Nicknuzzii wrote:

I honestly don’t think there would be any benefit for them to just do T 1 and 2 and leave C there.

ddaly241 wrote:

Nicknuzzii wrote:

I honestly don’t think there would be any benefit for them to just do T 1 and 2 and leave C there.

You're right, I don't think there would be any benefit, I wonder where they would build terminal 3 to replace terminal c.

ddaly241 wrote:

Just wondering if anyone has any ideas with Newark Airport's future.

FSDan wrote:

ddaly241 wrote:

Just wondering if anyone has any ideas with Newark Airport's future.

I heard PANYNJ wants to close down EWR and move all ops to JFK. They're going to build a pedestrian footbridge from the EWR Amtrak station to the new JFK T6 so passengers can still easily get there from metro Philly and Northern NJ.

ddaly241 wrote:

FSDan wrote:

ddaly241 wrote:

Just wondering if anyone has any ideas with Newark Airport's future.

I heard PANYNJ wants to close down EWR and move all ops to JFK. They're going to build a pedestrian footbridge from the EWR Amtrak station to the new JFK T6 so passengers can still easily get there from metro Philly and Northern NJ.

Is there a link for EWR closing down?

ddaly241 wrote:

FSDan wrote:

ddaly241 wrote:

Just wondering if anyone has any ideas with Newark Airport's future.

I heard PANYNJ wants to close down EWR and move all ops to JFK. They're going to build a pedestrian footbridge from the EWR Amtrak station to the new JFK T6 so passengers can still easily get there from metro Philly and Northern NJ.

Is there a link for EWR closing down?

Bricktop wrote:

ddaly241 wrote:

FSDan wrote:

I heard PANYNJ wants to close down EWR and move all ops to JFK. They're going to build a pedestrian footbridge from the EWR Amtrak station to the new JFK T6 so passengers can still easily get there from metro Philly and Northern NJ.

Is there a link for EWR closing down?

Yes, it's at aprilfoolsdayjoke.com

Cointrin330 wrote:

ddaly241 wrote:

FSDan wrote:

I heard PANYNJ wants to close down EWR and move all ops to JFK. They're going to build a pedestrian footbridge from the EWR Amtrak station to the new JFK T6 so passengers can still easily get there from metro Philly and Northern NJ.

Is there a link for EWR closing down?

Yes, it's on the AA website. Apparently, American is opening a 700+ flight a day hub at JFK and buying out UA.

chunhimlai wrote:

They will close Newark port, build new cargo facilities and 3rd & 4th runways
Then close Weequahic and build 5/6th runways
The area between central and west runways will build a new centralised terminal
A new high speed railways system will connect airport with Boston and DC

jfklganyc wrote:

I think everything is on indefinite hold

Unlike JFK, the EWR rebuilding is heavily reliant on government funding via the Port Authority. The only Terminal with an airline willing to invest several billion in a new facility is Terminal C.

The Port Authority and its respective states will be very cash strapped going forward.

Terminal 1 will finish. Everything else will be delayed or scaled back

ddaly241 wrote:

jfklganyc wrote:

I think everything is on indefinite hold

Unlike JFK, the EWR rebuilding is heavily reliant on government funding via the Port Authority. The only Terminal with an airline willing to invest several billion in a new facility is Terminal C.

The Port Authority and its respective states will be very cash strapped going forward.

Terminal 1 will finish. Everything else will be delayed or scaled back

If United invest into the new terminal C, EWR may be the biggest United hub if they expand and get more additional gates into a new facility in the new terminal C.

JFKIceman wrote:

...Then space out the 4's/22's so they they can operate simultaneously. ( if im not mistaken they have to be a mile apart for them to operate simultaneously) As of right now the arrivals and departures need to be staggered

ddaly241 wrote:

If United invest into the new terminal C, EWR may be the biggest United hub if they expand and get more additional gates into a new facility in the new terminal C.

MIflyer12 wrote:

ddaly241 wrote:

If United invest into the new terminal C, EWR may be the biggest United hub if they expand and get more additional gates into a new facility in the new terminal C.

By flight count last summer, EWR was a long, long way behind ORD - and IAH and DEN. viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1420611

ddaly241 wrote:

MIflyer12 wrote:

By flight count last summer, EWR was a long, long way behind ORD - and IAH and DEN. viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1420611

Right now, EWR is a long way behind those airports, but probably in the future probably before 2030, they might be the biggest United hub if they invest in a new terminal C and that new terminal would definitely have additional gates since United is very corrupt in the current terminal C that they use.

FSDan wrote:

ddaly241 wrote:

MIflyer12 wrote:

By flight count last summer, EWR was a long, long way behind ORD - and IAH and DEN. viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1420611

Right now, EWR is a long way behind those airports, but probably in the future probably before 2030, they might be the biggest United hub if they invest in a new terminal C and that new terminal would definitely have additional gates since United is very corrupt in the current terminal C that they use.

Don't get your hopes up. EWR doesn't have the runway capacity to come close to matching what ORD, DEN, or IAH can offer operationally. EWR has 2 roughly north-south parallel runways plus 1 east-west runway. IAH has 3 parallel east-west runways plus 2 parallel north-south(ish) runways, DEN has 4 parallel north-south plus 2 parallel east-west runways, and ORD has 5 (soon 6) parallel east-west runways.

A reasonable hope for EWR is that UA keeps their departure count in the 420-440 range long term and continues to upgauge flights as demand comes back after the crisis. The new terminal will vastly improve the passenger experience through the airport, but it won't do anything to grow the runway or airspace capacity which are the true limiting factors at EWR.

ddaly241 wrote:

FSDan wrote:

ddaly241 wrote:

Right now, EWR is a long way behind those airports, but probably in the future probably before 2030, they might be the biggest United hub if they invest in a new terminal C and that new terminal would definitely have additional gates since United is very corrupt in the current terminal C that they use.

Don't get your hopes up. EWR doesn't have the runway capacity to come close to matching what ORD, DEN, or IAH can offer operationally. EWR has 2 roughly north-south parallel runways plus 1 east-west runway. IAH has 3 parallel east-west runways plus 2 parallel north-south(ish) runways, DEN has 4 parallel north-south plus 2 parallel east-west runways, and ORD has 5 (soon 6) parallel east-west runways.

A reasonable hope for EWR is that UA keeps their departure count in the 420-440 range long term and continues to upgauge flights as demand comes back after the crisis. The new terminal will vastly improve the passenger experience through the airport, but it won't do anything to grow the runway or airspace capacity which are the true limiting factors at EWR.

If EWR had new additional runways, where would they be located?

ddaly241 wrote:

chunhimlai wrote:

They will close Newark port, build new cargo facilities and 3rd & 4th runways
Then close Weequahic and build 5/6th runways
The area between central and west runways will build a new centralised terminal
A new high speed railways system will connect airport with Boston and DC

Where did you find this? Is there a link?

slcdeltarumd11 wrote:

PS people. If you read some massive crazy sounding plan on April fool's day on a.net it's someone thinking they are funny.

ddaly241 wrote:

what if EWR build a new runway west of runways 4/22 and shift all the terminals west just like they are doing to the new terminal 1.

jetblastdubai wrote:

JFKIceman wrote:

...Then space out the 4's/22's so they they can operate simultaneously. ( if im not mistaken they have to be a mile apart for them to operate simultaneously) As of right now the arrivals and departures need to be staggered

There is no FAA separation requirement to operate arrivals versus departures on the 4s in VFR conditions unless there is a local procedure that prohibits it. LAX runs each complex simultaneously all day or night long. Only restriction in rolling departures is IFR weather or if arrival is not visible to tower controller...not totally sure on the actual ruling on that and if it needs to be one or both. Without visual separation the departure cannot roll if the arrival on the parallel is within 2 miles of the threshold.

For EWR to run non-PRM (precision radar monitoring), simultaneous IFR arrivals to the 4s, the centerlines would need to be at least 4,300 feet apart. With PRM monitoring there would need to be a minimum of a 2,000' NTZ (non-transgression zone) between runways. I don't see EWR ever getting that kind of space. For the 4s to run simultaneous, VFR arrivals, the centerlines would need to be 2,500' apart otherwise they would need to apply wake turbulence separation standards.

I worked FAA and ICAO airports so I might a few of the different rules mixed up a bit but bottom line, I don't think EWR could ever move a runway far enough to make any difference.

United857 wrote:

jetblastdubai wrote:

JFKIceman wrote:

...Then space out the 4's/22's so they they can operate simultaneously. ( if im not mistaken they have to be a mile apart for them to operate simultaneously) As of right now the arrivals and departures need to be staggered

There is no FAA separation requirement to operate arrivals versus departures on the 4s in VFR conditions unless there is a local procedure that prohibits it. LAX runs each complex simultaneously all day or night long. Only restriction in rolling departures is IFR weather or if arrival is not visible to tower controller...not totally sure on the actual ruling on that and if it needs to be one or both. Without visual separation the departure cannot roll if the arrival on the parallel is within 2 miles of the threshold.

For EWR to run non-PRM (precision radar monitoring), simultaneous IFR arrivals to the 4s, the centerlines would need to be at least 4,300 feet apart. With PRM monitoring there would need to be a minimum of a 2,000' NTZ (non-transgression zone) between runways. I don't see EWR ever getting that kind of space. For the 4s to run simultaneous, VFR arrivals, the centerlines would need to be 2,500' apart otherwise they would need to apply wake turbulence separation standards.

I worked FAA and ICAO airports so I might a few of the different rules mixed up a bit but bottom line, I don't think EWR could ever move a runway far enough to make any difference.

Even if you get the 4,300 ft separation between centerlines, you still have the issue of routing traffic on and off 4R/22L under simultaneous operations with 4L/22R. The problem is that the airspace immediately to the east of the airport over the bay and Hudson is occupied with LGA arrivals coming in from the south at just 4000-6000 ft, and immedately east of that is JFK departure/arrival traffic. This means that getting a separate 2nd traffic pattern to the east for 4L/22R is not possible. I don't think the FAA is going to allow simultaneous departures if aircraft from both runways need to turn left after takeoff, and it's not going to be possible to get 2 aircraft into position at the same time for simultaneous arrivals from a single approach path. By the same token, these airspace constraints mean a 3rd parallel runway will not be usable to its full capacity without compromising aircraft movements on existing runways due to the lack of airspace.

ddaly241 wrote:

United857 wrote:

jetblastdubai wrote:

There is no FAA separation requirement to operate arrivals versus departures on the 4s in VFR conditions unless there is a local procedure that prohibits it. LAX runs each complex simultaneously all day or night long. Only restriction in rolling departures is IFR weather or if arrival is not visible to tower controller...not totally sure on the actual ruling on that and if it needs to be one or both. Without visual separation the departure cannot roll if the arrival on the parallel is within 2 miles of the threshold.

For EWR to run non-PRM (precision radar monitoring), simultaneous IFR arrivals to the 4s, the centerlines would need to be at least 4,300 feet apart. With PRM monitoring there would need to be a minimum of a 2,000' NTZ (non-transgression zone) between runways. I don't see EWR ever getting that kind of space. For the 4s to run simultaneous, VFR arrivals, the centerlines would need to be 2,500' apart otherwise they would need to apply wake turbulence separation standards.

I worked FAA and ICAO airports so I might a few of the different rules mixed up a bit but bottom line, I don't think EWR could ever move a runway far enough to make any difference.

Even if you get the 4,300 ft separation between centerlines, you still have the issue of routing traffic on and off 4R/22L under simultaneous operations with 4L/22R. The problem is that the airspace immediately to the east of the airport over the bay and Hudson is occupied with LGA arrivals coming in from the south at just 4000-6000 ft, and immedately east of that is JFK departure/arrival traffic. This means that getting a separate 2nd traffic pattern to the east for 4L/22R is not possible. I don't think the FAA is going to allow simultaneous departures if aircraft from both runways need to turn left after takeoff, and it's not going to be possible to get 2 aircraft into position at the same time for simultaneous arrivals from a single approach path. By the same token, these airspace constraints mean a 3rd parallel runway will not be usable to its full capacity without compromising aircraft movements on existing runways due to the lack of airspace.

So how is EWR going to get another runway with lack of airspace? Should they build another runway east/west.

codc10 wrote:

There were draft plans and preliminary discussions with the PANYNJ for additional gates at C (call it a C-4) but with UAL emerging a ~20% smaller carrier, I doubt this will happen. The gates would not be to add flights, but to allow additional mainline parking positions, as the operation is upgauged and overall number of gates, but not flights, is reduced. It will take UAL at least 5 years to get back to 2019 level, and by then a Terminal C replacement could be in the cards.

An all-new runway at EWR (e.g., not incrementally wider separation of the existing parallels) is unlikely, and if it ever happens, would be 20-25 years into the future. Despite A.net pipe dreams, Port Newark isn't going anywhere, nor can the infrastructure to the east simply be "paved over" or "tunneled below". A runway to the west is marginally more realistic, but falls directly in line of residential areas along the extended centerline in both directions. I don't see that as terribly realistic, either.

If there are any changes to EWR, it will be a closing of 11/29, which would create an operational challenge for about 4 months out of the year, when 29 is regularly used for arrivals due to winds out of the west.

codc10 wrote:

There were draft plans and preliminary discussions with the PANYNJ for additional gates at C (call it a C-4) but with UAL emerging a ~20% smaller carrier, I doubt this will happen. The gates would not be to add flights, but to allow additional mainline parking positions, as the operation is upgauged and overall number of gates, but not flights, is reduced. It will take UAL at least 5 years to get back to 2019 level, and by then a Terminal C replacement could be in the cards.

An all-new runway at EWR (e.g., not incrementally wider separation of the existing parallels) is unlikely, and if it ever happens, would be 20-25 years into the future. Despite A.net pipe dreams, Port Newark isn't going anywhere, nor can the infrastructure to the east simply be "paved over" or "tunneled below". A runway to the west is marginally more realistic, but falls directly in line of residential areas along the extended centerline in both directions. I don't see that as terribly realistic, either.

If there are any changes to EWR, it will be a closing of 11/29, which would create an operational challenge for about 4 months out of the year, when 29 is regularly used for arrivals due to winds out of the west.

T5towbar wrote:

Technically, there has always been a "C-4". It's called the Hardstand. Express ops (since the ATR days) have been in that area. There is the training building there, but since Terminal A (A-2) has no more flight activity, and is just for mainline parking only, and from what I understand, E145's will still run out of the hardstand (130V thru Z) depending on flight activity.

This situation has changed a lot of plans. Will UA have enough flight activity to warrant a return to Terminal A. Or will UA get any gates in the new Terminal One?

Nicknuzzii wrote:

A new runway should be built to the west or to the southeast where the shopping centers, wetlands and massive parking slots sit.

ltbewr wrote:

For the foreseeable future, current construction at EWR will be shut down and with the sharp decline of revenues, work will be slowed down, delayed and any new projects delayed for at least 1-2 years.

YYZLGA wrote:

The RPA has done a pretty detailed study on rebuilding the airport, and they found that there's space for an independent parallel on the west side of the airport. Unfortunately, the new terminal is in precisely the wrong place.

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

KFTG wrote:

People are saying it will be bulldozed.