Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
bigb
Posts: 1105
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2003 4:30 pm

Re: The future of Laguardia

Sat Jun 13, 2020 2:11 am

JFKalumni wrote:
TonyClifton wrote:
BNAMealer wrote:

I'm not sure if JFK/EWR could have handled all of the increased traffic that would've resulted from closing LGA......

It couldn’t. JFK runs delay programs when the 22s are in use and 31L/KE is available for departure. There’s absolutely no way it could also handle LGA traffic.


Yup

Can you imagine 5:00pm rush hour to Europe with all of those heavies lined up on taxiway Charlie for 22R and the narrowbodies and RJ’s on Kilo Echo waiting for 31L having to support both LGA and JFK traffic ?

It would be a disaster.


It would be. A lot easier to accommodate that increased traffic without having LGA airspace in the middle of New York.

Removing LGA is more than just what happens on the ground at JFK before the Arrival and Departure handling would be massively improved. Had LGA been closed and JFK gotten one more additional runway, JFK could easily handle both traffic from LGA and JFK combined.

Remember something else, not all duplicate pairings would be transferred over to from LGA as well. You’ll see consolidating of pairings. For example LGA-ORF and JFK-ORF would just become JFK-ORF. There’s quite a bit of duplicate pairings between both JFK and LGA.
 
JFKalumni
Posts: 127
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2019 5:45 pm

Re: The future of Laguardia

Sat Jun 13, 2020 2:21 am

bigb wrote:
JFKalumni wrote:
TonyClifton wrote:
It couldn’t. JFK runs delay programs when the 22s are in use and 31L/KE is available for departure. There’s absolutely no way it could also handle LGA traffic.


Yup

Can you imagine 5:00pm rush hour to Europe with all of those heavies lined up on taxiway Charlie for 22R and the narrowbodies and RJ’s on Kilo Echo waiting for 31L having to support both LGA and JFK traffic ?

It would be a disaster.


It would be. A lot easier to accommodate that increased traffic without having LGA airspace in the middle of New York.

Removing LGA is more than just what happens on the ground at JFK before the Arrival and Departure handling would be massively improved. Had LGA been closed and JFK gotten one more additional runway, JFK could easily handle both traffic from LGA and JFK combined.

Remember something else, not all duplicate pairings would be transferred over to from LGA as well. You’ll see consolidating of pairings. For example LGA-ORF and JFK-ORF would just become JFK-ORF. There’s quite a bit of duplicate pairings between both JFK and LGA.


Years ago there was a plan to demolish all of the cargo buildings along side taxiway Charlie. From the old El Al hanger all the way down to the post office / CBP building 250. A new runway was proposed to run parallel with 31R/13L alongside Rockaway turnpike.

If that runway gets built then I can see them moving flights away from LGA.
 
tphuang
Posts: 5061
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:04 pm

Re: The future of Laguardia

Sat Jun 13, 2020 2:23 am

JFKalumni wrote:
Everything doesn’t revolve around JetBlue. Delta and American are not focused on keeping JetBlue happy.

There will always be transcons between JFK and LAX/SFO. The morning red eye flights will still have passengers arriving into JFK transferring to South African, Royal Jordanian, and other flights that only operate along the east coast hubs.

Spirit and Frontier have been pushing harder with regards to NY services weather it’s EWR, LGA, or ISP. It’s only a matter of time before one of these ULCC demand more access to LGA. Dedicated gates, more slots and perimeter rule axed.


Of course, NK has been looking for more slots for a while now. It would be great if they can get a few more slots and increase competition at LGA. More slots for ULCCs will mean more competition to Florida, which I'm always in favor of.

However, that has nothing to do with your proposal of lifting perimeter restrictions. During this downturn, nobody is thinking about this proposal. If this was going to get lifted, it would've happened 3 or 4 years ago. And it didn't happen because there was no reason to re-orient NY airspace just to make Delta happy. There is even less appetite for something like this for a city that's going to be under COVID cloud for a while.

The most likely consequences of COVID is that some carriers are going to give up slots at LGA and others will gain slots. There may also be carriers moving around at LGA to other terminals and new carriers starting service. That all seem to be more realistic issues to ponder about.
 
leader1
Posts: 73
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 4:44 am

Re: The future of Laguardia

Sat Jun 13, 2020 3:36 am

TonyClifton wrote:
It couldn’t. JFK runs delay programs when the 22s are in use and 31L/KE is available for departure. There’s absolutely no way it could also handle LGA traffic.


That’s not exactly true. JFK runs far fewer delays than the other two airports, even in the 22 configuration with 31L available. LGA’s location absolutely affects JFK operations. Think about it - there’s a reason why 31R can’t be used for departures at the same time as 31L and why 31L departures have to turn immediately turn left after takeoff. Not to mention that fact that the 22s just have a single approach path. You think that doesn’t affect operational efficiency?

I’m not saying that JFK could absorb the extra 1000 flights a day that LGA would lose if it closes, but it could handle a hell of a lot more if it’s operations weren’t affected by LGA being in the way.
Leader-1
 
bigb
Posts: 1105
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2003 4:30 pm

Re: The future of Laguardia

Sat Jun 13, 2020 3:40 am

leader1 wrote:
TonyClifton wrote:
It couldn’t. JFK runs delay programs when the 22s are in use and 31L/KE is available for departure. There’s absolutely no way it could also handle LGA traffic.


That’s not exactly true. JFK runs far fewer delays than the other two airports, even in the 22 configuration with 31L available. LGA’s location absolutely affects JFK operations. Think about it - there’s a reason why 31R can’t be used for departures at the same time as 31L and why 31L departures have to turn immediately turn left after takeoff. Not to mention that fact that the 22s just have a single approach path. You think that doesn’t affect operational efficiency?

I’m not saying that JFK could absorb the extra 1000 flights a day that LGA would lose if it closes, but it could handle a hell of a lot more if it’s operations weren’t affected by LGA being in the way.


This right here, the NY3 airports have an airspace problem, not a ground space problem. LGA in the middle is one that create those problems, hence the crazy different approach procedures and departure procedures out of each airport.

JFK can hold its own along with the airspace if LGA wasn’t there.
 
TonyClifton
Posts: 181
Joined: Thu May 14, 2020 3:19 pm

Re: The future of Laguardia

Sat Jun 13, 2020 2:53 pm

leader1 wrote:
TonyClifton wrote:
It couldn’t. JFK runs delay programs when the 22s are in use and 31L/KE is available for departure. There’s absolutely no way it could also handle LGA traffic.


That’s not exactly true. JFK runs far fewer delays than the other two airports, even in the 22 configuration with 31L available. LGA’s location absolutely affects JFK operations. Think about it - there’s a reason why 31R can’t be used for departures at the same time as 31L and why 31L departures have to turn immediately turn left after takeoff. Not to mention that fact that the 22s just have a single approach path. You think that doesn’t affect operational efficiency?

I’m not saying that JFK could absorb the extra 1000 flights a day that LGA would lose if it closes, but it could handle a hell of a lot more if it’s operations weren’t affected by LGA being in the way.

Right, I didn’t say JFK is the worst or that it runs unrestricted by LGA. But there is no way JFK could handle the volume of traffic LGA would displace. Of course some duplicate flights get combined, but that’s a small part of the Venn diagram. JFK gets busy at times during the day, it’s no longer the bowling alley it was pre 9/11. Even with a third 4/22 parallel you still are limited when running 13/31 for landings. You might manage to get landings on 4/22s with intersection departures off 31s on a good day. LGA isn’t going, so it’s up to NextGen ATC to help solve part of the problem.

JFKs design is the issue, 1960s piecemeal. Short of picking up IAD and dropping it in Jamaica, you won’t get a clean sheet design.
 
Cointrin330
Posts: 1899
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2016 12:23 pm

Re: The future of LaGuardia

Sat Jun 13, 2020 3:40 pm

It would take years and billions for JFK to be repurposed into a facility that could absorb the majority of LGA's traffic with overlapping routes shedded and that does not include roadway changes, mass transit upgrades, and other accessibility features that have nothing to do with terminals, taxiways, runways, and reconfigured air traffic patterns. Given NYC's immediate prospects and its deteriorating finances aggravated by the COVID19 crisis, the capital and capital raising requirements for that kind of infrastructure project is unlikely to see the light of day. The pie in the sky solution for Greater NYC's airport infrastructure issues in a post-pandemic world would probably center around an entirely new facility that would make it possible to close LGA and eventually, JFK. The question is where would you put it? There just isn't a viable location, accessible for the catchment area, with the landscape requirements needed to do this. An airport built on reclaimed land, or in the sea along the lines of KIX is not feasible, with rising sea levels, and prohibitive costs associated with it.
 
TonyClifton
Posts: 181
Joined: Thu May 14, 2020 3:19 pm

Re: The future of LaGuardia

Sat Jun 13, 2020 3:47 pm

Cointrin330 wrote:
It would take years and billions for JFK to be repurposed into a facility that could absorb the majority of LGA's traffic with overlapping routes shedded and that does not include roadway changes, mass transit upgrades, and other accessibility features that have nothing to do with terminals, taxiways, runways, and reconfigured air traffic patterns. Given NYC's immediate prospects and its deteriorating finances aggravated by the COVID19 crisis, the capital and capital raising requirements for that kind of infrastructure project is unlikely to see the light of day. The pie in the sky solution for Greater NYC's airport infrastructure issues in a post-pandemic world would probably center around an entirely new facility that would make it possible to close LGA and eventually, JFK. The question is where would you put it? There just isn't a viable location, accessible for the catchment area, with the landscape requirements needed to do this. An airport built on reclaimed land, or in the sea along the lines of KIX is not feasible, with rising sea levels, and prohibitive costs associated with it.

Simple, turn Staten Island into ATL Mk2. Add trains to NJ, Manhattan, and Brooklyn. ;)
 
evank516
Posts: 2122
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2017 12:15 am

Re: The future of LaGuardia

Sat Jun 13, 2020 4:15 pm

We're all talking about the idea of closing LGA, but that's not going to happen after all the money they just invested in re-designing the entire airport. Though I have to say that LGA is really an impediment on JFK, I agree 100%, but the problem is we're not going to see it go anywhere.
 
Nicknuzzii
Posts: 1038
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2018 5:57 pm

Re: The future of LaGuardia

Sat Jun 13, 2020 5:15 pm

Why would JFK be the one absorbing all of LGA’s traffic? EWR serves the most domestic pax in the region and is way closer to major tourist sites than JFK.
 
Cointrin330
Posts: 1899
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2016 12:23 pm

Re: The future of LaGuardia

Sat Jun 13, 2020 6:58 pm

TonyClifton wrote:
Cointrin330 wrote:
It would take years and billions for JFK to be repurposed into a facility that could absorb the majority of LGA's traffic with overlapping routes shedded and that does not include roadway changes, mass transit upgrades, and other accessibility features that have nothing to do with terminals, taxiways, runways, and reconfigured air traffic patterns. Given NYC's immediate prospects and its deteriorating finances aggravated by the COVID19 crisis, the capital and capital raising requirements for that kind of infrastructure project is unlikely to see the light of day. The pie in the sky solution for Greater NYC's airport infrastructure issues in a post-pandemic world would probably center around an entirely new facility that would make it possible to close LGA and eventually, JFK. The question is where would you put it? There just isn't a viable location, accessible for the catchment area, with the landscape requirements needed to do this. An airport built on reclaimed land, or in the sea along the lines of KIX is not feasible, with rising sea levels, and prohibitive costs associated with it.

Simple, turn Staten Island into ATL Mk2. Add trains to NJ, Manhattan, and Brooklyn. ;)


LOL. Truly. Would be the best way to repurpose Staten Island.
 
global2
Posts: 522
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2014 1:50 am

Re: The future of Laguardia

Sat Jun 13, 2020 7:00 pm

AmericanAir88 wrote:
TonyClifton wrote:
jfklganyc wrote:


See, the same agency runs both airports and they dont want JFK to “take a hit.” Hence the reasoning

Yep, I get it, just very unfortunate. Like when BAA basically controlled all the airports in London...
I’d really like to see LGA unrestrained. Filling it full of RJs because of slots is a waste of the airports potential. JFK would still exist by virtue of international flying+connections of course.

LGA also needs a serious public transit link, that isn’t the Q70.


Hopefully the AirTrain will turn out well. I also have seen in reports for future subway plans that LGA could eventually be a stop in the far future.



What plans for a future subway? Please elaborate!
 
Cointrin330
Posts: 1899
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2016 12:23 pm

Re: The future of LaGuardia

Sat Jun 13, 2020 7:01 pm

Nicknuzzii wrote:
Why would JFK be the one absorbing all of LGA’s traffic? EWR serves the most domestic pax in the region and is way closer to major tourist sites than JFK.


The question of which airport would absorb LGA's traffic is probably moot, since LGA is not going anywhere but proximity to tourist sites doesn't have anything to do with it, for sure. I'm not sure which metric you are using but EWR's domestic traffic is built upon the UA hub operation principally, with the rest serviced by the rest of the US carriers there. EWR's catchment area doesn't really pull Long Island, parts of CT, and Westchester County in as meaningful a way as LGA does and so it stands to reason that if LGA were to close the bulk of the traffic would shift to JFK with the rest to EWR, not the other way around.
 
leader1
Posts: 73
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 4:44 am

Re: The future of LaGuardia

Sat Jun 13, 2020 8:29 pm

TonyClifton wrote:
Right, I didn’t say JFK is the worst or that it runs unrestricted by LGA. But there is no way JFK could handle the volume of traffic LGA would displace. Of course some duplicate flights get combined, but that’s a small part of the Venn diagram. JFK gets busy at times during the day, it’s no longer the bowling alley it was pre 9/11. Even with a third 4/22 parallel you still are limited when running 13/31 for landings. You might manage to get landings on 4/22s with intersection departures off 31s on a good day. LGA isn’t going, so it’s up to NextGen ATC to help solve part of the problem.

JFKs design is the issue, 1960s piecemeal. Short of picking up IAD and dropping it in Jamaica, you won’t get a clean sheet design.


JFK delays are nowhere near as bad as they were in 2007. Reintroducing slots helped, but new procedures also improved performance. The airport runs a lot better than it used to. And even with new procedures, it’s still somewhat limited. 31L KE departures are restricted to a couple of departure gates because of airspace issues. And, again, 22L/R arrivals are hindered because they’re confined to just one arrival corridor. SFO runs simultaneous arrivals and their runways are only 750 feet apart, but JFK’s 22L/R arrivals have to be staggered (and that is IF 22R is open for arrivals, which is completely dependent on whatever runway LGA uses for departures) and those runways are more than 3000 feet apart. Don’t tell me that 750 feet is better for simultaneous ops than 3000+ feet. Having another arrival corridor would absolutely increase 22L/R arrival throughput where arrivals wouldn’t have to be staggered. And there are a lot more limitations than the ones I just listed.

Point is that you could get a lot greater throughput at JFK without LGA there.

Nicknuzzii wrote:
Why would JFK be the one absorbing all of LGA’s traffic? EWR serves the most domestic pax in the region and is way closer to major tourist sites than JFK.


EWR won’t come close to handling the extra traffic. Maybe runway 29 to be used for converging arrival ops, like PHL does with runway 35, but that’s about the extent of it. Departures might increase, but not by a lot.
Leader-1
 
TonyClifton
Posts: 181
Joined: Thu May 14, 2020 3:19 pm

Re: The future of LaGuardia

Sat Jun 13, 2020 8:40 pm

leader1 wrote:
TonyClifton wrote:
Right, I didn’t say JFK is the worst or that it runs unrestricted by LGA. But there is no way JFK could handle the volume of traffic LGA would displace. Of course some duplicate flights get combined, but that’s a small part of the Venn diagram. JFK gets busy at times during the day, it’s no longer the bowling alley it was pre 9/11. Even with a third 4/22 parallel you still are limited when running 13/31 for landings. You might manage to get landings on 4/22s with intersection departures off 31s on a good day. LGA isn’t going, so it’s up to NextGen ATC to help solve part of the problem.

JFKs design is the issue, 1960s piecemeal. Short of picking up IAD and dropping it in Jamaica, you won’t get a clean sheet design.


JFK delays are nowhere near as bad as they were in 2007. Reintroducing slots helped, but new procedures also improved performance. The airport runs a lot better than it used to. And even with new procedures, it’s still somewhat limited. 31L KE departures are restricted to a couple of departure gates because of airspace issues. And, again, 22L/R arrivals are hindered because they’re confined to just one arrival corridor. SFO runs simultaneous arrivals and their runways are only 750 feet apart, but JFK’s 22L/R arrivals have to be staggered (and that is IF 22R is open for arrivals, which is completely dependent on whatever runway LGA uses for departures) and those runways are more than 3000 feet apart. Don’t tell me that 750 feet is better for simultaneous ops than 3000+ feet. Having another arrival corridor would absolutely increase 22L/R arrival throughput where arrivals wouldn’t have to be staggered. And there are a lot more limitations than the ones I just listed.

Point is that you could get a lot greater throughput at JFK without LGA there.

Nicknuzzii wrote:
Why would JFK be the one absorbing all of LGA’s traffic? EWR serves the most domestic pax in the region and is way closer to major tourist sites than JFK.


EWR won’t come close to handling the extra traffic. Maybe runway 29 to be used for converging arrival ops, like PHL does with runway 35, but that’s about the extent of it. Departures might increase, but not by a lot.

Again, of course I agree that capacity would be increased if LGA wasn’t there, but with the current EWR and JFK footprint and realistic physical changes that could be made, you won’t be able to turn 3 airports into 2. Newark is even more limited on what you can expand on. While you might manage to jam a third 22 into JFK, Newark requires a bit more maneuvering. I’ve seen some intriguing proposals of a refreshed EWR and JFK (http://fourthplan.org/action/airports) but I don’t see how you’d could actually logistically phase build it. At this point with the JFK and EWR (and LGA) builds, I think we have to accept all three are here for a while.

As an aside, I’m honestly amazed at how well the LGA build has gone. Traffic has sucked, but it was clipping along at a very respectable pace.

On a good day with no airspace issues would might be able to operate on the 4/22s for approach and depart intersections of each 31, but you’re hosed when weather forces 31 ops, which happens often (ask me how I know, my first command was JFK based dealing with it an entire summer).
 
JFKalumni
Posts: 127
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2019 5:45 pm

Re: The future of LaGuardia

Sat Jun 13, 2020 10:54 pm

TonyClifton wrote:
leader1 wrote:
TonyClifton wrote:
Right, I didn’t say JFK is the worst or that it runs unrestricted by LGA. But there is no way JFK could handle the volume of traffic LGA would displace. Of course some duplicate flights get combined, but that’s a small part of the Venn diagram. JFK gets busy at times during the day, it’s no longer the bowling alley it was pre 9/11. Even with a third 4/22 parallel you still are limited when running 13/31 for landings. You might manage to get landings on 4/22s with intersection departures off 31s on a good day. LGA isn’t going, so it’s up to NextGen ATC to help solve part of the problem.

JFKs design is the issue, 1960s piecemeal. Short of picking up IAD and dropping it in Jamaica, you won’t get a clean sheet design.


JFK delays are nowhere near as bad as they were in 2007. Reintroducing slots helped, but new procedures also improved performance. The airport runs a lot better than it used to. And even with new procedures, it’s still somewhat limited. 31L KE departures are restricted to a couple of departure gates because of airspace issues. And, again, 22L/R arrivals are hindered because they’re confined to just one arrival corridor. SFO runs simultaneous arrivals and their runways are only 750 feet apart, but JFK’s 22L/R arrivals have to be staggered (and that is IF 22R is open for arrivals, which is completely dependent on whatever runway LGA uses for departures) and those runways are more than 3000 feet apart. Don’t tell me that 750 feet is better for simultaneous ops than 3000+ feet. Having another arrival corridor would absolutely increase 22L/R arrival throughput where arrivals wouldn’t have to be staggered. And there are a lot more limitations than the ones I just listed.

Point is that you could get a lot greater throughput at JFK without LGA there.

Nicknuzzii wrote:
Why would JFK be the one absorbing all of LGA’s traffic? EWR serves the most domestic pax in the region and is way closer to major tourist sites than JFK.


EWR won’t come close to handling the extra traffic. Maybe runway 29 to be used for converging arrival ops, like PHL does with runway 35, but that’s about the extent of it. Departures might increase, but not by a lot.

Again, of course I agree that capacity would be increased if LGA wasn’t there, but with the current EWR and JFK footprint and realistic physical changes that could be made, you won’t be able to turn 3 airports into 2. Newark is even more limited on what you can expand on. While you might manage to jam a third 22 into JFK, Newark requires a bit more maneuvering. I’ve seen some intriguing proposals of a refreshed EWR and JFK (http://fourthplan.org/action/airports) but I don’t see how you’d could actually logistically phase build it. At this point with the JFK and EWR (and LGA) builds, I think we have to accept all three are here for a while.

As an aside, I’m honestly amazed at how well the LGA build has gone. Traffic has sucked, but it was clipping along at a very respectable pace.

On a good day with no airspace issues would might be able to operate on the 4/22s for approach and depart intersections of each 31, but you’re hosed when weather forces 31 ops, which happens often (ask me how I know, my first command was JFK based dealing with it an entire summer).


It’s not only LGA you have to worry about. Heliports along the Hudson and East river, seaplane activity has increased along the East river from 23rd Street NYU Langone hospital up towards the 34 street heliport, not to mention the Class Bravo helicopter routes. LGA would only solve one part of the equation.
 
cpl22586
Posts: 81
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 1:39 am

Re: The future of LaGuardia

Sat Jun 13, 2020 11:48 pm

Any idea what is going to happen with those 3 American Airlines hangars on the west end are they still planning on knocking those down for remote parking spaces
 
JFKalumni
Posts: 127
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2019 5:45 pm

Re: The future of LaGuardia

Sat Jun 13, 2020 11:52 pm

cpl22586 wrote:
Any idea what is going to happen with those 3 American Airlines hangars on the west end are they still planning on knocking those down for remote parking spaces


Last I heard, American was able to get landmark status. I think the hanger is staying.

LGP was forcing AA to share the hardstand positions outside of the hanger. I don’t know if that arrangement is still active today.
 
tphuang
Posts: 5061
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:04 pm

Re: The future of LaGuardia

Sun Jun 14, 2020 12:17 am

I think ewr after this is over will naturally be gaining some of the business demand that currently flows to lga. A lot of people that live in NJ and works in Manhattan will be able to work from home. Ewr will be a lot more convenient for them.
 
JFKalumni
Posts: 127
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2019 5:45 pm

Re: The future of LaGuardia

Sun Jun 14, 2020 12:26 am

tphuang wrote:
I think ewr after this is over will naturally be gaining some of the business demand that currently flows to lga. A lot of people that live in NJ and works in Manhattan will be able to work from home. Ewr will be a lot more convenient for them.


I work at EWR. The real game changer here would be the Path train extension from Newark Penn Station. A 30 minute subway ride from lower Manhattan to the airport would definitely increase business. Unfortunately NJ Transit isn’t reliable even though the trip from penn station is only 25 minutes.

The express bus is too expensive at $18 one way.

Newark desperately needs the path extension
 
ytib
Posts: 551
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 3:22 am

Re: The future of LaGuardia

Sun Jun 14, 2020 3:21 am

JFKalumni wrote:
tphuang wrote:
I think ewr after this is over will naturally be gaining some of the business demand that currently flows to lga. A lot of people that live in NJ and works in Manhattan will be able to work from home. Ewr will be a lot more convenient for them.


I work at EWR. The real game changer here would be the Path train extension from Newark Penn Station. A 30 minute subway ride from lower Manhattan to the airport would definitely increase business. Unfortunately NJ Transit isn’t reliable even though the trip from penn station is only 25 minutes.

The express bus is too expensive at $18 one way.

Newark desperately needs the path extension


Is the PATH service slated for 2025 or 2026 as of now?
318, 319, 320, 321, 332, 333, 388, 707, 717, 722, 732, 733, 734, 73Q, 735, 73G, 738, 7M8, 739, 752, 753, 742, 74L, 744, 762, 763, 772, 77L, 77W, 789, 142, CN1, CR2, CR7, DC8, DH2, DH8, D8Q, D10, D95, EM2, ER3, ER4, E70, 100, J31, M11, M83, M88, M90, SF3
 
twaconnie
Posts: 262
Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2008 3:18 pm

Re: The future of LaGuardia

Sun Jun 14, 2020 11:00 am

cpl22586 wrote:
Any idea what is going to happen with those 3 American Airlines hangars on the west end are they still planning on knocking those down for remote parking spaces


Hanger number one is coming down not sure about number 3 and 5.
 
User avatar
jfklganyc
Posts: 5910
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 2:31 pm

Re: The future of LaGuardia

Sun Jun 14, 2020 4:14 pm

twaconnie wrote:
cpl22586 wrote:
Any idea what is going to happen with those 3 American Airlines hangars on the west end are they still planning on knocking those down for remote parking spaces


Hanger number one is coming down not sure about number 3 and 5.


The rats. My God you should see the rats in those things! AA keeps those hangars in decrepit shape!


I will also call BS on landmarking.

That is a very public process in New York City.

I havent seen one thing made public about it.

I do believe that American wants to keep them and there may be a dispute with the port authority who probably wants them demolished. They pay low rent and operate a full mx bay at LGA
 
JFKalumni
Posts: 127
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2019 5:45 pm

Re: The future of LaGuardia

Sun Jun 14, 2020 7:09 pm

jfklganyc wrote:
twaconnie wrote:
cpl22586 wrote:
Any idea what is going to happen with those 3 American Airlines hangars on the west end are they still planning on knocking those down for remote parking spaces


Hanger number one is coming down not sure about number 3 and 5.


The rats. My God you should see the rats in those things! AA keeps those hangars in decrepit shape!


I will also call BS on landmarking.

That is a very public process in New York City.

I havent seen one thing made public about it.

I do believe that American wants to keep them and there may be a dispute with the port authority who probably wants them demolished. They pay low rent and operate a full mx bay at LGA


No BS here

https://corpinfo.panynj.gov/files/uploa ... (alternate).pdf
 
User avatar
jfklganyc
Posts: 5910
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 2:31 pm

Re: The future of LaGuardia

Sun Jun 14, 2020 7:59 pm

JFKalumni wrote:
jfklganyc wrote:
twaconnie wrote:

Hanger number one is coming down not sure about number 3 and 5.


The rats. My God you should see the rats in those things! AA keeps those hangars in decrepit shape!


I will also call BS on landmarking.

That is a very public process in New York City.

I havent seen one thing made public about it.

I do believe that American wants to keep them and there may be a dispute with the port authority who probably wants them demolished. They pay low rent and operate a full mx bay at LGA


No BS here

https://corpinfo.panynj.gov/files/uploa ... (alternate).pdf



Link doesnt work. Can you try again?
 
CaptainObvious1
Posts: 50
Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2020 11:22 pm

Re: The future of LaGuardia

Sun Jun 14, 2020 8:39 pm

jfklganyc wrote:
JFKalumni wrote:
jfklganyc wrote:

The rats. My God you should see the rats in those things! AA keeps those hangars in decrepit shape!


I will also call BS on landmarking.

That is a very public process in New York City.

I havent seen one thing made public about it.

I do believe that American wants to keep them and there may be a dispute with the port authority who probably wants them demolished. They pay low rent and operate a full mx bay at LGA


No BS here

https://corpinfo.panynj.gov/files/uploa ... (alternate).pdf



Link doesnt work. Can you try again?


Putting it into a bitly link for the original poster.

https://bit.ly/37uGIes

Talks about the lease for Hangars 3 and 5, as well as bringing in the historic perseveration committee. It is quite comment for a committee like that if the area could be considered historic but doesn't always mean it is a historic landmark.
 
JFKalumni
Posts: 127
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2019 5:45 pm

Re: The future of LaGuardia

Sun Jun 14, 2020 8:42 pm

jfklganyc wrote:
JFKalumni wrote:
jfklganyc wrote:

The rats. My God you should see the rats in those things! AA keeps those hangars in decrepit shape!


I will also call BS on landmarking.

That is a very public process in New York City.

I havent seen one thing made public about it.

I do believe that American wants to keep them and there may be a dispute with the port authority who probably wants them demolished. They pay low rent and operate a full mx bay at LGA


No BS here

https://corpinfo.panynj.gov/files/uploa ... (alternate).pdf



Link doesnt work. Can you try again?


It’s a copy of the Port Authority lease extension. Hanger 3 and 5 is staying until June 2029 with an option to extend until 2034. When I worked at LGA, the guys at AA told me they were trying to get the buildings landmarked. That was during the flood lawsuits a few years ago.

I’ll try searching the public records.
 
User avatar
jfklganyc
Posts: 5910
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 2:31 pm

Re: The future of LaGuardia

Mon Jun 15, 2020 1:45 am

That would explain the new door on the middle hangar.

So the first hangar goes and the next two stay?
 
KD5MDK
Posts: 832
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2013 4:05 am

Re: The future of Laguardia

Sun Jun 21, 2020 5:55 am

bigb wrote:
gsg013 wrote:
bigb wrote:

Can a loaded 764 even make it to LAX or SFO with the amount of fuel it needs to carry especially if a alternate is needed outbound from SFO? Sending a 764 to ATL is a lot different then going transcon on a wide body out of LGA.


I believe a 764 can make it transcon from LGA... The 764 with full fuel/pax can make it 11-12 hours the routes in question are about half of that.. think UA flies the 764 EWR-HNL and DL flew the 764 JFK-ATH. I would think half the distance would be able to get out of LGA.



It’s not the range that is in question, it’s the field performance of getting off of a 7,000 foot runway loaded with pax, bags, and fuel for a Tran con flight. Of course a 764 has no problem launching for long haul flights out of JFK or EWR due to their longer runways. I have my doubts especially in the summer time and definitely highly doubt when a ALT will be required for SFO then I am certain weight restrictions are coming into play just to launch from LGA.

Aren't the ALTs for SFO going to be OAK and SJC? Maybe SMF if you're short a bit?
Those shouldn't require too much extra fuel, unless there's a region wide earthquake right before final approach.
 
Brianpr3
Posts: 27
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 7:34 pm

Re: The future of Laguardia

Sun Jun 21, 2020 7:57 am

global2 wrote:
AmericanAir88 wrote:
TonyClifton wrote:
Yep, I get it, just very unfortunate. Like when BAA basically controlled all the airports in London...
I’d really like to see LGA unrestrained. Filling it full of RJs because of slots is a waste of the airports potential. JFK would still exist by virtue of international flying+connections of course.

LGA also needs a serious public transit link, that isn’t the Q70.


Hopefully the AirTrain will turn out well. I also have seen in reports for future subway plans that LGA could eventually be a stop in the far future.



What plans for a future subway? Please elaborate!

He probably means extending the N train to lga
Brian
 
T5towbar
Posts: 489
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 2:06 am

Re: The future of LaGuardia

Sun Jun 21, 2020 10:33 am

ytib wrote:
JFKalumni wrote:
tphuang wrote:
I think ewr after this is over will naturally be gaining some of the business demand that currently flows to lga. A lot of people that live in NJ and works in Manhattan will be able to work from home. Ewr will be a lot more convenient for them.


I work at EWR. The real game changer here would be the Path train extension from Newark Penn Station. A 30 minute subway ride from lower Manhattan to the airport would definitely increase business. Unfortunately NJ Transit isn’t reliable even though the trip from penn station is only 25 minutes.

The express bus is too expensive at $18 one way.

Newark desperately needs the path extension


Is the PATH service slated for 2025 or 2026 as of now?



From what I understand, after the completion of Terminal One (and the consolidated RAC building and service roads) the AirTrain is supposed to be the next immediate project. That is more in need than anything else. And the PATH extension would be built around the same time the AirTrain project is underway. I think that funds are in the pipeline for both projects.

BTW: Governor Murphy has been in conversations with the President about the Portal Bridge (on the NEC) and if that is replaced (as well as the rail tunnels) it would be a much faster and efficient ride to Midtown (for those who use the EWR Rail Station) on either NJT or AMTRAK. The PATH extension would be great for people in Lower Manhattan, and airport workers as well.. Plus PATH runs all night between NJ and NY, where as the Corridor trains don't.

At or around the same time, the studies and planning phase in progress for Terminal Two. That involves the replacement of the Marriott near the FAA tower if the PA's plans haven't changed.
A comment from an Ex CON: Work Hard.....Fly Standby!
 
JFKalumni
Posts: 127
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2019 5:45 pm

Re: The future of LaGuardia

Sun Jun 21, 2020 2:11 pm

T5towbar wrote:
ytib wrote:
JFKalumni wrote:

I work at EWR. The real game changer here would be the Path train extension from Newark Penn Station. A 30 minute subway ride from lower Manhattan to the airport would definitely increase business. Unfortunately NJ Transit isn’t reliable even though the trip from penn station is only 25 minutes.

The express bus is too expensive at $18 one way.

Newark desperately needs the path extension


Is the PATH service slated for 2025 or 2026 as of now?



From what I understand, after the completion of Terminal One (and the consolidated RAC building and service roads) the AirTrain is supposed to be the next immediate project. That is more in need than anything else. And the PATH extension would be built around the same time the AirTrain project is underway. I think that funds are in the pipeline for both projects.

BTW: Governor Murphy has been in conversations with the President about the Portal Bridge (on the NEC) and if that is replaced (as well as the rail tunnels) it would be a much faster and efficient ride to Midtown (for those who use the EWR Rail Station) on either NJT or AMTRAK. The PATH extension would be great for people in Lower Manhattan, and airport workers as well.. Plus PATH runs all night between NJ and NY, where as the Corridor trains don't.

At or around the same time, the studies and planning phase in progress for Terminal Two. That involves the replacement of the Marriott near the FAA tower if the PA's plans haven't changed.


I hope so. I’m tired of taking NJ Transit on the weekends and getting stuck between Secaucus and Newark Penn because of weekend portal bridge work or the bridge is stuck open.

The Path train is a great alternative but it needs more late night service to help the airline employees. Sometimes during construction, the train runs every 90 minutes or you have to get off at exchange place and take the ferry to World Trade.
 
tphuang
Posts: 5061
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:04 pm

Re: The future of LaGuardia

Sun Jun 21, 2020 2:48 pm

JFKalumni wrote:
T5towbar wrote:
ytib wrote:

Is the PATH service slated for 2025 or 2026 as of now?



From what I understand, after the completion of Terminal One (and the consolidated RAC building and service roads) the AirTrain is supposed to be the next immediate project. That is more in need than anything else. And the PATH extension would be built around the same time the AirTrain project is underway. I think that funds are in the pipeline for both projects.

BTW: Governor Murphy has been in conversations with the President about the Portal Bridge (on the NEC) and if that is replaced (as well as the rail tunnels) it would be a much faster and efficient ride to Midtown (for those who use the EWR Rail Station) on either NJT or AMTRAK. The PATH extension would be great for people in Lower Manhattan, and airport workers as well.. Plus PATH runs all night between NJ and NY, where as the Corridor trains don't.

At or around the same time, the studies and planning phase in progress for Terminal Two. That involves the replacement of the Marriott near the FAA tower if the PA's plans haven't changed.


I hope so. I’m tired of taking NJ Transit on the weekends and getting stuck between Secaucus and Newark Penn because of weekend portal bridge work or the bridge is stuck open.

The Path train is a great alternative but it needs more late night service to help the airline employees. Sometimes during construction, the train runs every 90 minutes or you have to get off at exchange place and take the ferry to World Trade.


I think PATH extension will make EWR really competitive with LGA for the midtown and wall street traffic on weekdays. Especially from Wall street during rush hours, a PATH extension could get you to the airport office to terminal in 40 minutes I would think. That's better than taking a gamble with waiting for a taxi/uber and then stuck in traffic. Weekend will still be a problem, But at least from the Manhattan originating traffic, there is no reason EWR can't become the airport of choice for the lower and midtown manhattan crowd. The out of town folks might still prefer LGA more, but that could change over time.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos