At one time Delta announced that they were going to leave the "World Port" and move into a dedicated portion of the IAB. What ever happened to this?

Initially, delays to a decision on the plan, and before DL could give the go-ahead for the terminal, 9-11 happened. And after that, as we all know, DL didn't have any money to spend on a $1.6 billion terminal. Of course they need it these days, but then again, if they had spent the money on the new terminal (and probable cost overruns due to implementing post-911 security measures), DL might have been in a worse situation today.

it will be interesting to see what DL eventually does with JFK but there is no doubt even among DL execs that they have to do something. It is doubtful they will tear everything down they currently have but it is possible that one part of their facility may be replaced or they will add a concourse that expands their current facilities. Either way, it is likely DL at JFK will have parts of their facility that are new and other parts that are old. JFK will become an increasingly large operation for DL and they must have the space to accommodate it along with providing the facilities necessary to be world class, which no one would use to describe the current facility. The few improvements they have made have improved the appearance a great deal but there is no way that they or anyone else can afford a completely rebuilt terminal of the size DL needs.

It really isn't that bad right now. T3 is awesome and T2 is ugly. But T2 was a 1960s square box that has been ugly since the day it opened; plain and simple.

Quite frankly, I am against all these airlines building new terminals for themselves at the cost of $1 billion:

Look at AA and JFK. $1.1 billion later and they will have a half-finished terminal. It was supposed to be $1.1 billion for 59 gates. They chopped 2 concourses off after 9/11 and now it will be 37 gates. But the price tag is still $1.1 billion.

They had 25 gates, now they will have 37 gates. 12 new gates for $1.1 billion. It's great for Kennedy Airport, and great for the city too. But what did it do for AA. They haven't added one new mainline flight since the thing opened. They added a handul of RJ flights to CLE, YYZ, BWI and ORD. Meanwhile AA has been trying to stay out of bankruptcy since 9/11. Thanks to their employees, they have.

Great for JFK. Not a great move for AA. The same people that connect through there today have been connecting through JFK for years past. Now when they go home they can say, JFK is a nice airport. . .WOW!

Arguably, DL is in a much better position than AA internationally at JFK. They've got Europe covered and a full-fledged hub; something AA at JFK will never have.


Then you go to B6. They need their new terminal like a hole in the head. Losing money hand over fist, analysts downgrading them every quarter, expenses skyrocketing. They are a low cost carrier. All they needed was more space for their quick-growing operation. All they had to do was look south to a completely vacant Termianl 5.

A moving walkway connecting the two pods on T5 with the gate area on T6 was needed along with cosmetic upgrades on T5 that B6 had already done on T6 to make it one of the nicer buildings at the airport. Instead they have a new terminal coming online that will actually have less gate space than T5 and T6 did. Again, so customers can say 'what a nice airport.'


Zoom up to BOS and see Delta in action there. Brand new facility with no flights and no people. DL has no interest in using their new and expensive real estate. And why should they? They have a growing hub just to the south at JFK with large O&D numbers despite a 40 year old terminal complex.


Point being is that in the case of NY, a billion dollar Taj Majal is not needed to attract customers to your huge European gateway. You draw a 60 mile circle from JFK and you hit 16 million people. You can't say that about anyplace else in this country.

Keep it clean, keep it relatively modern, more importantly keep the flights coming. DL made the right move at JFK.

They're building a Capital . . . not a Capitol.

PJ

Was the plan for a integral "annex" to the new IAB or just a dedicated area in a larger IAB.

As for the never ending debat on the current facility....I don't give a damn. I have no problem with the place. My NYC travels normally go to LGA and EWR. When I go overseas I fly from ATL.

Well put, JFKLGANYC...

Quoting JFKLGANYC (Reply 3): Then you go to B6. They need their new terminal like a hole in the head. Losing money hand over fist, analysts downgrading them every quarter, expenses skyrocketing. They are a low cost carrier. All they needed was more space for their quick-growing operation.

As I'm reading this, I'm thinking hmm...if B6 does a PeoplExpress (I know, I know, highly unlikely...), and the Port Authority has this beautiful new terminal at JFK with their intended tenant out of business, maybe DL could approach them and cut a deal?

Quoting JFKLGANYC (Reply 3): Zoom up to BOS and see Delta in action there. Brand new facility with no flights and no people. DL has no interest in using their new and expensive real estate. And why should they? They have a growing hub just to the south at JFK with large O&D numbers despite a 40 year old terminal complex.

I can't speak for the DL execs, but the main reason why DL didn't expand out of BOS was that Massport was jerking DL around. DL requested in the early stages of the Term. A construction that they get their own customs and INS with AF and AZ as alliance members. However, the bureaucratic jerks at Massport denied the request saying that DL should just use Term. E like everyone else. Well that made DL pissed and if it was an earlier in the project, they probably would have canceled the whole project. So DL looked south to JFK and thus they built up a base there. Massport screwed AA and DL over to try and expand, and thus screwed BOS over.   

Cheers from BDL,   
DeltaGuy767

very well said, BJ. I wouldn't jump to that kind of conclusion about B6 just yet but airports are expensive.

AA not only has a new expensive facility at JFK but one at MIA that is not only expensive but also late. In the meantime, DL keeps adding flights from ATL to Latin America from a terminal that costs less than $4 per passenger - compared to $25 or more for AA at JFK and MIA.

Sadly, public works projects throughout the US cannot be supported anymore because the cost benefit is too far out of whack. We will be forced to live with alot of refurbished and used infrastructure in areas well beyond airports.

I don't think I've heard awesome used to describe any of DL's NYC facilities for a very long time. Paint is not just a bad thing after all.

Quoting LawnDart (Reply 5): As I'm reading this, I'm thinking hmm...if B6 does a PeoplExpress (I know, I know, highly unlikely...), and the Port Authority has this beautiful new terminal at JFK with their intended tenant out of business, maybe DL could approach them and cut a deal?

I think that thier gates are only designed for narrowbody a/c as they only have twi smalll types of planes and no contracts.

Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 7): DL keeps adding flights from ATL to Latin America from a terminal that costs less than $4 per passenger - compared to $25 or more for AA at JFK and MIA

Concourse E (ATL Int'l) is deffiently not any grand palace but it works fine. The AA facilities you speak of are unnessassay Taj Mahal Crandal era ego trips. New facilities may be needed but why does eveyone insist on these overpriced palaces?

Quoting JFKLGANYC (Reply 3): T3 is awesome and T2 is ugly.

I'm suspicious of anyone calling T3 "awesome".

Quoting JFKLGANYC (Reply 3): Look at AA and JFK. $1.1 billion later and they will have a half-finished terminal. It was supposed to be $1.1 billion for 59 gates. They chopped 2 concourses off after 9/11 and now it will be 37 gates. But the price tag is still $1.1 billion.

Was $1.1 billion the actual cost back when they proposed it, or just the estimate? I bet that if they had gone along with the original terminal, it would have been much more than $1.1 billion. Plus, who knows what fees, changes in labor (or additional security), or inflation happened between the initial cost and the final cost.

Quoting JFKLGANYC (Reply 3): It's great for Kennedy Airport, and great for the city too. But what did it do for AA.

It did a lot for AA. Take a look over at FlyerTalk to see the people praising the new AA terminal. These people are some of AA's's most important customers. The old T8 and T9 was cowded and not pleasant to fly out of. Many customers opted to switch airlines (notably to UA in the nice T7). Customers flying other airlines=less revenue for AA.

The new terminal makes connections easier and is very pleasant to go through--an important factor for AA operating Flagship JFK-LAX/SFO/LHR/NRT/FRA flights.

A new terminal for AA was bound to happen, and the earlier they did it, the better off they would be.

Quoting JFKLGANYC (Reply 3): Then you go to B6. They need their new terminal like a hole in the head. Losing money hand overJFKLGANYC,reply downgrading them every quarter, expenses skyrocketing. They are a low cost carrier. All they needed was more space for their quick-growing operation. All they had to do was look south to a completely vacant Termianl 5. A moving walkway connecting the two pods on T5 with the gate area on T6 was needed along with cosmetTermianldes on T5 that B6 had already done on T6 to make it one of the nicer buildings at the airport. Instead they have a new terminal coming online that will actually have less gate space than T5 and T6 did. Again, so customers can say 'what a nice airport.'

The old TWA terminal was also in bad shape and did not offer enough gates. Besides that, it was not meant to handle the number of passengers B6 wanted to send through it.

Back to Delta, T2 and T3 cannot adequately handle the passengers Delta is putting through it now. With Delta's major international expansion out of JFK, they would have a much better image with JFK passengers if they had a better (newer, streamlined) terminal.

-Will

Quoting SafetyDude (Reply 10): they would have a much better image with JFK passengers if they had a better (newer, streamlined) terminal.

Terminals from time to time need to be replaced or rehabbed. However, people do not leave one airline for another because of how nice the terminal is. People choose an airline based on convenience, schedule, and value. If a terminal is so inconvenient then yes, that might change someones mind. But, the grandiure of a terminal is more a result of airline management and civic vanity. By reading your statement NW and their DTW crystal palace should be on top of the world, and CO with that old barn of a facility at IAH should be going out of business.

DL, AA and B6 have all committed to the JFK market. With all that competition UA committed to IAD and avoided no win for anyone bloodbath. They were not chased out of town because of their terminal.

The IAB was torn down about five years ago. It was replaced by the IAT managed by Schiphol USA.

For those interested the IAB stands fro "International Arrivals Building".
Jan Jansen former GM used to ask "So where do the departures leave from?"

Quoting BillReid (Reply 12): The IAB was torn down about five years ago. It was replaced by the IAT

My bad, you are very correct.   

The DL plan was flawed from the begining because it called for tearing down T-3 but keeping T-2, it should have been the other way around.

Here's how the plan broke down:

Currently T-4 has 16 gates (8 on the West Concourse, 10 on the East concourse).

DL and the Port Authority would expand T-4's East concourse by 10 gates, that would give it 16 gates, all the airlines who currently use T-4's West concourse would move to the newly expanded East concourse.

DL would then take over the 10 gate West Concourse at T-4 and and expand it by an additional 16 gates for a total of 26 International Gates.

So at T-4 all International airlines in the East concourse (expanded from 6 to 16 gates), DL would occupy the West Concourse which would be expanded from 10 to 26 gates.

Terminal 3 would be torn down to make way for hardstand parking areas, T-2 would be expanded from 12-20 gates and be a Regional Jet operation.

Here's some press releases from the Time, I have somewhere the NY Times article which included the renderings of the project.

http://www.jfk-airport.org/newsdelta1.htm

http://www.siteselection.com/ssinsider/bbdeal/bd001023.htm

I agree with STT, it was a stupid plan and we should be thankful it didn't happen.

The way to go forward there would be to use the Worldport portion of T3 and expand from there. That is one of two crown jewels at JFK, the other being TWA on the other end of T4.

Any plan that calls for that ugly T2 to remain is ludicrous. Besides, can anyone imagine how long the walk from T2 to T4 would have been? And remember AirTrain is outside of security.


PJ

I think there needs to be some more rationalization with regards to JFK's Terminals, they are not operating as efficiently as possible.

If I were running the Port Authority this is how I would change the current JFK Terminal situation.

First finish the AA Terminal, up to 55 (+/ -) gates.

Move British Airways, Qantas, UAL, US Airways and whoever else is in T-7 to the fully completed AA Terminal. (if the Port Authority pays to complete the project, they are the ones who should have a say in the tennants).

Move the T-1 airlines to T-7, DL takes over T-1 and connects it with a new mid field concourse (built where T-2 is located today) via an underground walkway. DL ticketing/check-in/baggage halls would be in T-1 with 11 gates, the mid-field concourse would have another 16 (or more) gates.

As for T-3, I would tear down the '70s expansion and keep the original Oval. I would then incorporate the Pan Am Oval structure into a new JFK Airport Hotel, something along the lines of a Marriott or Westin. As someone who's stayed at the JFK Ramada, JFK by far has the worst hotel selections of any major airport in the US.

Building a brand new hotel within the Terminal complex of JFK is needed as the other (lousy) hotels are too far, the Hotel could use the Pan Am World Port as a lobby, restaraunt etc (kind of like LAX's famous structure). The new hotel would also have it's own Airtrain Station (formerly T-2/T-3 Airtrain station), a parking garage, and an elevated walkway could easily be built between the Hotel and T-4 and T-1.

I've always been curious how the financing for new terminals works. Does anyone know offhand how much AA or B6 are paying out of their own pockets for their new terminals? I imagine it must be on fairly good terms for them to agree to invest so much money in real estate....Plus I'm sure the Port Authority provides generous subsidies. In other words, I'm sure AA isn't paying $1.1 billion for their new $1.1 billion dollar terminal.

As the airline industry continues to lose money (can you imagine oil prices if we go to war with Iran?), I think the Port Authority will take more of an active role in facility management and perhaps come up with some master plan for JFK that involves T2/3 replacement....

Quoting JFKLGANYC (Reply 3): Arguably, DL is in a much better position than AA internationally at JFK. They've got Europe covered and a full-fledged hub; something AA at JFK will never have.

Sure, Delta flies to more European cities than AA but I would argue that AA has the better hub at JFK. AA has multiple daily flights to most major business cities in the United States--LAX,SFO,BOS,DCA,MIA,YYZ and many more cities. Delta might have multiple 757s to LAX and SFO now but that is likely not sustainable in the long run and token RJ flights to most other cities that make up its JFK hub.

As for International operations, AA has an impressive international operation with a plethora of South/Central America flights, NRT service, multiple daily LHR service plus CDG,BRU,FCO, and ZRH. Like I said, Delta flies to more European cities (more than double the number of AA) but both hub operations have their strengths and weaknesses.

Quoting JFKLGANYC (Reply 3): Then you go to B6. They need their new terminal like a hole in the head. Losing money hand over fist, analysts downgrading them every quarter, expenses skyrocketing. They are a low cost carrier. All they needed was more space for their quick-growing operation. All they had to do was look south to a completely vacant Termianl 5.

I think they are better off in a brand new terminal specifically designed for jetBlue's operation...However, the fact that they are now thinking about keeping T6 open once their new terminal opens for gate space reasons says a lot about their poor planning....

Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 7): I don't think I've heard awesome used to describe any of DL's NYC facilities for a very long time.

The Marine Air Terminal at LGA is awesome!

As for the topic of this thread, I still think their 2000 plan can be brought back to life down the road and revised in a variety of ways (many of which have been discussed on A.net before). For example, they can expand the current T4 concourse as per the 2000 plan, they could expand Terminal 1, they could even build a new concourse on the East side of the Worldport and attach it via walkway to T4 while they knock down T2/3 and build a new terminal...They will have plenty of options once the time comes to replace their terminals at JFK.

Quoting RJpieces (Reply 17): AA has multiple daily flights to most major business cities in the United States--LAX,SFO,BOS,DCA,MIA,YYZ

Toronto is in the United States? I know American kids lack geography skills. So I ask where did you learn this? I hate to think what my kids arn't being taught in school.

What did we trade Canada for Toronto?

Quoting STT757 (Reply 16): First finish the AA Terminal, up to 55 (+/ -) gates. Move British Airways, Qantas, UAL, US Airways and whoever else is in T-7 to the fully completed AA Terminal. (if the Port Authority pays to complete the project, they are the ones who should have a say in the tennants). Move the T-1 airlines to T-7, DL takes over T-1 and connects it with a new mid field concourse (built where T-2 is located today) via an underground walkway. DL ticketing/check-in/baggage halls would be in T-1 with 11 gates, the mid-field concourse would have another 16 (or more) gates.

We've discussed this before and I still very much like this idea. But I don't think T7 could physically (with regard to check-in space, gate sizes, and even gate areas) handle all of the airlines currently at T1 (which will soon have 2 A-380 ready gates IIRC). Instead, I (the PA) would reach an agreement with LH,AF,KE, and JL to sell their shares of T1 to Delta. T1 airlines could move to an expanded T4 (some could move to T7 and T9) which will also allow for future growth from T4. When such a project is complete, Delta would be operating out of T1 with a midfield concourse (similar to AA's new T9) that would have as many if not more gates than they have at T2/3 now. This would leave JFK with 5 main terminals....

Quoting STT757 (Reply 16): Building a brand new hotel within the Terminal complex of JFK is needed as the other (lousy) hotels are too far, the Hotel could use the Pan Am World Port as a lobby, restaraunt etc (kind of like LAX's famous structure). The new hotel would also have it's own Airtrain Station (formerly T-2/T-3 Airtrain station), a parking garage, and an elevated walkway could easily be built between the Hotel and T-4 and T-1.

Plus that would allow many hardstands to be built where most of T3's gates are today...Which would allow for T4 expansion to handle the airlines that left T1 and future growth.

All I would add to your plan is something where T6 currently is...I guess a lot depends on how much room jetBlue does wind up using once their new terminal is complete.

I love these threads!!!  

Quoting SafetyDude (Reply 10): I'm suspicious of anyone calling T3 "awesome".

Agreed, SafetyDude. The Worldport, as I mention in my book, was a compelling building in its time -- that is, about 40 years ago when the Beatles and Khrushchev were stopping by -- but today it is filthy and vastly ill-suited for the number of flights DL puts through there. Its customs/immigration facilities are the worst in North America.

PS

www.askthepilot.com

Quoting Aviateur (Reply 20): The Worldport, as I mention in my book, was a compelling building in its time -- that is, about 40 years ago when the Beatles and Khrushchev were stopping by -- but today it is filthy and vastly ill-suited for the number of flights DL puts through there.

Been to T8 lately? As someone who has travelled from both I can assure you that T8 is far more filthy and ill-suited for flights today than T3....

Quoting MarkATL (Reply 11): owever, people do not leave one airline for another because of how nice the terminal is.

Quoting MarkATL (Reply 11): If a terminal is so inconvenient then yes, that might change someones mind.

You've just contradicted yourself.

And for the record, I happen to know people who switched business a few years ago from AA to UA because of AA's terminal. Many have switched back since the opening of the new AA terminal.

Quoting MarkATL (Reply 11): By reading your statement NW and their DTW crystal palace should be on top of the world, and CO with that old barn of a facility at IAH should be going out of business.

Comparing DTW and IAH to the old T8 and T9 is purely ridiculous. IAH is miles ahead of T8 and T9. The comparisons are not even close.

Quoting STT757 (Reply 16): Move British Airways, Qantas, UAL, US Airways and whoever else is in T-7 to the fully completed AA Terminal.

IIRC, BA and UA have made a major investment in T7 and are unlikely to move. But as T7 has gotten busier recently, there have been talks of IB or CX moving out--likely over to AA. But following UA's decision to drop JFK-LHR/NRT, they may sell/transfer a gate to the BA conglomerate. I highly doubt we will see the day UA moves in with AA at JFK.

Quoting STT757 (Reply 16): (if the Port Authority pays to complete the project, they are the ones who should have a say in the tennants).

I think the only authority PANYNJ has on who goes where is with T4. IIRC, as part of JFK IAT deal with PANYNJ, T4 has to house any lone airlines that do not have anywhere else at JFK to go (such as the case with recent arrivals Air Tahiti Nui, LTU, Eurofly, et al).

Speaking of T4, who else thinks it's time to expand the shorter pier? Earlier this spring, some A.netter said JFK IAT was going to open the hard stands up for bringing pax to/from the terminal. Did that ever end up happening?

-Will

Quoting SafetyDude (Reply 22): You've just contradicted yourself.

I listed it as the bottom of multiple reasons, and then only if it caused inconvenience, not aesthetics.

Quoting SafetyDude (Reply 22): And for the record, I happen to know people who switched business a few years ago from AA to UA because of AA's terminal. Many have switched back since the opening of the new AA terminal.

Your profile says 16-20 years old, so "few years ago" you would have been what 14 or 15? Now as a 14 or 15 year old you knew business travelers (the ones who pay the airlines bills) who switched from one airline to another just because of the terminal? I doubt it. I'm sure you'll refute this citing all your highly traveled CEO "friends".

Quoting SafetyDude (Reply 22): Comparing DTW and IAH to the old T8 and T9 is purely ridiculous. IAH is miles ahead of T8 and T9. The comparisons are not even close.

No, according to you the terminal is so important. So why would anyone fly CO via IAH when you could bask in the awe of DTW on NW? I as a person who does fly often must tell you the terminal is the least of my concens when flying. When I go to SJC do you think I will only fly AA or WN to avoid that third world dump they call Terminal One? I don't think so. Maybe a kid would make such a decision as flying is more of an "adventure" to them.

I'm going to stop now, I'm arguing with a kid which is a waste of time.

Quoting SafetyDude (Reply 22): And for the record, I happen to know people who switched business a few years ago from AA to UA because of AA's terminal. Many have switched back since the opening of the new AA terminal.

Incidental. At the end of the day, the terminals matter very little compared to corporate contracts, premium products, frequent flier miles, etc. Besides, premium travellers would likely have been relaxing in a lounge in the old T9 waiting for their flight to LAX, not wondering the disgusting building!

I'm sure there was the occasional passenger who had a horror story in T9 and never flew American again but that doesn't mean their profits on the premium LAX/SFO routes changed.

Quoting SafetyDude (Reply 22): IIRC, BA and UA have made a major investment in T7 and are unlikely to move.

If the PA were doing some kind of master planning, there could easily be incentives for airlines to move (out of T1, T7, or elsewhere as necessary). Each airline in T7 could easily be put in another terminal except BA which would require several dedicated gates with close hardstands, and premium lounges.

Quoting SafetyDude (Reply 22): But following UA's decision to drop JFK-LHR/NRT, they may sell/transfer a gate to the BA conglomerate.

The United and British Airways sides of T7 are on separate systems. That is why the BA and UA departure and arrival screens in T7 are so radically different...Supposedly they are working on making one system for the entire terminal but I'm not sure when that project will be complete.

Quoting SafetyDude (Reply 22): I highly doubt we will see the day UA moves in with AA at JFK.

Why not? If AA built T9 to its originally intended capacity (~55 gates) they would have plenty of gates to lease out to whomever was willing to pay. United and American sharing a terminal at JFK would not affect the bottom line on the LAX/SFO runs for either airline....

Quoting STT757 (Reply 16): Move the T-1 airlines to T-7, DL takes over T-1 and connects it with a new mid field concourse (built where T-2 is located today) via an underground walkway. DL ticketing/check-in/baggage halls would be in T-1 with 11 gates, the mid-field concourse would have another 16 (or more) gates.

Terminal 7 only has like 8 or 10 gates with FIS capabilities. All of Terminal 1 airlines requre customs. T1 is at capacity at its own facility so that plan would not work.

Quoting FlyDeltaJets (Reply 25): Terminal 7 only has like 8 or 10 gates with FIS capabilities. All of Terminal 1 airlines requre customs. T1 is at capacity at its own facility so that plan would not work.

In this hypothetical plan, three or so of the airlines that use T1 during the international rush can then use T4 or T9 instead of T7.......

Quoting FlyDeltaJets (Reply 25): Terminal 7 only has like 8 or 10 gates with FIS capabilities. All of Terminal 1 airlines requre customs. T1 is at capacity at its own facility so that plan would not work.

T-7 and T-1 have the same number of gates, LH, AF, AZ etc could easily fit into T-7, if there's over flow they can use T-4.

Quoting RJpieces (Reply 24): Why not? If AA built T9 to its originally intended capacity (~55 gates) they would have plenty of gates to lease out to whomever was willing to pay. United and American sharing a terminal at JFK would not affect the bottom line on the LAX/SFO runs for either airline....

So true, also doesn't AA sublease it's "pier" at SFO from UA? NW leases from DL at LGA, DL leases from AA at ORD, the list goes on and on.

Quoting RJpieces (Reply 17): Delta might have multiple 757s to LAX and SFO now but that is likely not sustainable in the long run and token RJ flights to most other cities that make up its JFK hub.

Help me understand how multiple flights to LAX and SFO is not sustainable? DL has been operating these flights since the 90's, pre-during-post that build-up and since.

so please back up your point.

Alright guys I worked hard on this so don't be to harsh if you don't like it. It's my idea of what Delta should be doing at JFK.



Basicall they should tear down Terminal 2 and the gates at Terminal 3. They should keep the oval of Terminal 3 and use that as the check in area/arrival hall (of course it should be shaped up some). Were Terminal 2 once stud there should be a new vertical concourse and conected to a new horizontal concourse were the Terminal 3 departure gates used to be.

I also think they should purchase one of the older hangars towards the end of 13R and shape it up to use as a 767/777 tech base.

Quoting RJpieces (Reply 24): Why not? If AA built T9 to its originally intended capacity (~55 gates) they would have plenty of gates to lease out to whomever was willing to pay. United and American sharing a terminal at JFK would not affect the bottom line on the LAX/SFO runs for either airline....

The relationship between the two airlines would never allow such a thing to happen.

Quoting MarkATL (Reply 28): DL leases from AA at ORD

Other way 'round. DL built Concourse L; after opening the CVG hub and pulling down ORD flights they started leasing their spare gates to AA.

Quoting MarkATL (Reply 23): IIRC, BA and UA have made a major investment in T7 and are unlikely to move. But as T7 has gotten busier recently, there have been talks of IB or CX moving out--likely over to AA. But following UA's decision to drop JFK-LHR/NRT, they may sell/transfer a gate to the BA conglomerate. I highly doubt we will see the day UA moves in with AA at JFK.

UA just pays rent. Although they were consulted as BA's largest tenant it was BA's dime that paid for the renovations. As for the gates, there is already an agreement between BA and UA over gate usage. UA (or AC...a UA-handled carrier) will often park on a BA gate, and BA often parks an aircraft at a UA gate.

Quoting RJPieces (Reply 25): The United and British Airways sides of T7 are on separate systems. That is why the BA and UA departure and arrival screens in T7 are so radically different...Supposedly they are working on making one system for the entire terminal but I'm not sure when that project will be complete.

The FIDS (arrivals and departures screens) are on separate systems because UA's is automatically updated from HDQ whereas BA's is updated locally. ALthough this may not change, the screens that the traveller see are slated to be swapped out and standardized with plasma screens. Give it a year.

C.

Quoting Alitalia744 (Reply 29): Help me understand how multiple flights to LAX and SFO is not sustainable? DL has been operating these flights since the 90's, pre-during-post that build-up and since.

Well my thinking was that Delta went from 763s with BusinessElite, then had a token presence on these routes, then decided that Song could compete with jetBlue/AA/UA/HP/CO and started something like 8X daily SFO-JFK flights at one point, then decided that Song wasn't actually profitable after three years, and now is back to three 757s and one 738 to SFO and six 757s and one 763 turn to LAX. My novice guess would be that Delta isn't profitable on these routes and much like their failed businsss strategy in other markets, they are doing it simply to hold-on to market share and to allow passengers from international flights to connect. Not sustainable in the longrun with that much metal on the routes......

[Edited 2006-08-26 15:37:07]

Quoting RJpieces (Reply 34): Well my thinking was that Delta went from 763s with BusinessElite, then had a token presence on these routes, then decided that Song could compete with jetBlue/AA/UA/HP/CO and started something like 8X daily SFO-JFK flights at one point, then decided that Song wasn't actually profitable after three years, and now is back to three 757s and one 738 to SFO and six 757s and one 763 turn to LAX. My novice guess would be that Delta isn't profitable on these routes and much like their failed businsss strategy in other markets, they are doing it simply to hold-on to market share and to allow passengers from international flights to connect. Not sustainable in the longrun with that much metal on the routes......

Song was a failure/test-bed/test/insert whatever you want here.

DL makes $ (while not boatloads, they do make $) on their JFK-LAX/SFO runs. The 738s are on the routes for the S/OND schedule as a result of the pull-down of 757s and pre-sked winter pull-down.

While your novice guess tried hard, and we know your disdain for Delta, it's actually incorrect.

I would look for continued presence by DL on both JFK-LAX and JFK-SFO.

Quoting Alitalia744 (Reply 35): Song was a failure/test-bed/test/insert whatever you want here.

Complete failure and waste of precious money is more like it.

Quoting Alitalia744 (Reply 35): DL makes $ (while not boatloads, they do make $) on their JFK-LAX/SFO runs.

Source please.

Quoting Alitalia744 (Reply 35): While your novice guess tried hard, and we know your disdain for Delta, it's actually incorrect.

Disdain for Delta haha? Please show me my documented "disdain for Delta"!

Quoting Alitalia744 (Reply 35): I would look for continued presence by DL on both JFK-LAX and JFK-SFO.

I'm sure they will remain on them as well, just like they will remain on JFK-FLL for years to come. But they will never, ever be a major player in the market like American or United is. Nothing more than a small presence to fly some discount passengers around and connecting flights for European passengers. Does that seem like an equation for profitability to you?

"Nothing more than a small presence to fly some discount passengers around and connecting flights for European passengers. Does that seem like an equation for profitability to you?"

I hardly think that 5 flights a day is a small/token presence on a route. DL is a major player on JFK-West Coast routes.

PJ

Quoting JFKLGANYC (Reply 37): I hardly think that 5 flights a day is a small/token presence on a route. DL is a major player on JFK-West Coast routes.

Six 757s with domestic first class/Songesque configuration compared to 10 three-class 767-200s for American on JFK-LAX (762s being dedicated to JFK-LAX/SFO). Sorry, Delta definitely has a presence there but they are far from being the type of major player that AA and UA are on these routes.

Heck, even jetBlue has more of a presence than Delta when you count their three LA area airports combined.

Quoting RJpieces (Reply 38): Six 757s with domestic first class/Songesque configuration compared to 10 three-class 767-200s for American on JFK-LAX (762s being dedicated to JFK-LAX/SFO). Sorry, Delta definitely has a presence there but they are far from being the type of major player that AA and UA are on these routes.

And Continental has 7, inclusive of 738s and 753s configured for domestic first class/coach configuration - are you saying they are not a major player in the NYC-LAX market as well?

AA, CO, DL, UA, B6 are all major players on the NYC-LA market (be it from EWR or LGB).

By your logic, AA is not a major European player given most of their EU bound flights go to London alone, right?

Quoting RJpieces (Reply 36): Quoting Alitalia744 (Reply 35): DL makes $ (while not boatloads, they do make $) on their JFK-LAX/SFO runs. Source please.

I am not at liberty to post route financials. Believe what you will.

Quoting RJpieces (Reply 36): Disdain for Delta haha? Please show me my documented "disdain for Delta"!

Really now?

[Edited 2006-08-27 03:37:32]

Quoting Alitalia744 (Reply 39): And Continental has 7, inclusive of 738s and 753s configured for domestic first class/coach configuration - are you saying they are not a major player in the NYC-LAX market as well?

I maintain that AA and UA are the most serious players on NYC-LAX/SFO.

Quoting Alitalia744 (Reply 39): By your logic, AA is not a major European player given most of their EU bound flights go to London alone, right?

I don't see any parallel reasoning in your statement....

Quoting Alitalia744 (Reply 39): I am not at liberty to post route financials. Believe what you will.

Yawn. Gotta love the "So and so is profitable. Trust me, I'm in the know but I can't back my statement up. But trust me" line.

Quoting Alitalia744 (Reply 39): Really now?

Again, please post about my known "disdain for Delta." I truly am curious as I don't think I've ever been unfairly critical of Delta, anymore than I am for jetBlue or any other NYC airline operation.

Quoting RJpieces (Reply 40): I maintain that AA and UA are the most serious players on NYC-LAX/SFO.

Yes, most serious, but one cannot say Delta is not serious because they aren't flying 767-200s or PS config'd 757s.

Quoting RJpieces (Reply 40): I don't see any parallel reasoning in your statement....

You should by use of your own logic.

Quoting RJpieces (Reply 40): Yawn. Gotta love the "So and so is profitable. Trust me, I'm in the know but I can't back my statement up. But trust me" line.

I did not say "trust me" nor do I expect you or anyone to trust me. There are others on the board who will say the same thing in terms of whether the route is profitable or not. If financial sources are proof, then you'll have to go without them for a while, unless you have access to Delta's route profitability. Until then, you'll either have to continue to live in your reality or put faith into other's responses.

Quoting RJpieces (Reply 40): Again, please post about my known "disdain for Delta." I truly am curious as I don't think I've ever been unfairly critical of Delta, anymore than I am for jetBlue or any other NYC airline operation.

Ok. You have no issues with Delta, right?

Quoting RJpieces (Reply 40): maintain that AA and UA are the most serious players on NYC-LAX/SFO

UAL's PS 757s have the same capacity as CO's 737-500s, so they need to generate alot of revenue (which they might) off those Business and First class seats to off set the expense of removing 70-80 seats from the aircraft.

Quoting JFKLGANYC (Reply 3): Then you go to B6. They need their new terminal like a hole in the head. Losing money hand over fist, analysts downgrading them every quarter, expenses skyrocketing. They are a low cost carrier. All they needed was more space for their quick-growing operation. All they had to do was look south to a completely vacant Termianl 5. A moving walkway connecting the two pods on T5 with the gate area on T6 was needed along with cosmetic upgrades on T5 that B6 had already done on T6 to make it one of the nicer buildings at the airport. Instead they have a new terminal coming online that will actually have less gate space than T5 and T6 did. Again, so customers can say 'what a nice airport.'

They need a new terminal don't kid yourself. They were not losing money for that long. They had their profit streak up until this year and by Summer of this year they have profits again. How ever many PAX T6 should be able to handle B6 surpasses that number. I just flew JFK-LGB-JFK and JFK at 5 am surpasses the max limit I am sure. The curbside check in line goes down to the roadway split, the online bag drop fills the whole east side of the check in hall and the check in lines fill the west side of the building to the max. Then security isn't bad but the line builds fast and then once through seating is a big issue. They have hundreds of flights a day and they are making money again so don't kid yourself, they certainly need the new terminal. They will have 26 permanent gate with an easy option to expand it and it won't be so crowded! But don't get me started on how bad I hope LGB gets the new terminal building or at least the Depature "trailers".

B6jfk  

Quoting MarkATL (Reply 9): Concourse E (ATL Int'l) is deffiently not any grand palace but it works fine.

And we now that "works" and being cost efficient are probably the two things that need to happen. Works w/o cost efficient is a recipe for disaster.

Quoting RJpieces (Reply 17): Sure, Delta flies to more European cities than AA but I would argue that AA has the better hub at JFK. AA has multiple daily flights to most major business cities in the United States--LAX,SFO,BOS,DCA,MIA,YYZ and many more cities. Delta might have multiple 757s to LAX and SFO now but that is likely not sustainable in the long run and token RJ flights to most other cities that make up its JFK hub.

This has already been torn up by others but I'll just ask why DL is not a serious player if they are using the same type and configuration of aircraft for their transcon services as CO does from EWR? No one questions that CO is a serious player in the transcon market even though CO uses largely widebodies in a traditional domestic 2 class config.

And those token RJs are in many cases the only service between JFK and those airports.

Quoting RJpieces (Reply 17): The Marine Air Terminal at LGA is awesome!

True but it handles a fraction of the airport and DL's total passengers.

Quoting AlitaliaMD11 (Reply 30): Alright guys I worked hard on this so don't be to harsh if you don't like it. It's my idea of what Delta should be doing at JFK.

pricetag? also looks like you created some difficult spots to get in and out of on the back side (relative to the runways) of the concourse.

My guess is that ultimately T2 will be first to go but there still is alot of space behind T4 and adjacent to T3 that could be used for another concourse.

Quoting RJpieces (Reply 38): Six 757s with domestic first class/Songesque configuration compared to 10 three-class 767-200s for American on JFK-LAX (762s being dedicated to JFK-LAX/SFO). Sorry, Delta definitely has a presence there but they are far from being the type of major player that AA and UA are on these routes.

Yes, but those six 757s carry 30 more passengers per flight than AA's 767s. When Song was flying, DL had more Y seats than AA or UA on the SFO/LAX-JFK routes.

DL is a major presence on the route AND offer more seats than UA on the LAX-JFK route.

Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 44): And we now that "works" and being cost efficient are probably the two things that need to happen. Works w/o cost efficient is a recipe for disaster.

I'm sure it's very cost effective. What's your point? Mine was that you can have an efficent nice terminal WITHOUT spending billions on vanity shrine like terminals.

I totally agree and don't think we are in conflict. It is far too tempting to turn a terminal project into a Taj Mahal while forgetting that ultimately the airline that will use it has to pay for it. Airports aren't going to build something more expensive than what the airlines are going to pay to lease the facilities. Ticket prices are so competitive that an airline can't assume they will pass on the cost of the termnal to their passengers; after all, DL, UA, and AA all serve JFK-LAX but AA clearly has much higher terminal costs while all three match each others fares.

Regardless of what happens at JFK with DL's terminals, you can GUARANTEE that DL will not build something that inflates its terminal costs above those of other carriers in the NYC area.

Quoting JetBlueAtJFK (Reply 43): They will have 26 permanent gate with an easy option to expand it and it won't be so crowded!

Will it be easy? I haven't heard anything about expansion plans for more than 26 gates in their new terminal other than keeping T6 open...That seems like an absolute waste since they are building a brand-new terminal. There is room to build a slightly larger terminal with more gates...And if they ever decide they don't need 30+ gates for example, they could lease a few out....

Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 44): No one questions that CO is a serious player in the transcon market even though CO uses largely widebodies in a traditional domestic 2 class config.

CO has a MUCH larger international hub (and domestic hub) at EWR than Delta could ever dream of at JFK...

Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 44): And those token RJs are in many cases the only service between JFK and those airports.

Point? You make it sound as if a Delta RJ flying ORD-JFK is the only lifeline between the two cities while ignoring the hourly flights on several airlines to both LGA and EWR.

Quoting ElmoTheHobo (Reply 45): DL is a major presence on the route AND offer more seats than UA on the LAX-JFK route

More coach seats and no premium product. If Delta wants to become profitable again by competing with low cost carriers on transcon and Florida routes then power to them...And also farewell. United might offer less seats than Delta but you can be sure United makes more revenue than Delta on those routes...

T7 is owned by British Airways with land leased from the PA. T! is the same arrangement by AF, Korean , JAL, and Lufthansa. Each terminal rents to sub-tenants, they get to determine who rents and who doesn't. UA rents from BA because 20 years ago, UA was BA's first alliance partner before they bought Pan Am's LHR routes: then BA told UA to GO TO HELL. They couldn't kick them out of T7 though.