mine said that they finished the RWY lights including MALSRs and 13L lead-ins by the belt pkwy last week and they tested the controll system from the atc cab. They also flight checked all the NAVAIDS associated with the runways (13L/31R). So it may have already opened if not it should be very soon.

Varsity1 wrote:

13L is 10,000ft.

Basically 1 million dollars per 3ft of runway. Insanity.

NYC's corruption is pathetic.

Seems pretty good to me. If you include the taxiways that connect to the runway that have to be reconstructed as part of this project, you are looking at around 3.5 million square feet of construction. This comes out to $101 a square foot which included demolition of the old runways and taxiways, and pouring the new surfaces as well as all of the electrical work that has to happen. Seems fair to me. I'm surprised it isn't more expensive.

For reference, I got a quote to widen my concrete driveway and it came out to $28 per square foot including prep work and rebar. That's only a 6 inch pour, not 24-30" or whatever runways use.

N47 wrote:

josciak wrote:

Any update on runway opening date?

An FAA coworker of mine said that they finished the RWY lights including MALSRs and 13L lead-ins by the belt pkwy last week and they tested the controll system from the atc cab. They also flight checked all the NAVAIDS associated with the runways (13L/31R). So it may have already opened if not it should be very soon.

Correction: The lighting systems was complete however there is still some construction going on the RWY so definitely not opened yet, but getting close.

ERAU1 wrote:

Scarebus34 wrote:

ERAU1 wrote:

Right, but wouldn't 777s and A330s be forced to use autobrake 3/4 or medium braking (Airbus)? Less than 7,000 for a widebody isn't alot of room...

Less than 7000 feet is more than enough. Wide bodies can stop usually less than 5000 feet.[/quote

Airline SOPs don't recommend using medium braking for say an a330. I think this exit is targeted at 32x and 73x airplanes that typically use closer to 8,000

Typically and B77W will need more than that, 7000 is usually very short, around 2500-2600m will be much better, it can be done if necessary but it won't be recommended, airlines want low braking settings and idle reverse, to save cost with brakes and fuel and the airport will be happy because of noise also. That HSE is clearly designed for Medium jets and regional jets, not for widebodies.

The SOP won't recommend that, the SOP will say to do whatever is necessary according to weight, runway condition and weather, at the same time it will be recommended to use low autobrake setting and idle reverse (if brake temp allows). In normal conditions, dry runway specially, reverse more than idle is used to reduce brake temperature, but it won't change much the landing distance.

ERAU1 wrote:

Side note, do these high speed edits actually increase movements per hour? I noticed 31R has a couple

It does of course, HSE can be used up to a specific design speed, some cases up to 50knots, but usually it's less than that, I would say 30-35knots, to take a 90 degrees exit plane speed has to be reduced up to maybe 10-15 knots, so separation between traffics can be smaller.

Any photos of the new runway??

Varsity1 wrote:

13L is 10,000ft.

Basically 1 million dollars per 3ft of runway. Insanity.

NYC's corruption is pathetic

I don't know how is corruption in NYC but I can say that building a runways is not an easy job, it is quite complex and require high quality material, 355 Millions for 40 years of runway I think it's a fair price, I guess in that price they will include, lighting, ILS, calibration, certification cost, instrumentation, etc...

N47 wrote:

N47 wrote:

josciak wrote:

Any update on runway opening date?

An FAA coworker of mine said that they finished the RWY lights including MALSRs and 13L lead-ins by the belt pkwy last week and they tested the controll system from the atc cab. They also flight checked all the NAVAIDS associated with the runways (13L/31R). So it may have already opened if not it should be very soon.

Correction: The lighting systems was complete however there is still some construction going on the RWY so definitely not opened yet, but getting close.

Looks like it's opening tomorrow - right on time!

https://thepointsguy.com/news/jfk-runway-reopens/

Scarebus34 wrote:

ERAU1 wrote:

aemoreira1981 wrote:

It would also work for most wide-bodies...2/3 means right at the end of Terminal 7 and the bridge over the JFK Expressway.

Right, but wouldn't 777s and A330s be forced to use autobrake 3/4 or medium braking (Airbus)? Less than 7,000 for a widebody isn't alot of room...

Less than 7000 feet is more than enough. Wide bodies can stop usually less than 5000 feet.

Agreed. For those still in doubt, consider that OGG sees multiple 332 and 772 movements everyday with the longest runway being 6995 ft.

77H

Varsity1 wrote:

13L is 10,000ft.

Basically 1 million dollars per 3ft of runway. Insanity.

NYC's corruption is pathetic.

* One million dollar per 3 ft of runway;
* 10 000 ft contains 3 333 portions of 3 ft.;
* 3 333 x 1 million dollars;
= 3 333 milion dollars

Are you seriously claiming this job costs over three Billion dollars for one runway reconstruction? Yes, that would be pathetically insane, indeed.

Alternatively, it could also be that the only thing that is pathetically insane, is the quality of your calculations . . .

PW100 wrote:

Varsity1 wrote:

13L is 10,000ft.

Basically 1 million dollars per 3ft of runway. Insanity.

NYC's corruption is pathetic.

* One million dollar per 3 ft of runway;
* 10 000 ft contains 3 333 portions of 3 ft.;
* 3 333 x 1 million dollars;
= 3 333 milion dollars

Are you seriously claiming this job costs over three Billion dollars for one runway reconstruction? Yes, that would be pathetically insane, indeed.

Alternatively, it could also be that the only thing that is pathetically insane, is the quality of your calculations . . .

Indeed.

10,000ft long times 200ft wide = 2,000,000 square feet

Total cost $355,000,000 divided by 2,000,000 sq ft
If I did that right, it would come out to a total avg of about $177.50 USD per sq ft.

Should probably be pointed out that *likely* also includes:
runway side lighting, centerline lighting, taxi exit lighting, runway signage, and painting runway markings...

[url][/url]

goboeing wrote:

Scarebus34 wrote:

Manual breaking on a 777 you can stop in 3565 on a dry runway. I wasn’t saying this was always how it was done, I was saying that it’s possible.

Just to clarify here, that's the type of "possible" that is just about at the point of melting the fuse plugs and deflating the tires about five minutes after clearing the runway, with the ARFF trucks standing by for a brake fire.

Think of the scene in "Airplane!" where, after pulling the red handle and it comes out of the console, the brake pedals go to the floor.


While I'm typing here, a typical landing in an A321 with autobrakes medium will get down to taxi speed around 6000-7000 feet from the numbers.

That's overly conservative. I brought in a 155K lb A321 into LGA 22 last night. 10kt crosswinds, touched down on the blocks, nose down by the intersection, full reverse by the end of the touchdown zone and with medium brakes we easily cleared off by CY taxiway. In fact I think autobrakes were disconnected abeam Taxiway D because our decel rate was so high. TWY D is 2500' from the end of the runway which makes it a mere 4500' from the arrival threshold of RWY 22. The aircraft would've come to a dead stop 5000 ft from the threshold and 4000' from the glide slope antenna.