Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
EWRandMDW
Topic Author
Posts: 450
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 5:28 am

EWR Terminal 1 back to Terminal A

Tue Apr 06, 2021 7:23 pm

I was just on the PANYNJ site checking if they finally managed to get December 2020 passenger stats for the airports. Not yet, but hopefully by next month, fingers crossed!

While there, I checked on the progress of Terminal 1 development at EWR. Terminal 1 is to replace the 1970s era Terminal A when completed. It was named Terminal 1 to be consistent with naming conventions at airports actually in NYC. Well, I saw that Terminal 1 has been renamed the new Terminal A! Maybe airport patrons from NJ wanted to keep the existing name? I don't know and don't care but I'm thrilled EWR will get to keep some individuality!
 
Nicknuzzii
Posts: 1706
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2018 5:57 pm

Re: EWR Terminal 1 back to Terminal A

Tue Apr 06, 2021 7:42 pm

Certainly interesting. Still annoying about the December pax stats.
 
N649DL
Posts: 1101
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2018 10:21 pm

Re: EWR Terminal 1 back to Terminal A

Tue Apr 06, 2021 8:07 pm

Doesn't bother me at all. I always thought the name "Terminal 1" was odd and led to speculation that Terminal B was going to be razed as well and called Terminal 2 (which clearly it's not.)
 
ScottB
Posts: 7276
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2000 1:25 am

Re: EWR Terminal 1 back to Terminal A

Tue Apr 06, 2021 8:16 pm

EWRandMDW wrote:
It was named Terminal 1 to be consistent with naming conventions at airports actually in NYC.


Huh? LGA has Terminals A, B, C, and D (although D will eventually be retired).
 
TEBfan
Posts: 8
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 8:49 pm

Re: EWR Terminal 1 back to Terminal A

Tue Apr 06, 2021 8:35 pm

I was told the name would be kept Terminal A to help simplify some of the logistics of changing road signs, approach roadways, AirTrain signage, bus routing, etc.
 
codc10
Posts: 3031
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2000 7:18 am

Re: EWR Terminal 1 back to Terminal A

Tue Apr 06, 2021 9:04 pm

N649DL wrote:
Doesn't bother me at all. I always thought the name "Terminal 1" was odd and led to speculation that Terminal B was going to be razed as well and called Terminal 2 (which clearly it's not.)


That is indeed what's going to happen, no speculation, though perhaps not as soon as it would have pre-COVID. The long-term plan is to demolish Terminal B and the Marriott to construct a new terminal with its headhouse closer (and parallel) to 1&9, right about where the hotel presently sits. This would enable increasing the spacing between the parallel 4/22s, which is the only way to increase airfield capacity in the current configuration.
 
User avatar
STT757
Posts: 14280
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 1:14 am

Re: EWR Terminal 1 back to Terminal A

Tue Apr 06, 2021 10:47 pm

N649DL wrote:
Doesn't bother me at all. I always thought the name "Terminal 1" was odd and led to speculation that Terminal B was going to be razed as well and called Terminal 2 (which clearly it's not.)


No speculation, that’s what they’re doing.

https://corpinfo.panynj.gov/files/uploads/documents/board-meeting-information/board-committee-meeting-presentations/CPEAM_-_EWR_Terminal_2_-_Public_Session.pdf
Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
 
leader1
Posts: 95
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 4:44 am

Re: EWR Terminal 1 back to Terminal A

Wed Apr 07, 2021 2:36 am

codc10 wrote:
N649DL wrote:
Doesn't bother me at all. I always thought the name "Terminal 1" was odd and led to speculation that Terminal B was going to be razed as well and called Terminal 2 (which clearly it's not.)


That is indeed what's going to happen, no speculation, though perhaps not as soon as it would have pre-COVID. The long-term plan is to demolish Terminal B and the Marriott to construct a new terminal with its headhouse closer (and parallel) to 1&9, right about where the hotel presently sits. This would enable increasing the spacing between the parallel 4/22s, which is the only way to increase airfield capacity in the current configuration.


There are no plans to increase the spacing of the runways. They are constructing end-arounds around both ends of the runways. That will ease ground congestion somewhat.
Leader-1
 
codc10
Posts: 3031
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2000 7:18 am

Re: EWR Terminal 1 back to Terminal A

Wed Apr 07, 2021 2:56 am

leader1 wrote:
codc10 wrote:
N649DL wrote:
Doesn't bother me at all. I always thought the name "Terminal 1" was odd and led to speculation that Terminal B was going to be razed as well and called Terminal 2 (which clearly it's not.)


That is indeed what's going to happen, no speculation, though perhaps not as soon as it would have pre-COVID. The long-term plan is to demolish Terminal B and the Marriott to construct a new terminal with its headhouse closer (and parallel) to 1&9, right about where the hotel presently sits. This would enable increasing the spacing between the parallel 4/22s, which is the only way to increase airfield capacity in the current configuration.


There are no plans to increase the spacing of the runways. They are constructing end-arounds around both ends of the runways. That will ease ground congestion somewhat.


The relocation of terminals will *enable* increased spacing, but you are correct, there’s no project in line for approval to actually carry it out. But it’s part of a long-term master plan (also to partially demolish C-1), of course subject to change.
 
N649DL
Posts: 1101
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2018 10:21 pm

Re: EWR Terminal 1 back to Terminal A

Wed Apr 07, 2021 6:48 am

STT757 wrote:
N649DL wrote:
Doesn't bother me at all. I always thought the name "Terminal 1" was odd and led to speculation that Terminal B was going to be razed as well and called Terminal 2 (which clearly it's not.)


No speculation, that’s what they’re doing.

https://corpinfo.panynj.gov/files/uploads/documents/board-meeting-information/board-committee-meeting-presentations/CPEAM_-_EWR_Terminal_2_-_Public_Session.pdf


Yeah in like, what, 50 years? Com'on: Terminal B is a functional facility with recent updates. By the time they get around to it, they might as well start considering a new Terminal C!
 
User avatar
STT757
Posts: 14280
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 1:14 am

Re: EWR Terminal 1 back to Terminal A

Wed Apr 07, 2021 12:45 pm

N649DL wrote:
STT757 wrote:
N649DL wrote:
Doesn't bother me at all. I always thought the name "Terminal 1" was odd and led to speculation that Terminal B was going to be razed as well and called Terminal 2 (which clearly it's not.)


No speculation, that’s what they’re doing.

https://corpinfo.panynj.gov/files/uploads/documents/board-meeting-information/board-committee-meeting-presentations/CPEAM_-_EWR_Terminal_2_-_Public_Session.pdf


Yeah in like, what, 50 years? Com'on: Terminal B is a functional facility with recent updates. By the time they get around to it, they might as well start considering a new Terminal C!


Yes, when the Terminal reaches 50 years of age in two years (2023). For comparison when the construction of the replacement of LGA's Central Terminal Building began it was 50 years of age. The former Pan Am World Port was 53 years of age when it was torn down.

Why would you be against replacing Terminal B at EWR when it reaches 50 years of age in two years?

And yes, Terminal C will be next after Terminal B.
Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
 
PSAatSAN4Ever
Posts: 1210
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2018 5:38 pm

Re: EWR Terminal 1 back to Terminal A

Wed Apr 07, 2021 2:19 pm

A few weeks ago, Google Satellite didn't have much on the new terminal at all, but they finally updated themselves!!

Image

I can SO see EWR getting a new runway once a series of these new terminals are complete - perhaps even including the tear-down of part of C and moving 4L/22R west a bit.
 
User avatar
jfklganyc
Posts: 6270
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 2:31 pm

Re: EWR Terminal 1 back to Terminal A

Wed Apr 07, 2021 2:31 pm

PSAatSAN4Ever wrote:
A few weeks ago, Google Satellite didn't have much on the new terminal at all, but they finally updated themselves!!

Image

I can SO see EWR getting a new runway once a series of these new terminals are complete - perhaps even including the tear-down of part of C and moving 4L/22R west a bit.



Then you know nothing about the New York New Jersey area haha

There will not be a new runway at any New York area airport. Just a bunch of speculation from av enthusiasts.

The idea of moving the terminals back is very similar to LaGuardia...Very small airports with limited airside space. Use vertical space to minimize landside space...and maximize airside space
 
codc10
Posts: 3031
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2000 7:18 am

Re: EWR Terminal 1 back to Terminal A

Wed Apr 07, 2021 3:02 pm

N649DL wrote:
STT757 wrote:
N649DL wrote:
Doesn't bother me at all. I always thought the name "Terminal 1" was odd and led to speculation that Terminal B was going to be razed as well and called Terminal 2 (which clearly it's not.)


No speculation, that’s what they’re doing.

https://corpinfo.panynj.gov/files/uploads/documents/board-meeting-information/board-committee-meeting-presentations/CPEAM_-_EWR_Terminal_2_-_Public_Session.pdf


Yeah in like, what, 50 years? Com'on: Terminal B is a functional facility with recent updates. By the time they get around to it, they might as well start considering a new Terminal C!


Functional, acceptable... but far from a pleasant passenger experience. With the opening of “new A” and closure of JFK T7, it becomes the most outmoded PANYNJ aviation facility. I omit the MAT because of the historical significance.

It’s rightfully in line as the next major terminal to be replaced and that work will be underway by the middle of the decade.

There were pre-COVID discussions to add a concourse to Terminal C. Not sure if any of that is still in the works. A Terminal C replacement would be a 2030s project at the earliest.
 
N649DL
Posts: 1101
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2018 10:21 pm

Re: EWR Terminal 1 back to Terminal A

Wed Apr 07, 2021 7:45 pm

STT757 wrote:
N649DL wrote:
STT757 wrote:


Yeah in like, what, 50 years? Com'on: Terminal B is a functional facility with recent updates. By the time they get around to it, they might as well start considering a new Terminal C!


Yes, when the Terminal reaches 50 years of age in two years (2023). For comparison when the construction of the replacement of LGA's Central Terminal Building began it was 50 years of age. The former Pan Am World Port was 53 years of age when it was torn down.

Why would you be against replacing Terminal B at EWR when it reaches 50 years of age in two years?

And yes, Terminal C will be next after Terminal B.


Modifications to Terminal B have occurred within the last decade including adding a dual check-in lobby setup to the lower level and an expanded build out security area to B-1 (that was around 2010). Aside perhaps ripping out and rebuilding the gate areas, I just don't see them knocking down the main terminal and custom facilities which were completed in 1996. Also considering that PANYNJ is worried about tearing out the monorail from A because the track structure is so weak, I doubt that makes it any better with doing so for B.
 
User avatar
STT757
Posts: 14280
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 1:14 am

Re: EWR Terminal 1 back to Terminal A

Thu Apr 08, 2021 12:12 am

Opinions aside, Terminal B’s replacement is in the works. The new Airtrain is going to be built based on the placement of the new Terminal.
Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
 
codc10
Posts: 3031
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2000 7:18 am

Re: EWR Terminal 1 back to Terminal A

Thu Apr 08, 2021 2:41 am

N649DL wrote:
STT757 wrote:
N649DL wrote:

Yeah in like, what, 50 years? Com'on: Terminal B is a functional facility with recent updates. By the time they get around to it, they might as well start considering a new Terminal C!


Yes, when the Terminal reaches 50 years of age in two years (2023). For comparison when the construction of the replacement of LGA's Central Terminal Building began it was 50 years of age. The former Pan Am World Port was 53 years of age when it was torn down.

Why would you be against replacing Terminal B at EWR when it reaches 50 years of age in two years?

And yes, Terminal C will be next after Terminal B.


Modifications to Terminal B have occurred within the last decade including adding a dual check-in lobby setup to the lower level and an expanded build out security area to B-1 (that was around 2010). Aside perhaps ripping out and rebuilding the gate areas, I just don't see them knocking down the main terminal and custom facilities which were completed in 1996. Also considering that PANYNJ is worried about tearing out the monorail from A because the track structure is so weak, I doubt that makes it any better with doing so for B.


No worries there, as I can't see a Terminal B replacement operational before the end of the decade. Plenty of time left to "enjoy" it!

The AirTrain replacement alignment will run in the area of the Marriott on its way to the new Terminal A, and will have a (very) long walkway to the existing Terminal B until the new facility is built. The nice thing about the plan is the work on the new Terminal B headhouse can mostly be conducted while the rest of the airport is in use, and phased to reduce disruption on flight operations.
 
flightsimer
Posts: 1095
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 5:34 am

Re: EWR Terminal 1 back to Terminal A

Thu Apr 08, 2021 2:53 am

ScottB wrote:
EWRandMDW wrote:
It was named Terminal 1 to be consistent with naming conventions at airports actually in NYC.


Huh? LGA has Terminals A, B, C, and D (although D will eventually be retired).

LGA will have A-G once all of the projects are done.

A is MAT

B is the newer island still under construction.

C will become the first island constructed

And then Delta will occupy D/E/F/G once their project is finished with the D90’s becoming G.
Commercial / Airline Pilot
 
fanofjets
Posts: 2032
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2000 2:26 am

Re: EWR Terminal 1 back to Terminal A

Thu Apr 08, 2021 3:06 am

Even more in need of updating are the roadways to EWR. They are an unmitigated disaster, a total embarrassment. Not to mention that it's very easy to take a wrong turn and end up somewhere you don't want to be. At least public transit in the area has improved.
The aeroplane has unveiled for us the true face of the earth. -Antoine de Saint-Exupery
 
ScottB
Posts: 7276
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2000 1:25 am

Re: EWR Terminal 1 back to Terminal A

Thu Apr 08, 2021 2:08 pm

flightsimer wrote:
LGA will have A-G once all of the projects are done.

A is MAT

B is the newer island still under construction.

C will become the first island constructed

And then Delta will occupy D/E/F/G once their project is finished with the D90’s becoming G.


I think that might have been the plan at one time, but it's not clear that's still the case. The new gates at the CTB and in Concourse G don't actually carry a letter designation, just a number. Obviously signs can just be changed, but it seems the plan now is to just go with numerical designations for LGA gates.
 
Cory6188
Posts: 2715
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2004 12:29 am

Re: EWR Terminal 1 back to Terminal A

Thu Apr 08, 2021 2:29 pm

fanofjets wrote:
Even more in need of updating are the roadways to EWR. They are an unmitigated disaster, a total embarrassment. Not to mention that it's very easy to take a wrong turn and end up somewhere you don't want to be. At least public transit in the area has improved.


No kidding. I'm from NJ and thus have a spot soft for EWR, but of literally every airport I've been to in the US, EWR has, by far, the most confusing airport access roads in the US. Doesn't help that there are like 6 different highways surrounding it, but I've gotten on the wrong highway more than once trying to leave EWR. It's such an easy mistake, even if you know what you're looking for.

That said, though, I think that the PANYNJ has bigger fish to fry for capital projects at EWR in the near term.
 
N649DL
Posts: 1101
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2018 10:21 pm

Re: EWR Terminal 1 back to Terminal A

Thu Apr 08, 2021 6:16 pm

Cory6188 wrote:
fanofjets wrote:
Even more in need of updating are the roadways to EWR. They are an unmitigated disaster, a total embarrassment. Not to mention that it's very easy to take a wrong turn and end up somewhere you don't want to be. At least public transit in the area has improved.


No kidding. I'm from NJ and thus have a spot soft for EWR, but of literally every airport I've been to in the US, EWR has, by far, the most confusing airport access roads in the US. Doesn't help that there are like 6 different highways surrounding it, but I've gotten on the wrong highway more than once trying to leave EWR. It's such an easy mistake, even if you know what you're looking for.

That said, though, I think that the PANYNJ has bigger fish to fry for capital projects at EWR in the near term.


And that's the thing: Where are EWR's priorities? They need a new runway to alleviate delays, like yesterday but they want to bother replacing Terminal B? And the roadways are terrible yet they've come a long way in the last 20+ years. The issue is that there are quite a few different highways that merge with each other outside the airport.
 
codc10
Posts: 3031
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2000 7:18 am

Re: EWR Terminal 1 back to Terminal A

Thu Apr 08, 2021 6:55 pm

N649DL wrote:
Cory6188 wrote:
fanofjets wrote:
Even more in need of updating are the roadways to EWR. They are an unmitigated disaster, a total embarrassment. Not to mention that it's very easy to take a wrong turn and end up somewhere you don't want to be. At least public transit in the area has improved.


No kidding. I'm from NJ and thus have a spot soft for EWR, but of literally every airport I've been to in the US, EWR has, by far, the most confusing airport access roads in the US. Doesn't help that there are like 6 different highways surrounding it, but I've gotten on the wrong highway more than once trying to leave EWR. It's such an easy mistake, even if you know what you're looking for.

That said, though, I think that the PANYNJ has bigger fish to fry for capital projects at EWR in the near term.


And that's the thing: Where are EWR's priorities? They need a new runway to alleviate delays, like yesterday but they want to bother replacing Terminal B? And the roadways are terrible yet they've come a long way in the last 20+ years. The issue is that there are quite a few different highways that merge with each other outside the airport.


A "new runway" at EWR (meaning a 3rd primary runway) is a practical impossibility, and would cost a multiple of completely redeveloping the entire terminal complex. It's just not realistic. The only major runway project that is within the realm of possibility would be to increase the spacing between the existing parallels, and even that is barely on the radar.

In the years (the better part of a decade) it will take to plan and construct a replacement for Terminal B, the existing facility will have substantially outlived its useful life and be functioning well beyond its intended design. By the time a Terminal B replacement is completed, the PANYNJ will need to turn to a Terminal C replacement, but that's likely to be no sooner than a 2030s project. The enabling projects for a Terminal B replacement alone will take a few years to carry out (e.g., demolishing existing hotel, rerouting roadways and utilities, new AirTrain) so, again, we are not quite at the threshold of it, but when we get to that point, it will be appropriate timing for a replacement for the current facility.
 
ddaly241
Posts: 135
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2019 3:43 pm

Re: EWR Terminal 1 back to Terminal A

Thu Apr 08, 2021 7:29 pm

codc10 wrote:
N649DL wrote:
Cory6188 wrote:

No kidding. I'm from NJ and thus have a spot soft for EWR, but of literally every airport I've been to in the US, EWR has, by far, the most confusing airport access roads in the US. Doesn't help that there are like 6 different highways surrounding it, but I've gotten on the wrong highway more than once trying to leave EWR. It's such an easy mistake, even if you know what you're looking for.

That said, though, I think that the PANYNJ has bigger fish to fry for capital projects at EWR in the near term.


And that's the thing: Where are EWR's priorities? They need a new runway to alleviate delays, like yesterday but they want to bother replacing Terminal B? And the roadways are terrible yet they've come a long way in the last 20+ years. The issue is that there are quite a few different highways that merge with each other outside the airport.


A "new runway" at EWR (meaning a 3rd primary runway) is a practical impossibility, and would cost a multiple of completely redeveloping the entire terminal complex. It's just not realistic. The only major runway project that is within the realm of possibility would be to increase the spacing between the existing parallels, and even that is barely on the radar.

In the years (the better part of a decade) it will take to plan and construct a replacement for Terminal B, the existing facility will have substantially outlived its useful life and be functioning well beyond its intended design. By the time a Terminal B replacement is completed, the PANYNJ will need to turn to a Terminal C replacement, but that's likely to be no sooner than a 2030s project. The enabling projects for a Terminal B replacement alone will take a few years to carry out (e.g., demolishing existing hotel, rerouting roadways and utilities, new AirTrain) so, again, we are not quite at the threshold of it, but when we get to that point, it will be appropriate timing for a replacement for the current facility.


I mean at some point EWR has to do configurations with their runways along with the NYC airspace needs to be fixed too.
 
N649DL
Posts: 1101
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2018 10:21 pm

Re: EWR Terminal 1 back to Terminal A

Fri Apr 09, 2021 2:24 am

codc10 wrote:
N649DL wrote:
Cory6188 wrote:

No kidding. I'm from NJ and thus have a spot soft for EWR, but of literally every airport I've been to in the US, EWR has, by far, the most confusing airport access roads in the US. Doesn't help that there are like 6 different highways surrounding it, but I've gotten on the wrong highway more than once trying to leave EWR. It's such an easy mistake, even if you know what you're looking for.

That said, though, I think that the PANYNJ has bigger fish to fry for capital projects at EWR in the near term.


And that's the thing: Where are EWR's priorities? They need a new runway to alleviate delays, like yesterday but they want to bother replacing Terminal B? And the roadways are terrible yet they've come a long way in the last 20+ years. The issue is that there are quite a few different highways that merge with each other outside the airport.


A "new runway" at EWR (meaning a 3rd primary runway) is a practical impossibility, and would cost a multiple of completely redeveloping the entire terminal complex. It's just not realistic. The only major runway project that is within the realm of possibility would be to increase the spacing between the existing parallels, and even that is barely on the radar.

In the years (the better part of a decade) it will take to plan and construct a replacement for Terminal B, the existing facility will have substantially outlived its useful life and be functioning well beyond its intended design. By the time a Terminal B replacement is completed, the PANYNJ will need to turn to a Terminal C replacement, but that's likely to be no sooner than a 2030s project. The enabling projects for a Terminal B replacement alone will take a few years to carry out (e.g., demolishing existing hotel, rerouting roadways and utilities, new AirTrain) so, again, we are not quite at the threshold of it, but when we get to that point, it will be appropriate timing for a replacement for the current facility.


I would honestly hate EWR to see them demolish the Marriott in favor of a new runway as it's actually a very nice hotel property. I've stayed there quite a few times and I think it's the nicest (and also nearest to the terminals) compared to any other airport hotel in the area. Should it happen in favor of a new runway, it is what it is I guess.

Agreed we're not at the threshold just yet. It will take some time to outline the final configuration plans and with the customs enhancements that were built it in 1996 and the other big terminal improvements in the 2010s, Terminal B still has some lifespan left. It's in way better health than Terminal A was and not as heavily used as C. So we'll see what happens.
 
iflyalexair
Posts: 57
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2017 3:54 am

Re: EWR Terminal 1 back to Terminal A

Fri Apr 09, 2021 2:34 am

ScottB wrote:
flightsimer wrote:
LGA will have A-G once all of the projects are done.

A is MAT

B is the newer island still under construction.

C will become the first island constructed

And then Delta will occupy D/E/F/G once their project is finished with the D90’s becoming G.


I think that might have been the plan at one time, but it's not clear that's still the case. The new gates at the CTB and in Concourse G don't actually carry a letter designation, just a number. Obviously signs can just be changed, but it seems the plan now is to just go with numerical designations for LGA gates.


This is correct. The projects were referred to as concourses G, F, etc. The end state will have three Alpha-designated headhouses A, B and C. The gates will be numbered with numerical designations only.
 
codc10
Posts: 3031
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2000 7:18 am

Re: EWR Terminal 1 back to Terminal A

Fri Apr 09, 2021 3:36 am

N649DL wrote:
codc10 wrote:
N649DL wrote:

And that's the thing: Where are EWR's priorities? They need a new runway to alleviate delays, like yesterday but they want to bother replacing Terminal B? And the roadways are terrible yet they've come a long way in the last 20+ years. The issue is that there are quite a few different highways that merge with each other outside the airport.


A "new runway" at EWR (meaning a 3rd primary runway) is a practical impossibility, and would cost a multiple of completely redeveloping the entire terminal complex. It's just not realistic. The only major runway project that is within the realm of possibility would be to increase the spacing between the existing parallels, and even that is barely on the radar.

In the years (the better part of a decade) it will take to plan and construct a replacement for Terminal B, the existing facility will have substantially outlived its useful life and be functioning well beyond its intended design. By the time a Terminal B replacement is completed, the PANYNJ will need to turn to a Terminal C replacement, but that's likely to be no sooner than a 2030s project. The enabling projects for a Terminal B replacement alone will take a few years to carry out (e.g., demolishing existing hotel, rerouting roadways and utilities, new AirTrain) so, again, we are not quite at the threshold of it, but when we get to that point, it will be appropriate timing for a replacement for the current facility.


I would honestly hate EWR to see them demolish the Marriott in favor of a new runway as it's actually a very nice hotel property. I've stayed there quite a few times and I think it's the nicest (and also nearest to the terminals) compared to any other airport hotel in the area. Should it happen in favor of a new runway, it is what it is I guess.

Agreed we're not at the threshold just yet. It will take some time to outline the final configuration plans and with the customs enhancements that were built it in 1996 and the other big terminal improvements in the 2010s, Terminal B still has some lifespan left. It's in way better health than Terminal A was and not as heavily used as C. So we'll see what happens.


No doubt we’ll see an all-new large hotel built to replace the Marriott... EWR hotels leave a LOT to be desired.
 
User avatar
STT757
Posts: 14280
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 1:14 am

Re: EWR Terminal 1 back to Terminal A

Fri Apr 09, 2021 12:19 pm

ddaly241 wrote:
codc10 wrote:
N649DL wrote:

And that's the thing: Where are EWR's priorities? They need a new runway to alleviate delays, like yesterday but they want to bother replacing Terminal B? And the roadways are terrible yet they've come a long way in the last 20+ years. The issue is that there are quite a few different highways that merge with each other outside the airport.


A "new runway" at EWR (meaning a 3rd primary runway) is a practical impossibility, and would cost a multiple of completely redeveloping the entire terminal complex. It's just not realistic. The only major runway project that is within the realm of possibility would be to increase the spacing between the existing parallels, and even that is barely on the radar.

In the years (the better part of a decade) it will take to plan and construct a replacement for Terminal B, the existing facility will have substantially outlived its useful life and be functioning well beyond its intended design. By the time a Terminal B replacement is completed, the PANYNJ will need to turn to a Terminal C replacement, but that's likely to be no sooner than a 2030s project. The enabling projects for a Terminal B replacement alone will take a few years to carry out (e.g., demolishing existing hotel, rerouting roadways and utilities, new AirTrain) so, again, we are not quite at the threshold of it, but when we get to that point, it will be appropriate timing for a replacement for the current facility.


I mean at some point EWR has to do configurations with their runways along with the NYC airspace needs to be fixed too.


They have made some slight changes, I've seen recently on occasion some interesting patterns into EWR. One had flights landing on runway 29 from the South, never seen that before. They were flying North on what looked the LGA's approach but then turned West over NY Harbor and landed on EWR runway 29. The only landing's I've seen on 29 before were always from the North. There's also a video on YouTube of a UA 763 departing runway 11.

As mentioned moving the terminals back West gives room for either a third parallel or to increase separation.
Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
 
User avatar
jfklganyc
Posts: 6270
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 2:31 pm

Re: EWR Terminal 1 back to Terminal A

Fri Apr 09, 2021 2:59 pm

You were going to see a lot of interesting patterns over the next year.

EWR will be down 1 or 2 runways for extended periods of time
 
User avatar
STT757
Posts: 14280
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 1:14 am

Re: EWR Terminal 1 back to Terminal A

Fri Apr 09, 2021 5:29 pm

jfklganyc wrote:
You were going to see a lot of interesting patterns over the next year.

EWR will be down 1 or 2 runways for extended periods of time


This is the one I was talking about, never saw this before but they were doing this about a month ago.

https://aeronav.faa.gov/d-tpp/2103/00285RX29.PDF
Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
 
leader1
Posts: 95
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 4:44 am

Re: EWR Terminal 1 back to Terminal A

Fri Apr 09, 2021 5:52 pm

STT757 wrote:
They have made some slight changes, I've seen recently on occasion some interesting patterns into EWR. One had flights landing on runway 29 from the South, never seen that before. They were flying North on what looked the LGA's approach but then turned West over NY Harbor and landed on EWR runway 29. The only landing's I've seen on 29 before were always from the North. There's also a video on YouTube of a UA 763 departing runway 11.


This is an already established procedure at EWR and was, in fact, used quite a bit a few years ago when 4L/22R was closed for reconstruction. They used 29 for landings and 4R for takeoffs and heavy landings. The FAA halted this procedure because of a near collision. If they're using it now, it's because lack of traffic allows.

STT757 wrote:
As mentioned moving the terminals back West gives room for either a third parallel or to increase separation.


This "increased runway separation" theme keeps coming up. I think people here need to realize that there are no plans to increase the separation of the runways. And even if it happened, it wouldn't do a whole lot of good. While the present runway configuration sucks, airspace is a major factor, too. EWR's airspace is hemmed between LGA's and TEB's and that limits operations in many ways. One example is that parallel approaches cannot be conducted on the 22s because there is only one approach path leading to final and the turn is too close to allow a lengthy final where arrivals can be sequenced to both runways. 4R/4L can't have simultaneous approaches because, again, there is only one approach to final. However, they can run staggered arrivals because the final approach is long enough to allow sequencing to both runways. They often don't do it, though, because departing traffic on 4L is pretty consistent throughout the day and 4L approaches would interfere with that.

So, while the close parallels are not ideal, it isn't the only factor here. Other airports with even closer-spaced parallels allow simultaneous landings. SFO's runways, for example, are only 750 feet apart (EWR's distance are about 200 feet wider), yet you see simultaneous approaches (in good weather, mind you) on the 28s all the time. Again, it's because the airspace around SFO allows for two arrival streams. Widening the distance between the runways, or even adding a third parallel won't change the fact that there will still be one approach path to the 4s/22s.

I view EWR as similar to PHL. Both airports are very similar - same size, terminal layout, runway layout (9/26 cannot be used at the same time as 17/35, so it's not really used), etc. The difference is that PHL has airspace to the east of the airport to allow a separate approach path for 35 landings, while EWR does not have this. Yes, EWR has 29 landings, but they cannot be used in conjunction with 22L because the two runways use the same approach path. PHL's best configuration allows landings on 27R/35, with 35 landings in between each 27R arrival. This procedure isn't possible with EWR because there isn't the airspace to allow a long final to 29 like PHL has with 35.

jfklganyc wrote:
You were going to see a lot of interesting patterns over the next year.

EWR will be down 1 or 2 runways for extended periods of time


EWR's traffic is down more than 50% from 2019. It will be some time before the airport gets back to 1000+ movements a day. This year is probably the best time close down a runway or two to make whatever repairs need to be made.
Leader-1
 
User avatar
airzim
Posts: 1490
Joined: Wed Jun 20, 2001 7:40 am

Re: EWR Terminal 1 back to Terminal A

Fri Apr 09, 2021 6:52 pm

leader1 wrote:
STT757 wrote:
They have made some slight changes, I've seen recently on occasion some interesting patterns into EWR. One had flights landing on runway 29 from the South, never seen that before. They were flying North on what looked the LGA's approach but then turned West over NY Harbor and landed on EWR runway 29. The only landing's I've seen on 29 before were always from the North. There's also a video on YouTube of a UA 763 departing runway 11.


This is an already established procedure at EWR and was, in fact, used quite a bit a few years ago when 4L/22R was closed for reconstruction. They used 29 for landings and 4R for takeoffs and heavy landings. The FAA halted this procedure because of a near collision. If they're using it now, it's because lack of traffic allows.

STT757 wrote:
As mentioned moving the terminals back West gives room for either a third parallel or to increase separation.


This "increased runway separation" theme keeps coming up. I think people here need to realize that there are no plans to increase the separation of the runways. And even if it happened, it wouldn't do a whole lot of good. While the present runway configuration sucks, airspace is a major factor, too. EWR's airspace is hemmed between LGA's and TEB's and that limits operations in many ways. One example is that parallel approaches cannot be conducted on the 22s because there is only one approach path leading to final and the turn is too close to allow a lengthy final where arrivals can be sequenced to both runways. 4R/4L can't have simultaneous approaches because, again, there is only one approach to final. However, they can run staggered arrivals because the final approach is long enough to allow sequencing to both runways. They often don't do it, though, because departing traffic on 4L is pretty consistent throughout the day and 4L approaches would interfere with that.

So, while the close parallels are not ideal, it isn't the only factor here. Other airports with even closer-spaced parallels allow simultaneous landings. SFO's runways, for example, are only 750 feet apart (EWR's distance are about 200 feet wider), yet you see simultaneous approaches (in good weather, mind you) on the 28s all the time. Again, it's because the airspace around SFO allows for two arrival streams. Widening the distance between the runways, or even adding a third parallel won't change the fact that there will still be one approach path to the 4s/22s.

I view EWR as similar to PHL. Both airports are very similar - same size, terminal layout, runway layout (9/26 cannot be used at the same time as 17/35, so it's not really used), etc. The difference is that PHL has airspace to the east of the airport to allow a separate approach path for 35 landings, while EWR does not have this. Yes, EWR has 29 landings, but they cannot be used in conjunction with 22L because the two runways use the same approach path. PHL's best configuration allows landings on 27R/35, with 35 landings in between each 27R arrival. This procedure isn't possible with EWR because there isn't the airspace to allow a long final to 29 like PHL has with 35.

jfklganyc wrote:
You were going to see a lot of interesting patterns over the next year.

EWR will be down 1 or 2 runways for extended periods of time


EWR's traffic is down more than 50% from 2019. It will be some time before the airport gets back to 1000+ movements a day. This year is probably the best time close down a runway or two to make whatever repairs need to be made.


Thanks for the wonderful insight. Very interesting and makes total sense. Do you ever think there might be a change to the airspace West and South over the Atlantic and if that would make a difference? I've heard that is for use of the US military but don't know for certain.

From my vantage point in Lower Manhattan I do see the 29s landing approach from the South on occasion, in particular over the Fall in 2020 when traffic was down significantly. I assumed with the winds were westerly which made this approach advantageous. In those conditions, I would assume LGA landings wouldn't normally use "up the Hudson approach", since they generally U turn over Westchester and land toward the South on those days. With winds from the West, I would guess they'd use the approach over Brooklyn with the sharp left turn over Citi Field.

Sorry for the layman's terms. I'm obviously not a pilot.
 
tmu101
Posts: 174
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2014 4:04 am

Re: EWR Terminal 1 back to Terminal A

Fri Apr 09, 2021 7:43 pm

PSAatSAN4Ever wrote:
A few weeks ago, Google Satellite didn't have much on the new terminal at all, but they finally updated themselves!!

Image

I can SO see EWR getting a new runway once a series of these new terminals are complete - perhaps even including the tear-down of part of C and moving 4L/22R west a bit.


Still having a hard time visualizing how the new terminal ramp will mesh with the FedEx ramp. It's not quite clear from the renditions I've seen - will there need to be mods done to the FedEx facilities or will anything FedEx need to be relocated?

On a similar note Google Maps also has the new UPS facility incorporated - how has that been working out for them in their new spot?
 
leader1
Posts: 95
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 4:44 am

Re: EWR Terminal 1 back to Terminal A

Fri Apr 09, 2021 8:07 pm

airzim wrote:
leader1 wrote:
STT757 wrote:
They have made some slight changes, I've seen recently on occasion some interesting patterns into EWR. One had flights landing on runway 29 from the South, never seen that before. They were flying North on what looked the LGA's approach but then turned West over NY Harbor and landed on EWR runway 29. The only landing's I've seen on 29 before were always from the North. There's also a video on YouTube of a UA 763 departing runway 11.


This is an already established procedure at EWR and was, in fact, used quite a bit a few years ago when 4L/22R was closed for reconstruction. They used 29 for landings and 4R for takeoffs and heavy landings. The FAA halted this procedure because of a near collision. If they're using it now, it's because lack of traffic allows.

STT757 wrote:
As mentioned moving the terminals back West gives room for either a third parallel or to increase separation.


This "increased runway separation" theme keeps coming up. I think people here need to realize that there are no plans to increase the separation of the runways. And even if it happened, it wouldn't do a whole lot of good. While the present runway configuration sucks, airspace is a major factor, too. EWR's airspace is hemmed between LGA's and TEB's and that limits operations in many ways. One example is that parallel approaches cannot be conducted on the 22s because there is only one approach path leading to final and the turn is too close to allow a lengthy final where arrivals can be sequenced to both runways. 4R/4L can't have simultaneous approaches because, again, there is only one approach to final. However, they can run staggered arrivals because the final approach is long enough to allow sequencing to both runways. They often don't do it, though, because departing traffic on 4L is pretty consistent throughout the day and 4L approaches would interfere with that.

So, while the close parallels are not ideal, it isn't the only factor here. Other airports with even closer-spaced parallels allow simultaneous landings. SFO's runways, for example, are only 750 feet apart (EWR's distance are about 200 feet wider), yet you see simultaneous approaches (in good weather, mind you) on the 28s all the time. Again, it's because the airspace around SFO allows for two arrival streams. Widening the distance between the runways, or even adding a third parallel won't change the fact that there will still be one approach path to the 4s/22s.

I view EWR as similar to PHL. Both airports are very similar - same size, terminal layout, runway layout (9/26 cannot be used at the same time as 17/35, so it's not really used), etc. The difference is that PHL has airspace to the east of the airport to allow a separate approach path for 35 landings, while EWR does not have this. Yes, EWR has 29 landings, but they cannot be used in conjunction with 22L because the two runways use the same approach path. PHL's best configuration allows landings on 27R/35, with 35 landings in between each 27R arrival. This procedure isn't possible with EWR because there isn't the airspace to allow a long final to 29 like PHL has with 35.

jfklganyc wrote:
You were going to see a lot of interesting patterns over the next year.

EWR will be down 1 or 2 runways for extended periods of time


EWR's traffic is down more than 50% from 2019. It will be some time before the airport gets back to 1000+ movements a day. This year is probably the best time close down a runway or two to make whatever repairs need to be made.


Thanks for the wonderful insight. Very interesting and makes total sense. Do you ever think there might be a change to the airspace West and South over the Atlantic and if that would make a difference? I've heard that is for use of the US military but don't know for certain.

From my vantage point in Lower Manhattan I do see the 29s landing approach from the South on occasion, in particular over the Fall in 2020 when traffic was down significantly. I assumed with the winds were westerly which made this approach advantageous. In those conditions, I would assume LGA landings wouldn't normally use "up the Hudson approach", since they generally U turn over Westchester and land toward the South on those days. With winds from the West, I would guess they'd use the approach over Brooklyn with the sharp left turn over Citi Field.

Sorry for the layman's terms. I'm obviously not a pilot.


The FAA does free it up on occasion during busier travel periods, like right before Thanksgiving. It helps a bit for departures. The airports don't share arrival fixes, but they do share departure fixes and this frees up some space.

If you see EWR 29 arrivals from the south, then it means the winds are too strong for 4L/R arrivals. What they do is initiate an approach from the south, like they're arriving on the 4s, and then make a tight circular turn to 29. It's called the "Bridge Visual" because they start the turn over the Bayonne Bridge. They can't go further out because it would interfere with LGA's airspace boundary. Even if LGA doesn't run arrivals straight up the Hudson, they still have a boundary which can't be crossed.

https://aeronav.faa.gov/d-tpp/2103/0028 ... _VIS29.PDF

In LGA's case, they'd land on 31. They'd use these procedures. The second one has a longer final, but in both instances, they do fly over the path you described, except with the Expressway Visual Approach, they start the U-turn over the Long Island Expressway and follow that.

https://aeronav.faa.gov/d-tpp/2103/0028 ... _VIS31.PDF (when winds aren't too strong)

https://aeronav.faa.gov/d-tpp/2103/00289L31.PDF (when you have strong winds)
Leader-1
 
User avatar
STT757
Posts: 14280
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 1:14 am

Re: EWR Terminal 1 back to Terminal A

Fri Apr 09, 2021 9:25 pm

leader1 wrote:
airzim wrote:
leader1 wrote:

This is an already established procedure at EWR and was, in fact, used quite a bit a few years ago when 4L/22R was closed for reconstruction. They used 29 for landings and 4R for takeoffs and heavy landings. The FAA halted this procedure because of a near collision. If they're using it now, it's because lack of traffic allows.



This "increased runway separation" theme keeps coming up. I think people here need to realize that there are no plans to increase the separation of the runways. And even if it happened, it wouldn't do a whole lot of good. While the present runway configuration sucks, airspace is a major factor, too. EWR's airspace is hemmed between LGA's and TEB's and that limits operations in many ways. One example is that parallel approaches cannot be conducted on the 22s because there is only one approach path leading to final and the turn is too close to allow a lengthy final where arrivals can be sequenced to both runways. 4R/4L can't have simultaneous approaches because, again, there is only one approach to final. However, they can run staggered arrivals because the final approach is long enough to allow sequencing to both runways. They often don't do it, though, because departing traffic on 4L is pretty consistent throughout the day and 4L approaches would interfere with that.

So, while the close parallels are not ideal, it isn't the only factor here. Other airports with even closer-spaced parallels allow simultaneous landings. SFO's runways, for example, are only 750 feet apart (EWR's distance are about 200 feet wider), yet you see simultaneous approaches (in good weather, mind you) on the 28s all the time. Again, it's because the airspace around SFO allows for two arrival streams. Widening the distance between the runways, or even adding a third parallel won't change the fact that there will still be one approach path to the 4s/22s.

I view EWR as similar to PHL. Both airports are very similar - same size, terminal layout, runway layout (9/26 cannot be used at the same time as 17/35, so it's not really used), etc. The difference is that PHL has airspace to the east of the airport to allow a separate approach path for 35 landings, while EWR does not have this. Yes, EWR has 29 landings, but they cannot be used in conjunction with 22L because the two runways use the same approach path. PHL's best configuration allows landings on 27R/35, with 35 landings in between each 27R arrival. This procedure isn't possible with EWR because there isn't the airspace to allow a long final to 29 like PHL has with 35.



EWR's traffic is down more than 50% from 2019. It will be some time before the airport gets back to 1000+ movements a day. This year is probably the best time close down a runway or two to make whatever repairs need to be made.


Thanks for the wonderful insight. Very interesting and makes total sense. Do you ever think there might be a change to the airspace West and South over the Atlantic and if that would make a difference? I've heard that is for use of the US military but don't know for certain.

From my vantage point in Lower Manhattan I do see the 29s landing approach from the South on occasion, in particular over the Fall in 2020 when traffic was down significantly. I assumed with the winds were westerly which made this approach advantageous. In those conditions, I would assume LGA landings wouldn't normally use "up the Hudson approach", since they generally U turn over Westchester and land toward the South on those days. With winds from the West, I would guess they'd use the approach over Brooklyn with the sharp left turn over Citi Field.

Sorry for the layman's terms. I'm obviously not a pilot.


The FAA does free it up on occasion during busier travel periods, like right before Thanksgiving. It helps a bit for departures. The airports don't share arrival fixes, but they do share departure fixes and this frees up some space.

If you see EWR 29 arrivals from the south, then it means the winds are too strong for 4L/R arrivals. What they do is initiate an approach from the south, like they're arriving on the 4s, and then make a tight circular turn to 29. It's called the "Bridge Visual" because they start the turn over the Bayonne Bridge. They can't go further out because it would interfere with LGA's airspace boundary. Even if LGA doesn't run arrivals straight up the Hudson, they still have a boundary which can't be crossed.

https://aeronav.faa.gov/d-tpp/2103/0028 ... _VIS29.PDF

In LGA's case, they'd land on 31. They'd use these procedures. The second one has a longer final, but in both instances, they do fly over the path you described, except with the Expressway Visual Approach, they start the U-turn over the Long Island Expressway and follow that.

https://aeronav.faa.gov/d-tpp/2103/0028 ... _VIS31.PDF (when winds aren't too strong)

https://aeronav.faa.gov/d-tpp/2103/00289L31.PDF (when you have strong winds)


This approach:

https://twitter.com/airlineflyer/status/1366608672521093135?s=21
Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
 
leader1
Posts: 95
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 4:44 am

Re: EWR Terminal 1 back to Terminal A

Sun Apr 11, 2021 3:28 am

STT757 wrote:
leader1 wrote:
airzim wrote:

Thanks for the wonderful insight. Very interesting and makes total sense. Do you ever think there might be a change to the airspace West and South over the Atlantic and if that would make a difference? I've heard that is for use of the US military but don't know for certain.

From my vantage point in Lower Manhattan I do see the 29s landing approach from the South on occasion, in particular over the Fall in 2020 when traffic was down significantly. I assumed with the winds were westerly which made this approach advantageous. In those conditions, I would assume LGA landings wouldn't normally use "up the Hudson approach", since they generally U turn over Westchester and land toward the South on those days. With winds from the West, I would guess they'd use the approach over Brooklyn with the sharp left turn over Citi Field.

Sorry for the layman's terms. I'm obviously not a pilot.


The FAA does free it up on occasion during busier travel periods, like right before Thanksgiving. It helps a bit for departures. The airports don't share arrival fixes, but they do share departure fixes and this frees up some space.

If you see EWR 29 arrivals from the south, then it means the winds are too strong for 4L/R arrivals. What they do is initiate an approach from the south, like they're arriving on the 4s, and then make a tight circular turn to 29. It's called the "Bridge Visual" because they start the turn over the Bayonne Bridge. They can't go further out because it would interfere with LGA's airspace boundary. Even if LGA doesn't run arrivals straight up the Hudson, they still have a boundary which can't be crossed.

https://aeronav.faa.gov/d-tpp/2103/0028 ... _VIS29.PDF

In LGA's case, they'd land on 31. They'd use these procedures. The second one has a longer final, but in both instances, they do fly over the path you described, except with the Expressway Visual Approach, they start the U-turn over the Long Island Expressway and follow that.

https://aeronav.faa.gov/d-tpp/2103/0028 ... _VIS31.PDF (when winds aren't too strong)

https://aeronav.faa.gov/d-tpp/2103/00289L31.PDF (when you have strong winds)


This approach:

https://twitter.com/airlineflyer/status/1366608672521093135?s=21


Interesting. There are more planes that can do RNAV approaches compared to the past. It also helps that LGA traffic is way down to allow this type of overlap. As more planes become equipped to do these types of procedures, you will probably see more of these approaches. Normally, you’d see 29 approaches come in from the north like a normal 22 approach, then start to circle around above the Meadowlands.
Leader-1
 
codc10
Posts: 3031
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2000 7:18 am

Re: EWR Terminal 1 back to Terminal A

Sun Apr 11, 2021 2:32 pm

leader1 wrote:
This "increased runway separation" theme keeps coming up. I think people here need to realize that there are no plans to increase the separation of the runways. And even if it happened, it wouldn't do a whole lot of good. While the present runway configuration sucks, airspace is a major factor, too. EWR's airspace is hemmed between LGA's and TEB's and that limits operations in many ways. One example is that parallel approaches cannot be conducted on the 22s because there is only one approach path leading to final and the turn is too close to allow a lengthy final where arrivals can be sequenced to both runways. 4R/4L can't have simultaneous approaches because, again, there is only one approach to final. However, they can run staggered arrivals because the final approach is long enough to allow sequencing to both runways. They often don't do it, though, because departing traffic on 4L is pretty consistent throughout the day and 4L approaches would interfere with that.


It's not idle speculation, but rather directly from long-term planning documents published by the PANYNJ... not something people are dreaming up on A.net. The runway project hasn't been funded, of course, but in the long term, the replacement of the current terminal complex will locate the new buildings west of the current core specifically to increase available space on the airfield. Among the possibilities is to construct a new runway slightly west of the existing 4L/22R and either keep the current 4L/22R (to be 4C/22C) or increase separation to allow for simultaneous operations.

Your point about airspace is spot-on at the moment, but looking beyond the next 10-20 years, technology will enable improvements in airspace management such that it would confer a meaningful capacity benefit. It's the only realistic way to meaningfully increase capacity at EWR. Things like tunneling the Turnpike, building a runway west of Rt 1&9, etc., *those* are the pipe dreams.
 
User avatar
airzim
Posts: 1490
Joined: Wed Jun 20, 2001 7:40 am

Re: EWR Terminal 1 back to Terminal A

Sun Apr 11, 2021 2:57 pm

codc10 wrote:
leader1 wrote:
This "increased runway separation" theme keeps coming up. I think people here need to realize that there are no plans to increase the separation of the runways. And even if it happened, it wouldn't do a whole lot of good. While the present runway configuration sucks, airspace is a major factor, too. EWR's airspace is hemmed between LGA's and TEB's and that limits operations in many ways. One example is that parallel approaches cannot be conducted on the 22s because there is only one approach path leading to final and the turn is too close to allow a lengthy final where arrivals can be sequenced to both runways. 4R/4L can't have simultaneous approaches because, again, there is only one approach to final. However, they can run staggered arrivals because the final approach is long enough to allow sequencing to both runways. They often don't do it, though, because departing traffic on 4L is pretty consistent throughout the day and 4L approaches would interfere with that.


It's not idle speculation, but rather directly from long-term planning documents published by the PANYNJ... not something people are dreaming up on A.net. The runway project hasn't been funded, of course, but in the long term, the replacement of the current terminal complex will locate the new buildings west of the current core specifically to increase available space on the airfield. Among the possibilities is to construct a new runway slightly west of the existing 4L/22R and either keep the current 4L/22R (to be 4C/22C) or increase separation to allow for simultaneous operations.

Your point about airspace is spot-on at the moment, but looking beyond the next 10-20 years, technology will enable improvements in airspace management such that it would confer a meaningful capacity benefit. It's the only realistic way to meaningfully increase capacity at EWR. Things like tunneling the Turnpike, building a runway west of Rt 1&9, etc., *those* are the pipe dreams.


But it doesn't change the fact that there is also a large residential population south of the field in Elizabeth, NJ. Nobody is that community is going to appreciate more operations flying over their houses, and shifting the runways toward the West, even slightly, might not be politically possible.
 
User avatar
jfklganyc
Posts: 6270
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 2:31 pm

Re: EWR Terminal 1 back to Terminal A

Sun Apr 11, 2021 5:14 pm

airzim wrote:
codc10 wrote:
leader1 wrote:
This "increased runway separation" theme keeps coming up. I think people here need to realize that there are no plans to increase the separation of the runways. And even if it happened, it wouldn't do a whole lot of good. While the present runway configuration sucks, airspace is a major factor, too. EWR's airspace is hemmed between LGA's and TEB's and that limits operations in many ways. One example is that parallel approaches cannot be conducted on the 22s because there is only one approach path leading to final and the turn is too close to allow a lengthy final where arrivals can be sequenced to both runways. 4R/4L can't have simultaneous approaches because, again, there is only one approach to final. However, they can run staggered arrivals because the final approach is long enough to allow sequencing to both runways. They often don't do it, though, because departing traffic on 4L is pretty consistent throughout the day and 4L approaches would interfere with that.


It's not idle speculation, but rather directly from long-term planning documents published by the PANYNJ... not something people are dreaming up on A.net. The runway project hasn't been funded, of course, but in the long term, the replacement of the current terminal complex will locate the new buildings west of the current core specifically to increase available space on the airfield. Among the possibilities is to construct a new runway slightly west of the existing 4L/22R and either keep the current 4L/22R (to be 4C/22C) or increase separation to allow for simultaneous operations.

Your point about airspace is spot-on at the moment, but looking beyond the next 10-20 years, technology will enable improvements in airspace management such that it would confer a meaningful capacity benefit. It's the only realistic way to meaningfully increase capacity at EWR. Things like tunneling the Turnpike, building a runway west of Rt 1&9, etc., *those* are the pipe dreams.


But it doesn't change the fact that there is also a large residential population south of the field in Elizabeth, NJ. Nobody is that community is going to appreciate more operations flying over their houses, and shifting the runways toward the West, even slightly, might not be politically possible.



Correct. It isnt happening.

The PA also has had a long term plan for a runway in Jamaica Bay at JFK. Not happening

We could also see by the cancellation at CDG, Another blockade is being added by the green leaning groups...Air travel is going to become more politically incorrect.

Expanding runways for more flights will be a punching bag because it will lead to more fossil fuel being used.

That hasn’t happened in America yet, But I could assure you the first place it will happen is in New York
 
Nicknuzzii
Posts: 1706
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2018 5:57 pm

Re: EWR Terminal 1 back to Terminal A

Sun Apr 11, 2021 5:28 pm

Anyone have any word on the gate allocation? I know it’s gonna be preferred use but I would imagine that’s only gonna be for certain situations.

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