Port's JFK, EWR, and LGA Plan

[T-Bird76]

Here's an interesting presentation of the redevelopment of the NYC's area airports.

http://www.asicma.com/visor.aspx?Id=1963&ed=11

[Winglets747]

Wow, there's some HUGE info in that (unless I've missed earlier mentions). Good find, Tommy.

Some highlights:

~LGA
-creation of "central processing pavilion" (I presume security, check-in, and checked luggage) linked to terminals (not stated if it's just for the central terminal building or US and DL/NW as well)
-the LGA graphic indicates a new apron with 5+ gates will be added to the other side of the pre-existing terminal (i.e. where check-in currently is)

~JFK T1-T3
-T2 and T3 "Integrated With Full T4 Development" (not elaborated)
-these changes will allow T1 to have additional A380 capabilities (not sure how that could happen without changing physical terminal and taxiway location)

~JFK Runway 13R rehabilitation
-starts spring 2009
-widening to 200 feet
-concrete overlay
-new taxiways (including a hold area)
-increased threshold on the 31L side

~EWR
-more terminal A gates (not stated how many)
-new hotel and parking development

~SWF (not too enlightening)
-"Need to encourage air service development and support cargo industry"

So we're likely going to see a streamlined LGA operation with a few more gates (if the graphic is correct). It looks like the Port is trying to boost EWR and get interest in SWF. The much-complained DL terminals at JFK could be heading for a face lift or something that makes them more accessible, while the 13R runway rehabilitation will make for interesting operations (as well as spotting--there could be no HoBe shots, and the 4/22 runways could be the main operational runways during the work).

[cancidas]

~LGA
-creation of "central processing pavilion" (I presume security, check-in, and checked luggage) linked to terminals (not stated if it's just for the central terminal building or US and DL/NW as well)

i'm guessing that the cental check in will only be at the CTB, there's really no way to attach all that to the US and DL terminals.

-the LGA graphic indicates a new apron with 5+ gates will be added to the other side of the pre-existing terminal (i.e. where check-in currently is)

[/quote]
i'm at work, so i haven't seen this graphic yet but i don't really understand where they're going to install a new apron/ concourse/ gates. there is no real eastate to add any of this right now. you can't tear down the UAL/DAL hangars, there is PA equipment attached to it that just finished being installed a year or so ago. can't go into the AAL hangars either, the hangar right next to the D gates is where thier bagroom is... any way you could post the pic? i'm probably going to be here for a while yet...

[moose135]

i'm at work, so i haven't seen this graphic yet but i don't really understand where they're going to install a new apron/ concourse/ gates.

Here's the graphic in the PDF. I'm not familiar enough with LGA to know what's what on the air side, but maybe you can figure it all out.

[Matt Molnar]

i'm at work, so i haven't seen this graphic yet but i don't really understand where they're going to install a new apron/ concourse/ gates. there is no real eastate to add any of this right now.

They will be tearing down the old control tower...maybe there?

[cancidas]

i'm at work, so i haven't seen this graphic yet but i don't really understand where they're going to install a new apron/ concourse/ gates.

Here's the graphic in the PDF. I'm not familiar enough with LGA to know what's what on the air side, but maybe you can figure it all out.

from that it looks like they want to tear down all the hangars at LGA and use that all as ramp space. i highly doubt that'll happen, there just isn't the room to construct what's in that picture.

[DHG750R]

Those hangars contain just about everything except aircraft. Like Matt said, bag sorting facilities. Cargo warehouses, vehicle maintenance facilities. If I remember right, the hangars aren’t used often for the purpose of aircraft parking/maintenance. Also, the 737NG's and A320 series can’t completely fit inside without some unusual maneuvering. (Tails are too tall)

It looks as if the entire CTB will be moved further back from the taxiway (closer to the Grand Central) which appear to eliminate the various roads and parking garage on the street side.... interesting. Notice the parking garage in front of the US terminal?

[AA 777]

The new LGA design looks really nice, but I cant see the logisitcs of this one. For what they want to do, it would require tearing everything down and starting from nothing. Also, the Hangars at LGA get a lot of use. As everyone said they house a lot more than aircraft. For AA at least, there are numerous offices in all three hangars. In the first hangar closest to the terminal is the bag room as well as a parts shop and an auto shop. The two furthest from the terminal actually see a lot of airplanes. Everynight there is probably 2-3 super 80's in each as well as a 757 or a 737 every now and then. Im sure the terminal would be beautiful, but if they ever wanted to go through with it, the easiest way would to do that would be just shutting the airport down...and we know thats not happening!

[RDU-JFK]

Anyone have any thoughts on JFK's T1, 2, and 3 proposal? If they expand T1 and T2 is gone, T3 looks a bit skimpy in terms of gates. Where would the RJs go?

[cancidas]

If I remember right, the hangars aren’t used often for the purpose of aircraft parking/maintenance. Also, the 737NG's and A320 series can’t completely fit inside without some unusual maneuvering. (Tails are too tall)

actually they do see a lot of a/c mx work. UAL rarely has a/c down for mx here but when they do the airplanes are inside the hangar. they also do a lot of contract mx work, and even corporate airplanes like 737M have graced the inside of that hangar. the AAL hangar near my terminal is actually the home base for American Eagle (EGF) mx. there are routinely embraers in that hangar as well. they also house all of EGF's winter equipment, as well as Colgan and Chautauqua mx bases. the upper floors do have a lot of open real estate though...

Notice the parking garage in front of the US terminal?

that might actually be an good proposition, and the only way to facilitate the destruction of the current garage and construction of a new terminal. that idea is going to be a multi-year and multi-billion dollar project. my hats off to them if they pull it off...

[emshighway]

This is just a vague concept, nothing has been decided. PANYNJ started with 150 concepts and are down to about four. There are all different type of variations; most include getting rid of Hanger 4 & 5. One has demoing the parking garage and building the terminal there (I think the one pictured is that one). One of the problems is the GCP is then very close to the terminals.

None have connections to US Air or Delta.

[PhilDernerJr]

Some people here are saying that some of this doesn't look like it can be built. I can see it, though. Simply tear down hangars between the CTB and US terminal, and build one concourse there. Once that one is done, shut down one of the old CTB concourses and move everyone to the new one, and repeat the process until the whole thing is done. This isn't the first time a facility (airport of other) has had to be almost completely rebuilt while maintaining constant operations.

My only question is about the rebuilding of gate/ramp space. There's been the complaint that LGA is underutilized because of all the RJ activity, but I wonder what aircraft types they will build the new terminal to accommodate. With the ever-changing and unstable industry, and with that, the unknown future niche for LGA...I wonder what they are basing that aspect of the design on as well.

[Winglets747]

According to the site, the Port has $6.4 billion of investment for 2007-2016.

30% ($1.92 billion) is for terminal projects
21% is for aeronautical projects
23% is for landside projects

By comparison, T4 cost $1.4 billion (http://www.ncppp.org/cases/jfkairport.shtml) and the new jetBlue terminal should be approximately $875 million (http://www.panynj.gov/AboutthePortAutho ... php?id=558).

The slideshow is from November 2007. Has anyone heard anything since then? Has this appeared at all in the media?

Anyone have any thoughts on JFK's T1, 2, and 3 proposal? If they expand T1 and T2 is gone, T3 looks a bit skimpy in terms of gates. Where would the RJs go?

The JFK plans are the least clear, but here's my interpretation.

Out of terminals 1-4, the Port is looking to create two integrated international terminals: T2 with T1, and T3 with T4. I don't know how the T4 conglomerate would work out with regards to JFKIAT's management. JFKIAT could absorb T3 or the Port could operate T3 alongside JFKIAT.

The Port's graphic indicates T3 is definitely there (and with a link to T4). There's a building that could be T2, but it has a full concourse link to what appears to be T1. There appears to be a very small link between T2 and T3.

Either way, it doesn't suggest gate space will be reduced. Regarding RJs, they could use modified jetways, or this could be a hint from the Port that airlines shouldn't bother flying RJs into Kennedy.

Lastly, the port mentions "full T4 development". The A concourse at T4 has the potential to be expanded. Is the Port finally looking at doing this?

[emshighway]

Phil, that's one of the things they are looking to do. Tear down Hanger 4 & 5, build there and make an A concourse, then dismantle the original concourse A and build a new concourse B and so on.

The Port doesn't want to invest anything, they want the airlines to put money in to pay for the builds.

[cancidas]

The Port doesn't want to invest anything, they want the airlines to put money in to pay for the builds.

well if the Port was going to invest in this then i'd see it happenning. since they don't want to then it's definately not going to happen with the airlines as strapped for cash as they are.

i like the idea of rebuilding the CTB, but i don't think it's smart to do so at the sake of hangar space. it might not get used every day but there definately is a need for mx purposes alone. perhaps the port could force airlines to better utalize the real estate that exists, like getting people into the open office space in hangars 4 & 5. i personally would hate to lose those buildings, partly because they're better built than anything that'll be constructed today.