leader1 wrote:

A few things I should clear up because there is a lot of erroneous information on this thread. Lots of posts seem to be in dreamland here with no basis in reality.

First of all, EWR is not slot-controlled anymore. It used to be, but the FAA relaxed them because the delay situation improved enough and they were getting concerned that UA had a monopoly and new carriers were more or less blocked from entering. EWR is still monitored as it is a Level 2 Slot Coordinated airport, which means the FAA has to review and approve all schedules. So, while not officially slot-controlled, it is still regulated and they’re not going to allow things to go out of control like they were before. Last I heard, they wanted to keep flights per hour in the 74-76 range.

Also, EWR is not getting a new runway. Period. Let’s put this to bed right now. When I worked at PANYNJ (specifically on EWR capital projects), there were no plans to add a new runway then and I haven’t heard of any plans to add one since I left. The RPA proposal is just urbanist fantasy that will most likely never see fruition. Granted, RPA does get some funding from PANYNJ, but much of what they propose has no basis in reality. Other than the new terminal, some facility improvements, taxiway and runway repairs and the new end-arounds, there won’t be much else done to improve airside capacity. The end-arounds will improve ground movement so arriving planes won’t have to cross the departure runway, but it won’t do anything to increase the airport’s capacity. Which leads me to...

And even if EWR does get a new runway, it won’t be all that useful because of the surrounding airspace. NYC airspace is complex in that you have several major airports that are within 20 miles or less of each other. With regards to EWR, you have TEB up north and LGA’s airspace which starts along the Hudson River to the east. This severely impacts what ATC can do with regards to moving the planes in and out of the airport. For instance, because LGA’s airspace is so close to the east, you can’t have parallel arrivals because there’s just one approach path that leads to the airport. EWR does have procedures that allow staggered approaches on the 4s, but they’re rarely used because it would interfere too much with departing traffic and arrival and departing traffic are generally evenly balanced throughout the day. That’s just one example of the ATC limitations at EWR - there are many others.

And EWR’s airfield layout is terrible and can’t realistically accommodate that many more flights. The main parallels are too close together and then you have the airspace issues that I highlighted above. The traffic level before this pandemic is probably what you will see in the future, if it ever returns. Even if you add more gates, not much else can be done with the current layout that will lead to an increase in flights. Even in good weather conditions, the airport often runs on a Ground Delay Program (GDP), which is almost everyday!

Polot wrote:

blacksoviet wrote:

Why did Continental take 20 years to build Terminal C?

They didn’t.

Terminal C was started in the 1970s with the other terminals (with a planned similar design) but at the time EWR didn’t need the capacity so construction stopped. As PEOPLExpress grew in the 80s work started on C again and it was completed in 1988, a year after CO bought People. PEOPLExpress was planning on fully moving out of the North terminal and using the new C.

ddaly241 wrote:

I 100% agree. Is there plans for new ATC that can deal with NY airspace better?

leader1 wrote:

ddaly241 wrote:

I 100% agree. Is there plans for new ATC that can deal with NY airspace better?

Not really. There are some new proposed procedures for landings on the 22s/4s at JFK, but I don’t think they’ve been implemented yet. The refurbished 13L/31R at JFK with the new taxiway should also help with arrivals and there were rumors that they would get rid of slots there shortly after the reconstruction was finished.

At EWR, the new end-arounds will help with ground traffic so arrivals won’t interfere with departures. That should improve departure efficiency, but EWR’s main problem is arrivals and there isn’t much that can be done there. EWR has PRM, which allows instrument parallel landings with closely-spaced parallels, but EWR’s runways are too close together for even that. And, again, you have the problem with one approach path.

You really need to close one of the airports to have the others operate more to their true potential. That would open up the airspace for the others.

ddaly241 wrote:

I heard that Teterboro would be closing in the future.

leader1 wrote:

ddaly241 wrote:

I heard that Teterboro would be closing in the future.

Not at all. It’s the busiest private jet airport in the world. I think they even expanded (or were planning to) the area a bit to add new hangars.

aemoreira1981 wrote:

leader1 wrote:

ddaly241 wrote:

I heard that Teterboro would be closing in the future.

Not at all. It’s the busiest private jet airport in the world. I think they even expanded (or were planning to) the area a bit to add new hangars.

Actually, that would be in Arizona (DVT), which is the 25th busiest airport in the world, and busiest that only handles general aviation. However, TEB is pretty busy, with about 470 movements on average per day. I could see a situation, however, where general aviation (non-cargo) is banned from EWR and required to go to TEB only.

As for EWR, the biggest problem will always be: you can only approach EWR from the west (a Runway 29 landing always requires circling, be it a 22 circle 29 or the rare 4 circle 29 "bridge visual"). To change that would require closing LGA, but that brings a whole other set of problems, as LGA is the closest airport to midtown NYC (it's a situation not unlike LIN and MXP in Italy). TEB lies pretty much at the localizer intercept for the 22s to EWR.

slcdeltarumd11 wrote:

Airtran is a disaster in winter. That should have been there top priority imho.

I can't even count the number of times the airtran has ruined my nights in winter. PANYNJ Get a monorail that can handle cold weather!

csavel wrote:

slcdeltarumd11 wrote:

Airtran is a disaster in winter. That should have been there top priority imho.

I can't even count the number of times the airtran has ruined my nights in winter. PANYNJ Get a monorail that can handle cold weather!

Airtrain to EWR is a disaster almost all the time. One reason amongst a host that I avoid EWR. Yet the Airtrain to JFK works pretty well. I've never had issues. FFS if it is cold in EWR then it is almost as cold at JFK, being right on the ocean doesn't turn it into Florida. Why the difference?

aemoreira1981 wrote:

Actually, that would be in Arizona (DVT), which is the 25th busiest airport in the world, and busiest that only handles general aviation. However, TEB is pretty busy, with about 470 movements on average per day. I could see a situation, however, where general aviation (non-cargo) is banned from EWR and required to go to TEB only.

As for EWR, the biggest problem will always be: you can only approach EWR from the west (a Runway 29 landing always requires circling, be it a 22 circle 29 or the rare 4 circle 29 "bridge visual"). To change that would require closing LGA, but that brings a whole other set of problems, as LGA is the closest airport to midtown NYC (it's a situation not unlike LIN and MXP in Italy). TEB lies pretty much at the localizer intercept for the 22s to EWR.

leader1 wrote:

aemoreira1981 wrote:

Actually, that would be in Arizona (DVT), which is the 25th busiest airport in the world, and busiest that only handles general aviation. However, TEB is pretty busy, with about 470 movements on average per day. I could see a situation, however, where general aviation (non-cargo) is banned from EWR and required to go to TEB only.

As for EWR, the biggest problem will always be: you can only approach EWR from the west (a Runway 29 landing always requires circling, be it a 22 circle 29 or the rare 4 circle 29 "bridge visual"). To change that would require closing LGA, but that brings a whole other set of problems, as LGA is the closest airport to midtown NYC (it's a situation not unlike LIN and MXP in Italy). TEB lies pretty much at the localizer intercept for the 22s to EWR.

I completely forgot about DVT! You're right.

If that airspace to the east was opened, 29 could be used for more landings just how PHL does with 35. EWR and PHL are extremely similar (same size, runway configuration, terminal layout, etc.), but airspace makes all the difference in the world.

ddaly241 wrote:

leader1 wrote:

aemoreira1981 wrote:

Actually, that would be in Arizona (DVT), which is the 25th busiest airport in the world, and busiest that only handles general aviation. However, TEB is pretty busy, with about 470 movements on average per day. I could see a situation, however, where general aviation (non-cargo) is banned from EWR and required to go to TEB only.

As for EWR, the biggest problem will always be: you can only approach EWR from the west (a Runway 29 landing always requires circling, be it a 22 circle 29 or the rare 4 circle 29 "bridge visual"). To change that would require closing LGA, but that brings a whole other set of problems, as LGA is the closest airport to midtown NYC (it's a situation not unlike LIN and MXP in Italy). TEB lies pretty much at the localizer intercept for the 22s to EWR.

I completely forgot about DVT! You're right.

If that airspace to the east was opened, 29 could be used for more landings just how PHL does with 35. EWR and PHL are extremely similar (same size, runway configuration, terminal layout, etc.), but airspace makes all the difference in the world.

EWR should use runway 29/11 more than usual, why can't they use this runway more often?

aemoreira1981 wrote:

ddaly241 wrote:

leader1 wrote:

I completely forgot about DVT! You're right.

If that airspace to the east was opened, 29 could be used for more landings just how PHL does with 35. EWR and PHL are extremely similar (same size, runway configuration, terminal layout, etc.), but airspace makes all the difference in the world.

EWR should use runway 29/11 more than usual, why can't they use this runway more often?

Runway 11 is used for small planes, but hardly ever mainline, for SSE winds. To use Runway 29 means LGA has to use ILS Runway 31, and also means that there must be strong northwest winds that make LGA a single-runway operation.

aemoreira1981 wrote:

ddaly241 wrote:

leader1 wrote:

I completely forgot about DVT! You're right.

If that airspace to the east was opened, 29 could be used for more landings just how PHL does with 35. EWR and PHL are extremely similar (same size, runway configuration, terminal layout, etc.), but airspace makes all the difference in the world.

EWR should use runway 29/11 more than usual, why can't they use this runway more often?

Runway 11 is used for small planes, but hardly ever mainline, for SSE winds. To use Runway 29 means LGA has to use ILS Runway 31, and also means that there must be strong northwest winds that make LGA a single-runway operation.

leader1 wrote:

A few things I should clear up because there is a lot of erroneous information on this thread. Lots of posts seem to be in dreamland here with no basis in reality.

First of all, EWR is not slot-controlled anymore. It used to be, but the FAA relaxed them because the delay situation improved enough and they were getting concerned that UA had a monopoly and new carriers were more or less blocked from entering. EWR is still monitored as it is a Level 2 Slot Coordinated airport, which means the FAA has to review and approve all schedules. So, while not officially slot-controlled, it is still regulated and they’re not going to allow things to go out of control like they were before. Last I heard, they wanted to keep flights per hour in the 74-76 range.

Also, EWR is not getting a new runway. Period. Let’s put this to bed right now. When I worked at PANYNJ (specifically on EWR capital projects), there were no plans to add a new runway then and I haven’t heard of any plans to add one since I left. The RPA proposal is just urbanist fantasy that will most likely never see fruition. Granted, RPA does get some funding from PANYNJ, but much of what they propose has no basis in reality. Other than the new terminal, some facility improvements, taxiway and runway repairs and the new end-arounds, there won’t be much else done to improve airside capacity. The end-arounds will improve ground movement so arriving planes won’t have to cross the departure runway, but it won’t do anything to increase the airport’s capacity. Which leads me to...

And even if EWR does get a new runway, it won’t be all that useful because of the surrounding airspace. NYC airspace is complex in that you have several major airports that are within 20 miles or less of each other. With regards to EWR, you have TEB up north and LGA’s airspace which starts along the Hudson River to the east. This severely impacts what ATC can do with regards to moving the planes in and out of the airport. For instance, because LGA’s airspace is so close to the east, you can’t have parallel arrivals because there’s just one approach path that leads to the airport. EWR does have procedures that allow staggered approaches on the 4s, but they’re rarely used because it would interfere too much with departing traffic and arrival and departing traffic are generally evenly balanced throughout the day. That’s just one example of the ATC limitations at EWR - there are many others.

And EWR’s airfield layout is terrible and can’t realistically accommodate that many more flights. The main parallels are too close together and then you have the airspace issues that I highlighted above. The traffic level before this pandemic is probably what you will see in the future, if it ever returns. Even if you add more gates, not much else can be done with the current layout that will lead to an increase in flights. Even in good weather conditions, the airport often runs on a Ground Delay Program (GDP), which is almost everyday!

T5towbar wrote:

leader1 wrote:

A few things I should clear up because there is a lot of erroneous information on this thread. Lots of posts seem to be in dreamland here with no basis in reality.

First of all, EWR is not slot-controlled anymore. It used to be, but the FAA relaxed them because the delay situation improved enough and they were getting concerned that UA had a monopoly and new carriers were more or less blocked from entering. EWR is still monitored as it is a Level 2 Slot Coordinated airport, which means the FAA has to review and approve all schedules. So, while not officially slot-controlled, it is still regulated and they’re not going to allow things to go out of control like they were before. Last I heard, they wanted to keep flights per hour in the 74-76 range.

Also, EWR is not getting a new runway. Period. Let’s put this to bed right now. When I worked at PANYNJ (specifically on EWR capital projects), there were no plans to add a new runway then and I haven’t heard of any plans to add one since I left. The RPA proposal is just urbanist fantasy that will most likely never see fruition. Granted, RPA does get some funding from PANYNJ, but much of what they propose has no basis in reality. Other than the new terminal, some facility improvements, taxiway and runway repairs and the new end-arounds, there won’t be much else done to improve airside capacity. The end-arounds will improve ground movement so arriving planes won’t have to cross the departure runway, but it won’t do anything to increase the airport’s capacity. Which leads me to...

And even if EWR does get a new runway, it won’t be all that useful because of the surrounding airspace. NYC airspace is complex in that you have several major airports that are within 20 miles or less of each other. With regards to EWR, you have TEB up north and LGA’s airspace which starts along the Hudson River to the east. This severely impacts what ATC can do with regards to moving the planes in and out of the airport. For instance, because LGA’s airspace is so close to the east, you can’t have parallel arrivals because there’s just one approach path that leads to the airport. EWR does have procedures that allow staggered approaches on the 4s, but they’re rarely used because it would interfere too much with departing traffic and arrival and departing traffic are generally evenly balanced throughout the day. That’s just one example of the ATC limitations at EWR - there are many others.

And EWR’s airfield layout is terrible and can’t realistically accommodate that many more flights. The main parallels are too close together and then you have the airspace issues that I highlighted above. The traffic level before this pandemic is probably what you will see in the future, if it ever returns. Even if you add more gates, not much else can be done with the current layout that will lead to an increase in flights. Even in good weather conditions, the airport often runs on a Ground Delay Program (GDP), which is almost everyday!

^^ THIS^^

You are correct, and you can't expand her that much because of all of those restrictions and limitations this post described. This is one of the oldest airports in the nation, and it is not designed to handle the amount of flights that other airports with multiple runways and airspace have. What you said about the end arounds is very important and much needed, since aircraft have to cross runways to taxi to the terminal after landing.
I know about ATC delays here because if you ever work on a PM shift in OPS or on the Ramp/Pax Service, even on a clear day, OT (mandatory) is often called because of congestion (GDP). And this is almost every night if a full schedule is ran.

You can only work with what you have. What is being done right now is to replace 50 year old facilities and modernizing them for a better passenger experience and to be more efficient. There is nothing you can do about adding runways, etc.

csavel wrote:

slcdeltarumd11 wrote:

Airtran is a disaster in winter. That should have been there top priority imho.

I can't even count the number of times the airtran has ruined my nights in winter. PANYNJ Get a monorail that can handle cold weather!

Airtrain to EWR is a disaster almost all the time. One reason amongst a host that I avoid EWR. Yet the Airtrain to JFK works pretty well. I've never had issues. FFS if it is cold in EWR then it is almost as cold at JFK, being right on the ocean doesn't turn it into Florida. Why the difference?

YYZLGA wrote:

There's no question that the PA hasn't been planning for a new runway. They made that evident by their choice to locate the new terminal in a place that would actively preclude it. They're a very cautious organization. I'm not sure that's the right choice, though. The NYC area clearly needs an additional (usable, independent parallel) runway, and EWR is probably the easiest place to do it.

ddaly241 wrote:

YYZLGA wrote:

There's no question that the PA hasn't been planning for a new runway. They made that evident by their choice to locate the new terminal in a place that would actively preclude it. They're a very cautious organization. I'm not sure that's the right choice, though. The NYC area clearly needs an additional (usable, independent parallel) runway, and EWR is probably the easiest place to do it.

Does anyone know where this new parallel runway should be placed in EWR?

YYZLGA wrote:

ddaly241 wrote:

YYZLGA wrote:

There's no question that the PA hasn't been planning for a new runway. They made that evident by their choice to locate the new terminal in a place that would actively preclude it. They're a very cautious organization. I'm not sure that's the right choice, though. The NYC area clearly needs an additional (usable, independent parallel) runway, and EWR is probably the easiest place to do it.

Does anyone know where this new parallel runway should be placed in EWR?

Read the RPA report. On the western side of the existing terminal area.

ddaly241 wrote:

YYZLGA wrote:

ddaly241 wrote:

Does anyone know where this new parallel runway should be placed in EWR?

Read the RPA report. On the western side of the existing terminal area.

Did the PA reject the runway though?

YYZLGA wrote:

ddaly241 wrote:

YYZLGA wrote:

Read the RPA report. On the western side of the existing terminal area.

Did the PA reject the runway though?

It's a report by a think tank that's funded by the PA (among others). It was never an official proposal, and it came after the new terminal opened. The choice of the PA to locate a new terminal on the optimal runway location suggests that they're not interested (or that they had never considered the possibility). It would obviously be a challenging project, technically, financially, and politically, but it's pretty obvious that NYC badly lacks airfield capacity (assuming aviation bounces back within the next few years).

ddaly241 wrote:

YYZLGA wrote:

ddaly241 wrote:

Does anyone know where this new parallel runway should be placed in EWR?

Read the RPA report. On the western side of the existing terminal area.

Did the PA reject the runway though?

aemoreira1981 wrote:

ddaly241 wrote:

YYZLGA wrote:

Read the RPA report. On the western side of the existing terminal area.

Did the PA reject the runway though?

Not sure, but the only area to even think of placing a new runway would be over the New Jersey Turnpike. But you would still have the major problem of: you can't approach from east of the centerline. Anywhere else would require a lot of condemnation of land and rerouting of expressways. (Even over the Turnpike would pose problems as the Port Street Bridge over the Turnpike would be just short of the threshold, and then you can't allow hazmats under the runway, basically sending that traffic around the airport.

ddaly241 wrote:

Can EWR accommodate the A380 in the future with the new terminal 1?

ddaly241 wrote:

Can EWR accommodate the A380 in the future with the new terminal 1?

Nicknuzzii wrote:

What are the odds UA serves Terminal 1 upon its opening? Will UA really want or need that many gates by next year?

JFKalumni wrote:

Nicknuzzii wrote:

What are the odds UA serves Terminal 1 upon its opening? Will UA really want or need that many gates by next year?

Terminal 1 will have immigration and other FIS facilities. This will alleviate pressure off of Terminal B so it’s safe to say UA will have a presence there. I can also see the bulk of the E175’s moving into Terminal 1 as well

Nicknuzzii wrote:

JFKalumni wrote:

Nicknuzzii wrote:

What are the odds UA serves Terminal 1 upon its opening? Will UA really want or need that many gates by next year?

Terminal 1 will have immigration and other FIS facilities. This will alleviate pressure off of Terminal B so it’s safe to say UA will have a presence there. I can also see the bulk of the E175’s moving into Terminal 1 as well

It will not have these facilities unfortunately.

EWRandMDW wrote:

Once Terminal 1 (why change from Terminal A?) is constructed, won't the domestic carriers serving Terminal B move there? If that happens then 10 or so gates 40 - 48 will become available for customs and immigration joining the rest of Terminal B. It seems to me that is a prudent move until Terminal B is replaced.

ltbewr wrote:

One thing that will have to happen at EWR as well as many other airports is to eliminate, reduce the frequency and require larger aircraft for some small market connector flights.

JFKalumni wrote:

ltbewr wrote:

One thing that will have to happen at EWR as well as many other airports is to eliminate, reduce the frequency and require larger aircraft for some small market connector flights.

Not going to happen.

The wingtip clearance of a 777-200 alone gives cause for concern in certain areas. EWR barely has room to accommodate certain types of aircraft. Come to EWR around 18:00 and watch the Lufthansa 747-8 push off B62 into the Romeo Echo alleyway.

Nicknuzzii wrote:

JFKalumni wrote:

ltbewr wrote:

One thing that will have to happen at EWR as well as many other airports is to eliminate, reduce the frequency and require larger aircraft for some small market connector flights.

Not going to happen.

The wingtip clearance of a 777-200 alone gives cause for concern in certain areas. EWR barely has room to accommodate certain types of aircraft. Come to EWR around 18:00 and watch the Lufthansa 747-8 push off B62 into the Romeo Echo alleyway.

Not going to happen? It’s already happening.

JFKalumni wrote:

Nicknuzzii wrote:

JFKalumni wrote:

Not going to happen.

The wingtip clearance of a 777-200 alone gives cause for concern in certain areas. EWR barely has room to accommodate certain types of aircraft. Come to EWR around 18:00 and watch the Lufthansa 747-8 push off B62 into the Romeo Echo alleyway.

Not going to happen? It’s already happening.

What small market connector flights justify larger aircraft?

GSO
SYR
BUF
ALB

No way

STT757 wrote:

Check out what I found at my local liquor store, EWR-MIA BEER! Love the story and route map.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

leader1 wrote:

STT757 wrote:

Check out what I found at my local liquor store, EWR-MIA BEER! Love the story and route map.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Where did you get that? I live in the region, too.

STT757 wrote:

leader1 wrote:

STT757 wrote:

Check out what I found at my local liquor store, EWR-MIA BEER! Love the story and route map.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Where did you get that? I live in the region, too.

Millstone liquors, Millstone township off route 33.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro