LittleFokker wrote:

GlobalMoose wrote:

Not sure what the master plan is going to come up with, but I think a taxiway around the end of the west runway (4L/22R) would work well.

EWR normally has departing traffic take 4L/22R and arriving traffic on 4R/22L. The arriving traffic has to hold short of the inner runway after landing. The local controller normally waits for about 4 aircraft to land and hold short of 4L/22R, finds a hole (maybe following a heavy departure) and then crosses the 4 aircraft across 4L/22R.

A looping taxiway around the end of the runway (such as ATL approach end 8R or the taxiways at DFW around the ends of 17C, R, and 35 L, C) would hopefully speed up the flow. Looking at Google earth shows both ends of the runways at EWR surrounded by parking lots - I'd imagine it would be easier to acquire this type of property than others. There doesn't look to be as much room available that was used at the DFW taxiway loops, so to work properly you'd have to land and then make a hard turn off the taxiway to reverse direction and then cross at the approach end of 4L/22R to ensure gate-bound aircraft don't taxi into the departure corridor of departing aircraft.

Here's what I don't understand about EWR runway usage. On a southwest flow day, they depart most flights from 22R/W presumably so they don't have to issue runway crossing clearances to 11/29. Why can't they just officially close 11/29 on appropriate days except for taxiing (seems like it's used less than 10% of the time anyways), have arriving flights on 22L back taxi to 11/29 and they coulld have continuous taxi flow behind the departures? And on days with a northeast flow, instead of departing 04L full length, dept at intersection CC which would be fine for the majority of depts, then have landings back taxi to the threshold for 04L and go behind the depts? It won't make a tremendous difference on arrival rate, but it would at least help keep the dept flow rate going. And with EWR/NYC airspace, every little bit helps.

Probably not a good idea to have an RJ taxi behind a heavy/wide body applying take off thrust.

LittleFokker wrote:

Here's what I don't understand about EWR runway usage. On a southwest flow day, they depart most flights from 22R/W presumably so they don't have to issue runway crossing clearances to 11/29. Why can't they just officially close 11/29 on appropriate days except for taxiing (seems like it's used less than 10% of the time anyways), have arriving flights on 22L back taxi to 11/29 and they coulld have continuous taxi flow behind the departures? And on days with a northeast flow, instead of departing 04L full length, dept at intersection CC which would be fine for the majority of depts, then have landings back taxi to the threshold for 04L and go behind the depts? It won't make a tremendous difference on arrival rate, but it would at least help keep the dept flow rate going. And with EWR/NYC airspace, every little bit helps.

Even with my recommendation of the end around taxiways, the general flow of EWR taxi operations would have to change a little.

For north flow on busy days, both taxiways A south of N, and B are used to queue for 4L departures. Landing north, you will generally get L or K to S, take K to A to terminal C or taxiway A south to terminals B or A.

On south flow, taxiways S and R are used for 22R departures. W intersection is the norm, full length for the long haul flights. M intersection when landing on 29. Landing south, it will be taxiway N/C/E and then A "to the ramp" where ramp control takes over from the ground.

This configuration makes it a little difficult as there isn't a bi-directional flow all the way north and south down the runway.

Also, when 'united ramp procedures are in effect,' ground gives control of all the taxiways south of 11/29, west of S, and north of K.

So once T-A opens up, I assume UA will offer a bus shuttle service between A and C right? However, and based on personal experience, due to the much more higher demand for the bus once opened, how will EWR deal with thunderstorms, as currently as soon as a lighting warning hits, the bus system gets shut down. I can see this causing massive meltdowns for passengers which could potentially miss their connections

itripreport wrote:

So once T-A opens up, I assume UA will offer a bus shuttle service between A and C right? However, and based on personal experience, due to the much more higher demand for the bus once opened, how will EWR deal with thunderstorms, as currently as soon as a lighting warning hits, the bus system gets shut down. I can see this causing massive meltdowns for passengers which could potentially miss their connections

Yes, there will have to be a shuttle bus as there is no other way of connecting to the new T-A.

The AirTrain has reached the end of it's useful life (I think discussed previously on this thread) with Request for Proposals for a new system. I found a report on the Port Authority website here: https://www.panynj.gov/port-authority/e ... ports.html. (Sorry, can't figure out how to screen shot and upload a photo of the proposed new air train route).

I believe Terminal B will be demolished and replaced with the head house being moved further west towards route 1-9 (much like how the LGA head house was moved towards the Grand Central Parkway).

itripreport wrote:

So once T-A opens up, I assume UA will offer a bus shuttle service between A and C right? However, and based on personal experience, due to the much more higher demand for the bus once opened, how will EWR deal with thunderstorms, as currently as soon as a lighting warning hits, the bus system gets shut down. I can see this causing massive meltdowns for passengers which could potentially miss their connections

Bus usage is supposed to actually be less when the new terminal opens because all of the routes will be so heavy in terms of O&D traffic.

GlobalMoose wrote:

Not sure what the master plan is going to come up with, but I think a taxiway around the end of the west runway (4L/22R) would work well.

EWR normally has departing traffic take 4L/22R and arriving traffic on 4R/22L. The arriving traffic has to hold short of the inner runway after landing. The local controller normally waits for about 4 aircraft to land and hold short of 4L/22R, finds a hole (maybe following a heavy departure) and then crosses the 4 aircraft across 4L/22R.

A looping taxiway around the end of the runway (such as ATL approach end 8R or the taxiways at DFW around the ends of 17C, R, and 35 L, C) would hopefully speed up the flow. Looking at Google earth shows both ends of the runways at EWR surrounded by parking lots - I'd imagine it would be easier to acquire this type of property than others. There doesn't look to be as much room available that was used at the DFW taxiway loops, so to work properly you'd have to land and then make a hard turn off the taxiway to reverse direction and then cross at the approach end of 4L/22R to ensure gate-bound aircraft don't taxi into the departure corridor of departing aircraft.

There were plans to create those taxiways at EWR, which are called end-arounds. They are not part of any current capital plan, though.

Here is the FAA construction report for EWR in 2018. As you can see, there were some plans for them, but the document states that they’re not currently in any capital spending plan.

https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/he ... v2-ewr.pdf

And here is the most recent airport construction report, as of Q3 2022. The end-arounds aren’t anywhere in sight, nor do there appear to be any plans to construct them.

https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files ... report.pdf

Also, some planes that land on 22L will cross over on 11/29, avoiding 22R, if they need to go to the north side of Terminal C.

From my perspective, after the new terminals A and B are built and maybe with the process of planning a new terminal C, I’m thinking UA will still be the main airline at the new terminal A along with B6, AA, AC, and DL. With the new terminal B to be built, I think UA should still be in that terminal too, but shouldn’t have departures, still only international arrivals and then that terminal will host many other international airlines, hopefully new ones like KLM, EVA, KE, SV, QR, even EY etc. I’m still thinking terminal C should be occupied only by UA. I don’t know if that sounds ok, but what do you all think?

Watching on the Earthcam they are kicking it into high gear with cleaning up the worksites and some touch up paving.

Not to go off topic, but I was looking at Google maps of Terminal C. Can two widebodies fit at C102 and C120 at the same time? I remember seeing a 764 parked at C120 but can’t remember if there was an aircraft parked at C102.

itripreport wrote:

So once T-A opens up, I assume UA will offer a bus shuttle service between A and C right? However, and based on personal experience, due to the much more higher demand for the bus once opened, how will EWR deal with thunderstorms, as currently as soon as a lighting warning hits, the bus system gets shut down. I can see this causing massive meltdowns for passengers which could potentially miss their connections

Why would buses stop running? It is literally illogical because there are thousands of buses in a 15 mile radius (like in NYC) that run rain or shine or crazy dude shouting on the bus.

WorldFlier wrote:

itripreport wrote:

So once T-A opens up, I assume UA will offer a bus shuttle service between A and C right? However, and based on personal experience, due to the much more higher demand for the bus once opened, how will EWR deal with thunderstorms, as currently as soon as a lighting warning hits, the bus system gets shut down. I can see this causing massive meltdowns for passengers which could potentially miss their connections

Why would buses stop running? It is literally illogical because there are thousands of buses in a 15 mile radius (like in NYC) that run rain or shine or crazy dude shouting on the bus.

As far as I know, any time lightning is in the area, the ramp is shut down, which I guess would include the buses if they're driving around on the ramp. Most city buses aren't driving around on the ramp or anywhere near a plane.

B6SpiritofEWR wrote:

itripreport wrote:

So once T-A opens up, I assume UA will offer a bus shuttle service between A and C right? However, and based on personal experience, due to the much more higher demand for the bus once opened, how will EWR deal with thunderstorms, as currently as soon as a lighting warning hits, the bus system gets shut down. I can see this causing massive meltdowns for passengers which could potentially miss their connections

Bus usage is supposed to actually be less when the new terminal opens because all of the routes will be so heavy in terms of O&D traffic.

While the routes are higher % O&D, the planes are also larger on many of those routes, so the actual number of connecting pax may end up being similar to all the 50 seat RJ's. Also, the quantity of buses needs to match the frequency requirements for connecting pax, not just capacity requirements. Not a good look for connecting pax if you have to wait an extra 15 minutes for the bus to take you because there aren't enough people to fill each bus. That would create a lot of anxiety and unnecessary running to catch flights.

AirKevin wrote:

WorldFlier wrote:

itripreport wrote:

So once T-A opens up, I assume UA will offer a bus shuttle service between A and C right? However, and based on personal experience, due to the much more higher demand for the bus once opened, how will EWR deal with thunderstorms, as currently as soon as a lighting warning hits, the bus system gets shut down. I can see this causing massive meltdowns for passengers which could potentially miss their connections

Why would buses stop running? It is literally illogical because there are thousands of buses in a 15 mile radius (like in NYC) that run rain or shine or crazy dude shouting on the bus.

As far as I know, any time lightning is in the area, the ramp is shut down, which I guess would include the buses if they're driving around on the ramp. Most city buses aren't driving around on the ramp or anywhere near a plane.

Yes, but they drive in a thunderstorm...pretty sure its illogical especially if there's even less movement around them, which would mean its no more dangerous.

WorldFlier wrote:

AirKevin wrote:

WorldFlier wrote:

Why would buses stop running? It is literally illogical because there are thousands of buses in a 15 mile radius (like in NYC) that run rain or shine or crazy dude shouting on the bus.

As far as I know, any time lightning is in the area, the ramp is shut down, which I guess would include the buses if they're driving around on the ramp. Most city buses aren't driving around on the ramp or anywhere near a plane.

Yes, but they drive in a thunderstorm...pretty sure its illogical especially if there's even less movement around them, which would mean its no more dangerous.

I can’t talk for EWR specifically, but as a general rule the issue will not be the bus driving in lightning. It will be the passengers crossing the ramp to and from the bus, and the staff present to supervise the passengers crossing the ramp, with lightning in the area.

V/F

VirginFlyer wrote:

WorldFlier wrote:

AirKevin wrote:

As far as I know, any time lightning is in the area, the ramp is shut down, which I guess would include the buses if they're driving around on the ramp. Most city buses aren't driving around on the ramp or anywhere near a plane.

Yes, but they drive in a thunderstorm...pretty sure its illogical especially if there's even less movement around them, which would mean its no more dangerous.

I can’t talk for EWR specifically, but as a general rule the issue will not be the bus driving in lightning. It will be the passengers crossing the ramp to and from the bus, and the staff present to supervise the passengers crossing the ramp, with lightning in the area.

V/F

At Newark they have stations for the busses and almost no hard-stands which can't load in a thunderstorm (a.k.a nobody is gonna get hit by lightning) with much of the driving between C and A nowhere near aircraft but on a service road. This issue can make people miss flights and cause significant issues for cross-terminal connections. It's not that big of a deal now with Terminal A having small jets and a lot of O/D (see shuttles like EWR-DCA), but if there are going to be a dozen mainline gates with hundreds of departures per day.

Billions of dollars, but no inter-terminal train and buses that will shut down and create a big backup between C and T1. Makes sense, in NJ.

VirginFlyer wrote:

WorldFlier wrote:

AirKevin wrote:

As far as I know, any time lightning is in the area, the ramp is shut down, which I guess would include the buses if they're driving around on the ramp. Most city buses aren't driving around on the ramp or anywhere near a plane.

Yes, but they drive in a thunderstorm...pretty sure its illogical especially if there's even less movement around them, which would mean its no more dangerous.

I can’t talk for EWR specifically, but as a general rule the issue will not be the bus driving in lightning. It will be the passengers crossing the ramp to and from the bus, and the staff present to supervise the passengers crossing the ramp, with lightning in the area.

V/F

The buses (C to A) still run during a thunderstorm / ramp closure. Sometimes there are employees only, or to make sure a bus is at one of the terminals for ramp opening, etc. They want ramp personnel off the ramp, because most GSE isn't covered, and you are around lots of metal, which attracts lightning. The service road between terminals at EWR isn't near any aircraft until you get to each endpoint.

There are overhangs at the bus hold areas (I've seen where the buses will be held at the new terminal) to protect the passengers from the elements, and being inside a closed vehicle is one of the safest places to be in a thunderstorm since rubber tires are an insulator. But the way it looks, it will be near aircraft though.

EDIT: The buses don't run at the hardstand (71 T-X), because there is no shelter and the personnel who work the area must stay inside off the ramp. The passengers who arrive (land) either have to be sent to another regular gate or wait it out on the aircraft till ramp opens.

B6SpiritofEWR wrote:

itripreport wrote:

So once T-A opens up, I assume UA will offer a bus shuttle service between A and C right? However, and based on personal experience, due to the much more higher demand for the bus once opened, how will EWR deal with thunderstorms, as currently as soon as a lighting warning hits, the bus system gets shut down. I can see this causing massive meltdowns for passengers which could potentially miss their connections

Bus usage is supposed to actually be less when the new terminal opens because all of the routes will be so heavy in terms of O&D traffic.

Bus frequency and size will be increased as demand is forecast to be at least the same, if not greater, due to larger gauge. UA recently changed bus vendors at EWR for this purpose.

PilotJAY16 wrote:

Not to go off topic, but I was looking at Google maps of Terminal C. Can two widebodies fit at C102 and C120 at the same time? I remember seeing a 764 parked at C120 but can’t remember if there was an aircraft parked at C102.

Yes, 102 and 120 can be used by WB at the same time. 120 can accommodate up to a 767-400 and is a tow-in gate.

WorldFlier wrote:

VirginFlyer wrote:

WorldFlier wrote:

Yes, but they drive in a thunderstorm...pretty sure its illogical especially if there's even less movement around them, which would mean its no more dangerous.

I can’t talk for EWR specifically, but as a general rule the issue will not be the bus driving in lightning. It will be the passengers crossing the ramp to and from the bus, and the staff present to supervise the passengers crossing the ramp, with lightning in the area.

V/F

At Newark they have stations for the busses and almost no hard-stands which can't load in a thunderstorm (a.k.a nobody is gonna get hit by lightning) with much of the driving between C and A nowhere near aircraft but on a service road. This issue can make people miss flights and cause significant issues for cross-terminal connections. It's not that big of a deal now with Terminal A having small jets and a lot of O/D (see shuttles like EWR-DCA), but if there are going to be a dozen mainline gates with hundreds of departures per day.

Billions of dollars, but no inter-terminal train and buses that will shut down and create a big backup between C and T1. Makes sense, in NJ.

If there’s a ground stop due to thunderstorms, not only are the buses not moving, neither are the airplanes. Can’t refuel, load/load bags, etc. so the point is moot.

codc10 wrote:

B6SpiritofEWR wrote:

itripreport wrote:

So once T-A opens up, I assume UA will offer a bus shuttle service between A and C right? However, and based on personal experience, due to the much more higher demand for the bus once opened, how will EWR deal with thunderstorms, as currently as soon as a lighting warning hits, the bus system gets shut down. I can see this causing massive meltdowns for passengers which could potentially miss their connections

Bus usage is supposed to actually be less when the new terminal opens because all of the routes will be so heavy in terms of O&D traffic.

Bus frequency and size will be increased as demand is forecast to be at least the same, if not greater, due to larger gauge. UA recently changed bus vendors at EWR for this purpose.

PilotJAY16 wrote:

Not to go off topic, but I was looking at Google maps of Terminal C. Can two widebodies fit at C102 and C120 at the same time? I remember seeing a 764 parked at C120 but can’t remember if there was an aircraft parked at C102.

Yes, 102 and 120 can be used by WB at the same time. 120 can accommodate up to a 767-400 and is a tow-in gate.

Those gates are weird... 120 can be used by a 767-400, but not a 767-300. I heard that the wing of the -400 goes under the vertical stabilizer of the plane parked at 102. Whoever designed TC was a moron.

airzim wrote:

WorldFlier wrote:

VirginFlyer wrote:

I can’t talk for EWR specifically, but as a general rule the issue will not be the bus driving in lightning. It will be the passengers crossing the ramp to and from the bus, and the staff present to supervise the passengers crossing the ramp, with lightning in the area.

V/F

At Newark they have stations for the busses and almost no hard-stands which can't load in a thunderstorm (a.k.a nobody is gonna get hit by lightning) with much of the driving between C and A nowhere near aircraft but on a service road. This issue can make people miss flights and cause significant issues for cross-terminal connections. It's not that big of a deal now with Terminal A having small jets and a lot of O/D (see shuttles like EWR-DCA), but if there are going to be a dozen mainline gates with hundreds of departures per day.

Billions of dollars, but no inter-terminal train and buses that will shut down and create a big backup between C and T1. Makes sense, in NJ.

If there’s a ground stop due to thunderstorms, not only are the buses not moving, neither are the airplanes. Can’t refuel, load/load bags, etc. so the point is moot.

The buses are to get people between terminals, not to the airplanes (except Gate 71, which won't be going anywhere, so that is moot). It's not moot for going between C and T1. If the buses don't go between terminals people will miss connecting flights as there will be a backup of people waiting for the bus.

WorldFlier wrote:

airzim wrote:

WorldFlier wrote:

At Newark they have stations for the busses and almost no hard-stands which can't load in a thunderstorm (a.k.a nobody is gonna get hit by lightning) with much of the driving between C and A nowhere near aircraft but on a service road. This issue can make people miss flights and cause significant issues for cross-terminal connections. It's not that big of a deal now with Terminal A having small jets and a lot of O/D (see shuttles like EWR-DCA), but if there are going to be a dozen mainline gates with hundreds of departures per day.

Billions of dollars, but no inter-terminal train and buses that will shut down and create a big backup between C and T1. Makes sense, in NJ.

If there’s a ground stop due to thunderstorms, not only are the buses not moving, neither are the airplanes. Can’t refuel, load/load bags, etc. so the point is moot.

The buses are to get people between terminals, not to the airplanes (except Gate 71, which won't be going anywhere, so that is moot). It's not moot for going between C and T1. If the buses don't go between terminals people will miss connecting flights as there will be a backup of people waiting for the bus.

I think Tommy is back.

Let’s try this again, if airplanes aren’t moving due to a ground stop, there are no misconnects since nothing is moving. Groundstops are usually minutes. Maybe 15 max. Once the ramp is clear, it’s a 5 min bus ride. Crews will also be inconvenienced the same way as passengers. Seems to be cleared up rather quickly.

Plus UA only has 13 gates to start. Not all flights leave/arrive at the same time, and connectors arrive sporadically, we’re talking a upward max of maybe a 100 people each way during a ground stop event. That’s four buses each direction. Big whoop.

Knw1000 wrote:

codc10 wrote:

B6SpiritofEWR wrote:

Bus usage is supposed to actually be less when the new terminal opens because all of the routes will be so heavy in terms of O&D traffic.

Bus frequency and size will be increased as demand is forecast to be at least the same, if not greater, due to larger gauge. UA recently changed bus vendors at EWR for this purpose.

PilotJAY16 wrote:

Not to go off topic, but I was looking at Google maps of Terminal C. Can two widebodies fit at C102 and C120 at the same time? I remember seeing a 764 parked at C120 but can’t remember if there was an aircraft parked at C102.

Yes, 102 and 120 can be used by WB at the same time. 120 can accommodate up to a 767-400 and is a tow-in gate.

Those gates are weird... 120 can be used by a 767-400, but not a 767-300. I heard that the wing of the -400 goes under the vertical stabilizer of the plane parked at 102. Whoever designed TC was a moron.

C-3 was designed when Continental flew 777-200s and 767-200/400s, and before APB winglets were certified on 763s. Virtually all airports have some gates with quirky compatibility.

codc10 wrote:

Knw1000 wrote:

codc10 wrote:

Bus frequency and size will be increased as demand is forecast to be at least the same, if not greater, due to larger gauge. UA recently changed bus vendors at EWR for this purpose.



Yes, 102 and 120 can be used by WB at the same time. 120 can accommodate up to a 767-400 and is a tow-in gate.

Those gates are weird... 120 can be used by a 767-400, but not a 767-300. I heard that the wing of the -400 goes under the vertical stabilizer of the plane parked at 102. Whoever designed TC was a moron.

C-3 was designed when Continental flew 777-200s and 767-200/400s, and before APB winglets were certified on 763s. Virtually all airports have some gates with quirky compatibility.

More specifically, 120 can’t accommodate a 767-300 in a position that allows the boarding bridge to reach door 1. The -200 had no issue with this because of its length, and the -400 can board through door 2.

Just curious will each airline going to the new terminal be grouped together by gate numbers (meaning will American occupy gates 1-5, Delta 6-10, etc) or could they be all over the terminal? I'm thinking they'd be at least grouped somewhat together. If this is so any idea of which airlines will occupy which gates?

tmu101 wrote:

Just curious will each airline going to the new terminal be grouped together by gate numbers (meaning will American occupy gates 1-5, Delta 6-10, etc) or could they be all over the terminal? I'm thinking they'd be at least grouped somewhat together. If this is so any idea of which airlines will occupy which gates?

The terminal was originally supposed to be common use, however from what I am hearing the airlines did not like that idea, and they are now being exclusively leased. United is occupying 15 of the 33 gates and these gates will be outfitted with United branding. Not sure how many gates each airline will have, but I can guesstimate the following.

United - 15
Delta - 5
JetBlue - 6
American - 5
AC - 2

Also not confirmed but I could totally see JetBlue and American sharing their gate space with each other. United and Air Canada will be receiving the wide-body gates.

ScottB wrote:

STT757 wrote:

There have been studies about adding a fourth runway to EWR, the University of Pennsylvania includes a rendering of a new runway layout on page 29 of their excellent EWR Master Book.

LOL. That plan would only run $100 billion or so. Plus I'm sure both Elizabeth and Newark would love all the air traffic right over the downtowns of each. But hey, if you can get the Feds to cut a check for the project then it's all good. Or the PANYNJ could just jack up tolls to $100 into NYC.

Demolition of:

UPS Cargo (still considered brand new)

Rail link portion of the Airtrain

All of P4

Relocation of Route 1/9

Possible relocation of the Budweiser plant and CSX right of way

FAA redesign of the Linden exclusion zone including the helicopter airways used by news helicopters and other operators all day long such as the Newark route, Linden route or 287 route

How will the new traffic pattern affect Teterboro, Morristown and nearby Kearny helipads?

$100 billion sounds about right

Knw1000 wrote:

tmu101 wrote:

Just curious will each airline going to the new terminal be grouped together by gate numbers (meaning will American occupy gates 1-5, Delta 6-10, etc) or could they be all over the terminal? I'm thinking they'd be at least grouped somewhat together. If this is so any idea of which airlines will occupy which gates?

The terminal was originally supposed to be common use, however from what I am hearing the airlines did not like that idea, and they are now being exclusively leased. United is occupying 15 of the 33 gates and these gates will be outfitted with United branding. Not sure how many gates each airline will have, but I can guesstimate the following.

United - 15
Delta - 5
JetBlue - 6
American - 5
AC - 2

Also not confirmed but I could totally see JetBlue and American sharing their gate space with each other. United and Air Canada will be receiving the wide-body gates.

I think more for B6 and less for DL, also I’m assuming AS is moving so they could share gates with AA. I think DL has only been using 3 gates at EWR?

Forgive for asking a simple question, so how does one get from UA's Terminal A gates to Terminal C when connecting? Please do not tell me a bus.

william wrote:

Forgive for asking a simple question, so how does one get from UA's Terminal A gates to Terminal C when connecting? Please do not tell me a bus.

All right, I won't tell you that.

STT757 wrote:

I think more for B6 and less for DL, also I’m assuming AS is moving so they could share gates with AA. I think DL has only been using 3 gates at EWR?

DL definitely uses more than three gates at EWR. It's a heck of a lot smaller than LGA/JFK comparatively, but they still fly to ATL, DTW, MSP, CVG, BOS, SLC, and RDU. While the frequencies vary by destination, there's no way they could get all of those flights into just three gates.

STT757 wrote:

Knw1000 wrote:

tmu101 wrote:

Just curious will each airline going to the new terminal be grouped together by gate numbers (meaning will American occupy gates 1-5, Delta 6-10, etc) or could they be all over the terminal? I'm thinking they'd be at least grouped somewhat together. If this is so any idea of which airlines will occupy which gates?

The terminal was originally supposed to be common use, however from what I am hearing the airlines did not like that idea, and they are now being exclusively leased. United is occupying 15 of the 33 gates and these gates will be outfitted with United branding. Not sure how many gates each airline will have, but I can guesstimate the following.

United - 15
Delta - 5
JetBlue - 6
American - 5
AC - 2

Also not confirmed but I could totally see JetBlue and American sharing their gate space with each other. United and Air Canada will be receiving the wide-body gates.

I think more for B6 and less for DL, also I’m assuming AS is moving so they could share gates with AA. I think DL has only been using 3 gates at EWR?

AS is also staying in Terminal B.

I’m not sure where the 15 number came from for UA, I heard it was 12.

B6SpiritofEWR wrote:

STT757 wrote:

Knw1000 wrote:

The terminal was originally supposed to be common use, however from what I am hearing the airlines did not like that idea, and they are now being exclusively leased. United is occupying 15 of the 33 gates and these gates will be outfitted with United branding. Not sure how many gates each airline will have, but I can guesstimate the following.

United - 15
Delta - 5
JetBlue - 6
American - 5
AC - 2

Also not confirmed but I could totally see JetBlue and American sharing their gate space with each other. United and Air Canada will be receiving the wide-body gates.

I think more for B6 and less for DL, also I’m assuming AS is moving so they could share gates with AA. I think DL has only been using 3 gates at EWR?

AS is also staying in Terminal B.

I’m not sure where the 15 number came from for UA, I heard it was 12.

An internal memo from the chief UA pilot at EWR confirmed 15 gates. Delta will at least have 5. They have 5 at B right now. AS is not coming to the new A. It will share B1 with Sun Country, and Spirit.

Knw1000 wrote:

B6SpiritofEWR wrote:

STT757 wrote:

I think more for B6 and less for DL, also I’m assuming AS is moving so they could share gates with AA. I think DL has only been using 3 gates at EWR?

AS is also staying in Terminal B.

I’m not sure where the 15 number came from for UA, I heard it was 12.

An internal memo from the chief UA pilot at EWR confirmed 15 gates. Delta will at least have 5. They have 5 at B right now. AS is not coming to the new A. It will share B1 with Sun Country, and Spirit.

Gotcha, Spirit seems like a big winner in terms of gates then.

Sorry if I missed this somewhere, but if someone is taking public transit from NYC to the new A, what will their route look like since Air train won't connect to it? Will folks take the train to the other terminals and then bus shuttle over?

AaronPGH wrote:

Sorry if I missed this somewhere, but if someone is taking public transit from NYC to the new A, what will their route look like since Air train won't connect to it? Will folks take the train to the other terminals and then bus shuttle over?

The Airtrain connects to the new Terminal A, via an elevated walkway and a walk through the parking garage. Not ideal but it's the plan until the new Airtrain is built.

Looking at an aerial shot of the new terminal the piers that extend to the north and south have the gate areas/jetways on the east side. I'm assuming there will be concessions/shopping on the west side of those piers? Obviously no room for aircraft parking let alone jet bridges. Makes sense to utilize that space as such unless that area is designated for gates meant to bus passengers to aircraft on remote stands? Also are there any recent interior shots? I'm getting excited to see what this terminal will look like when it opens!

Will they have an open house to show it off similar to what DFW did when Terminal D opened? Thank you all!

tmu101 wrote:

Looking at an aerial shot of the new terminal the piers that extend to the north and south have the gate areas/jetways on the east side. I'm assuming there will be concessions/shopping on the west side of those piers? Obviously no room for aircraft parking let alone jet bridges. Makes sense to utilize that space as such unless that area is designated for gates meant to bus passengers to aircraft on remote stands? Also are there any recent interior shots? I'm getting excited to see what this terminal will look like when it opens!

Will they have an open house to show it off similar to what DFW did when Terminal D opened? Thank you all!

Not sure, no one can really answer any of these questions. I find it bizarre that the PA has been so silent about this project, meanwhile they are all vocal and hype about LGA & JFK renovations.Does anyone know why this is? The only reason they even announced it was delayed was because a United memo was leaked revealing they are moving in to A in November. It is shocking because this terminal was supposed to open at the end of 2021 and no announcement was ever made.

Knw1000 wrote:

tmu101 wrote:

Looking at an aerial shot of the new terminal the piers that extend to the north and south have the gate areas/jetways on the east side. I'm assuming there will be concessions/shopping on the west side of those piers? Obviously no room for aircraft parking let alone jet bridges. Makes sense to utilize that space as such unless that area is designated for gates meant to bus passengers to aircraft on remote stands? Also are there any recent interior shots? I'm getting excited to see what this terminal will look like when it opens!

Will they have an open house to show it off similar to what DFW did when Terminal D opened? Thank you all!

Not sure, no one can really answer any of these questions. I find it bizarre that the PA has been so silent about this project, meanwhile they are all vocal and hype about LGA & JFK renovations.Does anyone know why this is? The only reason they even announced it was delayed was because a United memo was leaked revealing they are moving in to A in November. It is shocking because this terminal was supposed to open at the end of 2021 and no announcement was ever made.

The hype for the New York projects was due to former Governor Cuomo, he was very Trump like with all his bragging etc.. The total opposite of his father. Thankfully he was not able to jam through that LGA Airtrain project before he left office, the new Governor Hochul was able to get the agency to scrap the wrong way Airtrain and pursue something more substantial. Hopefully there will be news on that front as that delay is also holding up the Newark Airtrain.

The delay with the new Terminal A is disappointing, but it's not on the scale of the IAD Silver line extension. Watching the Earthcam and there has been a noticeable speed up of progress since the opening date news leaked. Crews have been cleaning up equipment, removing conex containers and painting street lines. I have not seen any photos of the interior in over a year, but the outside looks good for a November opening.

Absolutely love if they had a public unveiling before operations begin.

STT757 wrote:

Knw1000 wrote:

tmu101 wrote:

Looking at an aerial shot of the new terminal the piers that extend to the north and south have the gate areas/jetways on the east side. I'm assuming there will be concessions/shopping on the west side of those piers? Obviously no room for aircraft parking let alone jet bridges. Makes sense to utilize that space as such unless that area is designated for gates meant to bus passengers to aircraft on remote stands? Also are there any recent interior shots? I'm getting excited to see what this terminal will look like when it opens!

Will they have an open house to show it off similar to what DFW did when Terminal D opened? Thank you all!

Not sure, no one can really answer any of these questions. I find it bizarre that the PA has been so silent about this project, meanwhile they are all vocal and hype about LGA & JFK renovations.Does anyone know why this is? The only reason they even announced it was delayed was because a United memo was leaked revealing they are moving in to A in November. It is shocking because this terminal was supposed to open at the end of 2021 and no announcement was ever made.

The hype for the New York projects was due to former Governor Cuomo, he was very Trump like with all his bragging etc.. The total opposite of his father. Thankfully he was not able to jam through that LGA Airtrain project before he left office, the new Governor Hochul was able to get the agency to scrap the wrong way Airtrain and pursue something more substantial. Hopefully there will be news on that front as that delay is also holding up the Newark Airtrain.

The delay with the new Terminal A is disappointing, but it's not on the scale of the IAD Silver line extension. Watching the Earthcam and there has been a noticeable speed up of progress since the opening date news leaked. Crews have been cleaning up equipment, removing conex containers and painting street lines. I have not seen any photos of the interior in over a year, but the outside looks good for a November opening.

Absolutely love if they had a public unveiling before operations begin.

I'm hoping for a November opening as well as we're thinking about coming back home from DFW to spend the holiday with the family. We'll fly either AA or UA and probably will be using the new terminal either way.

I don't know if the CONRAC is ready yet. And all of the approach / exit roads are not quite ready yet either. You still have construction which should be finished around the terminal. All of this would have to be finished so passengers can enter / exit the terminal as it would flow into US 1&9 and the rest of the terminals. Plus the entrance / exit roads to CONRAC, along with the signage, etc. All of this outside and surrounding stuff has to be finished before any soft opening. Plus what about the old rental car(s) area where the P1 & P2 stops of the Airtrain. The new terminal is built where the maintenance building for the AirTrain is, which is a spur off the main line.
I would think all of the small details have to be finished first, which IMHO are delaying things a bit.

itripreport wrote:

So once T-A opens up, I assume UA will offer a bus shuttle service between A and C right? However, and based on personal experience, due to the much more higher demand for the bus once opened, how will EWR deal with thunderstorms, as currently as soon as a lighting warning hits, the bus system gets shut down. I can see this causing massive meltdowns for passengers which could potentially miss their connections

To be fair, if there's a storm in NYC/ EWR airspace....you're already out of luck.

T5towbar wrote:

I don't know if the CONRAC is ready yet. And all of the approach / exit roads are not quite ready yet either. You still have construction which should be finished around the terminal. All of this would have to be finished so passengers can enter / exit the terminal as it would flow into US 1&9 and the rest of the terminals. Plus the entrance / exit roads to CONRAC, along with the signage, etc. All of this outside and surrounding stuff has to be finished before any soft opening. Plus what about the old rental car(s) area where the P1 & P2 stops of the Airtrain. The new terminal is built where the maintenance building for the AirTrain is, which is a spur off the main line.
I would think all of the small details have to be finished first, which IMHO are delaying things a bit.

The old rental car facility is actually at P3, while the new one will be a part of the parking garage located outside of the new terminal. P1 station has been demolished while P2 will likely be the temporary Terminal A station until the new AirTrain is built.

Is United opening another United Club in Terminal A? I’d assume based on the latest design from the new TC UC?

VC10er wrote:

Is United opening another United Club in Terminal A? I’d assume based on the latest design from the new TC UC?

It’s going to have a United club, they are going to serve 23 domestic mainline destinations. That’s a huge chunk of their EWR domestic operations. Besides the United club it’s going to have An Admirals Club, a Delta Sky club and the largest AMEX centurion lounge.

https://thepointsguy.com/news/amex-centurion-lounge-coming-to-newark/amp/

Picking up regarding EWR global awareness from the UA network thread:

I would hope that however big or small the global population is who may get the willies flying into a less familiar airport, that the NEW Newark Liberty will gain some notoriety.
I’m not sure if NYC should be adding to the name, but finding out is a very researchable proposition.
I am hoping that a very good strategic branding agency was retained to develop a NEW identity for Newark. If so I hope it will not be another haggard airplane/flying-object as a visual identity! Hopefully a new brand can visually and verbally roll up all the great advantages of Newark Liberty.

I am in branding so perhaps I am a hammer that can only see a nail…but I’m assuming the current brand ID is the Statue of Liberty’s torch? Frankly that could be (almost) any type of organization. It is also rather dry and static for an airport, especially an airport seeking to increase its awareness and relevance to both business and tourist travelers.
I’d think a billion dollar new terminal would spark the desire for a stronger brand.
The relatively new identity for GIG captures the essence of Rio very nicely, but it doesn’t have as hard a job (IMHO) as an EWR identity would have to work. I believe Newark is going to be an exciting airport of the future and it should be treated as a “BRAND”. Then all other communications will fall into place.

VC10er wrote:

Picking up regarding EWR global awareness from the UA network thread:

I would hope that however big or small the global population is who may get the willies flying into a less familiar airport, that the NEW Newark Liberty will gain some notoriety.
I’m not sure if NYC should be adding to the name, but finding out is a very researchable proposition.
I am hoping that a very good strategic branding agency was retained to develop a NEW identity for Newark. If so I hope it will not be another haggard airplane/flying-object as a visual identity! Hopefully a new brand can visually and verbally roll up all the great advantages of Newark Liberty.

I am in branding so perhaps I am a hammer that can only see a nail…but I’m assuming the current brand ID is the Statue of Liberty’s torch? Frankly that could be (almost) any type of organization. It is also rather dry and static for an airport, especially an airport seeking to increase its awareness and relevance to both business and tourist travelers.
I’d think a billion dollar new terminal would spark the desire for a stronger brand.
The relatively new identity for GIG captures the essence of Rio very nicely, but it doesn’t have as hard a job (IMHO) as an EWR identity would have to work. I believe Newark is going to be an exciting airport of the future and it should be treated as a “BRAND”. Then all other communications will fall into place.

Once PATH gets extended, it will be ALOT easier to Brand EWR as *the most convenient NYC airport* (coding notwithstanding) because it will be (BY FAR) the most convenient airport to the Financial District/WTC, and arguably much Manhattan because of connections to the Subway along PATH.

VC10er wrote:

Picking up regarding EWR global awareness from the UA network thread:

I would hope that however big or small the global population is who may get the willies flying into a less familiar airport, that the NEW Newark Liberty will gain some notoriety.
I’m not sure if NYC should be adding to the name, but finding out is a very researchable proposition.
I am hoping that a very good strategic branding agency was retained to develop a NEW identity for Newark. If so I hope it will not be another haggard airplane/flying-object as a visual identity! Hopefully a new brand can visually and verbally roll up all the great advantages of Newark Liberty.

I am in branding so perhaps I am a hammer that can only see a nail…but I’m assuming the current brand ID is the Statue of Liberty’s torch? Frankly that could be (almost) any type of organization. It is also rather dry and static for an airport, especially an airport seeking to increase its awareness and relevance to both business and tourist travelers.
I’d think a billion dollar new terminal would spark the desire for a stronger brand.
The relatively new identity for GIG captures the essence of Rio very nicely, but it doesn’t have as hard a job (IMHO) as an EWR identity would have to work. I believe Newark is going to be an exciting airport of the future and it should be treated as a “BRAND”. Then all other communications will fall into place.

I totally applaud the spirit of the idea behind a rebranding for EWR, but is EWR really short on traffic? It's not some mid-size airport that's desperate to attract new carriers/destinations (you could argue that UA has too high a share and thus disproportionate pricing power, but there's no lack of service), and it's perennially one of the most delayed airports in the country due to ATC congestion.

For FY 2021, according to Wikipedia, it's #28 in the world for pax traffic (nearly tied with DXB...JFK is #25, by comparison), and #14 in the US in 2021 (JFK is #13).

I could perhaps see an argument for bringing in new international carriers, but EWR sure isn't hurting for passengers and service on the whole.

Cory6188 wrote:

VC10er wrote:

Picking up regarding EWR global awareness from the UA network thread:

I would hope that however big or small the global population is who may get the willies flying into a less familiar airport, that the NEW Newark Liberty will gain some notoriety.
I’m not sure if NYC should be adding to the name, but finding out is a very researchable proposition.
I am hoping that a very good strategic branding agency was retained to develop a NEW identity for Newark. If so I hope it will not be another haggard airplane/flying-object as a visual identity! Hopefully a new brand can visually and verbally roll up all the great advantages of Newark Liberty.

I am in branding so perhaps I am a hammer that can only see a nail…but I’m assuming the current brand ID is the Statue of Liberty’s torch? Frankly that could be (almost) any type of organization. It is also rather dry and static for an airport, especially an airport seeking to increase its awareness and relevance to both business and tourist travelers.
I’d think a billion dollar new terminal would spark the desire for a stronger brand.
The relatively new identity for GIG captures the essence of Rio very nicely, but it doesn’t have as hard a job (IMHO) as an EWR identity would have to work. I believe Newark is going to be an exciting airport of the future and it should be treated as a “BRAND”. Then all other communications will fall into place.

I totally applaud the spirit of the idea behind a rebranding for EWR, but is EWR really short on traffic? It's not some mid-size airport that's desperate to attract new carriers/destinations (you could argue that UA has too high a share and thus disproportionate pricing power, but there's no lack of service), and it's perennially one of the most delayed airports in the country due to ATC congestion.

For FY 2021, according to Wikipedia, it's #28 in the world for pax traffic (nearly tied with DXB...JFK is #25, by comparison), and #14 in the US in 2021 (JFK is #13).

I could perhaps see an argument for bringing in new international carriers, but EWR sure isn't hurting for passengers and service on the whole.

Hmmm! That is super interesting and something I neglected to think of: “if Newark Liberty was to become an even more well known airport, there is not that much room for growth!”
Is the key going to be larger and larger aircraft?

Also interesting about the downtown financial district becoming even better connected to EWR. Is there any known UA contracts with the major financial companies located in downtown Manhattan? I’d assume JP MORGAN/CHASE has a sizable contract with UA? UA’s concentration at EWR must be a golden egg.

Also, I could swear that each time I fly home through EWR I notice another skyscraper in Jersey City. If anyone has ever made a time-lapse video of Jersey City development over the past two decades it would be spectacular to watch, from almost flat to almost a second downtown Manhattan!

This sounds random, but do you all think that in the next EWR master plan, they should extend runway 11/29 west and make another parallel runway beside 11/29? This would also mean that the cargo area would need to be relocated. According to the last RFP from the RPA, an airfield expansion south of the airfield would take place to hold the cargo area.

ddaly241 wrote:

This sounds random, but do you all think that in the next EWR master plan, they should extend runway 11/29 west and make another parallel runway beside 11/29? This would also mean that the cargo area would need to be relocated. According to the last RFP from the RPA, an airfield expansion south of the airfield would take place to hold the cargo area.

But how often would such a runway be used, taking into consideration airspace restrictions.