AA's derelict buildings at LGA: why?
Jan 30, 2012, 2:11 pm
#46
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Palm Beach/ New England
Programs: AA EXP 3MM, DL GM, Marriott Platinum
Posts: 4,382
Feb 1, 2012, 2:41 pm
#47
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 210
Originally posted by Upgraded![
QUOTE]You may be correct, and I've heard the same thing about LAX but, you have to remember that the subway station serving JFK was opened in its current form in the mid 50s, before air travel became widespread and way before those traveling by air would take the subway to the airport. Therefore it would require new infrastructure to actually enable the type of direct access you have at DCA, for example. I would imagine that the same is true for LGA as well.[/QUOTE]
Somehow those young cities of London, Stockholm, Helsinki, Paris and Madrid have managed to accomplish that feat. In London they extended the tube to Heathrow 30 years ago when you had a choice of BA or BOAC and then ADDED a real choo-choo train to Paddington which takes 15 minutes. I remember going to the World's Fair in Flushing Meadow in 1964 and marveling at the wonders of modern transport and Idelwild's brand new terminals for TWA and Pan Am were the most cutting edge in the world. We spend $100 billion year on new highways (though somehow not in New York City). Everyone just assumes that visitors will come whatever so no need to spend money on such amenities. But the traffic is often at gridlock and a train would really help alleviate that. It's up to the airlines to upgrade their own terminals - thats what private enterprise is all about. But somebody in a position of power needs to nudge them to do that. I'd still rather deplane in Asia.
QUOTE]You may be correct, and I've heard the same thing about LAX but, you have to remember that the subway station serving JFK was opened in its current form in the mid 50s, before air travel became widespread and way before those traveling by air would take the subway to the airport. Therefore it would require new infrastructure to actually enable the type of direct access you have at DCA, for example. I would imagine that the same is true for LGA as well.[/QUOTE]
Somehow those young cities of London, Stockholm, Helsinki, Paris and Madrid have managed to accomplish that feat. In London they extended the tube to Heathrow 30 years ago when you had a choice of BA or BOAC and then ADDED a real choo-choo train to Paddington which takes 15 minutes. I remember going to the World's Fair in Flushing Meadow in 1964 and marveling at the wonders of modern transport and Idelwild's brand new terminals for TWA and Pan Am were the most cutting edge in the world. We spend $100 billion year on new highways (though somehow not in New York City). Everyone just assumes that visitors will come whatever so no need to spend money on such amenities. But the traffic is often at gridlock and a train would really help alleviate that. It's up to the airlines to upgrade their own terminals - thats what private enterprise is all about. But somebody in a position of power needs to nudge them to do that. I'd still rather deplane in Asia.
Feb 1, 2012, 3:48 pm
#48
Join Date: Sep 2011
Programs: AA SPG Amex
Posts: 4,644
Somehow those young cities of London, Stockholm, Helsinki, Paris and Madrid have managed to accomplish that feat. In London they extended the tube to Heathrow 30 years ago when you had a choice of BA or BOAC and then ADDED a real choo-choo train to Paddington which takes 15 minutes. I remember going to the World's Fair in Flushing Meadow in 1964 and marveling at the wonders of modern transport and Idelwild's brand new terminals for TWA and Pan Am were the most cutting edge in the world. We spend $100 billion year on new highways (though somehow not in New York City). Everyone just assumes that visitors will come whatever so no need to spend money on such amenities. But the traffic is often at gridlock and a train would really help alleviate that. It's up to the airlines to upgrade their own terminals - thats what private enterprise is all about. But somebody in a position of power needs to nudge them to do that. I'd still rather deplane in Asia.
Feb 1, 2012, 3:52 pm
#49
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Palm Beach/ New England
Programs: AA EXP 3MM, DL GM, Marriott Platinum
Posts: 4,382
I don't understand the repeated complaints here and elsewhere about the transport options to/ from airports. JFK has a $2 billion rail link to Jamaica and Howard Beach, the Airtrain. LGA has bus after bus after bus. There are taxis galore. There are hundreds of livery companies as well. Every airport has thousands of employees that somehow get to and from that airport just fine every day.
Why should the basically broke US and state and local governments build even costlier systems for a small minority of cranky travelers (often not taxpayers in the affected locale) who don't like to take the bus?
It's great that other countries have extravagant rail programs. Bravo. The US has an effective automobile infrastructure that pays for itself via the federal gasoline tax. We have more than enough transportation options now.
Why should the basically broke US and state and local governments build even costlier systems for a small minority of cranky travelers (often not taxpayers in the affected locale) who don't like to take the bus?
It's great that other countries have extravagant rail programs. Bravo. The US has an effective automobile infrastructure that pays for itself via the federal gasoline tax. We have more than enough transportation options now.
Feb 2, 2012, 6:41 am
#50
Suspended
Join Date: Sep 2006
Programs: AAdvantage PP
Posts: 13,913
Also I should add that AA has recently remodeled the inside of Concourse D as much as it can do with the space it has. The little food kiosks are great to grab a quick bite if you happen to be flying in Y or have not eaten pre flight. Not to mention the AC has been remodeled and expanded and hopefully AA will go ahead with plans for a smaller C Concourse AC.
I would assume that improvements to pax areas should come before improvements to freight and maintainence facilities. I'd rather see a new AC in C than a bunch of pretty buildings to house cargo, a/c parts and a/c that are undergoing maintainence.
I would assume that improvements to pax areas should come before improvements to freight and maintainence facilities. I'd rather see a new AC in C than a bunch of pretty buildings to house cargo, a/c parts and a/c that are undergoing maintainence.
Feb 2, 2012, 6:47 am
#51
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: RDU
Programs: A few
Posts: 5,499
Also I should add that AA has recently remodeled the inside of Concourse D as much as it can do with the space it has. The little food kiosks are great to grab a quick bite if you happen to be flying in Y or have not eaten pre flight. Not to mention the AC has been remodeled and expanded and hopefully AA will go ahead with plans for a smaller C Concourse AC.
+1
Feb 2, 2012, 7:04 am
#52
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: New York City
Programs: AA,BNV,HIL
Posts: 879
I don't understand the repeated complaints here and elsewhere about the transport options to/ from airports. JFK has a $2 billion rail link to Jamaica and Howard Beach, the Airtrain. LGA has bus after bus after bus. There are taxis galore. There are hundreds of livery companies as well. Every airport has thousands of employees that somehow get to and from that airport just fine every day.
Why should the basically broke US and state and local governments build even costlier systems for a small minority of cranky travelers (often not taxpayers in the affected locale) who don't like to take the bus?
It's great that other countries have extravagant rail programs. Bravo. The US has an effective automobile infrastructure that pays for itself via the federal gasoline tax. We have more than enough transportation options now.
Why should the basically broke US and state and local governments build even costlier systems for a small minority of cranky travelers (often not taxpayers in the affected locale) who don't like to take the bus?
It's great that other countries have extravagant rail programs. Bravo. The US has an effective automobile infrastructure that pays for itself via the federal gasoline tax. We have more than enough transportation options now.
There are so many things to take into account.
-A good number of people can't afford cars or taxis and don't have people to drop them off or pick them up. I'd venture to say that 99% of those who fly here won't have a vehicle at their disposal.
- A good number of people travel with more then can be carried on buses
- At LGA for example, the billion dollar a year tourist industry now tells you to wait for a bus, have a metrocard that can't be bought anywhere near the bus stop or local currency in coins ready, transfer to a subway or two etc....
- Since the airports have a very large group of people going to the same place for the same reason, any improvements have the potential for large savings in time, pollution, crowding, ease of travel
The above opinions are shared by both business and leisure travelers alike.
Feb 2, 2012, 7:15 am
#53
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: NYC
Programs: AA EXP
Posts: 288
I don't understand the repeated complaints here and elsewhere about the transport options to/ from airports. JFK has a $2 billion rail link to Jamaica and Howard Beach, the Airtrain. LGA has bus after bus after bus. There are taxis galore. There are hundreds of livery companies as well. Every airport has thousands of employees that somehow get to and from that airport just fine every day.
Why should the basically broke US and state and local governments build even costlier systems for a small minority of cranky travelers (often not taxpayers in the affected locale) who don't like to take the bus?
It's great that other countries have extravagant rail programs. Bravo. The US has an effective automobile infrastructure that pays for itself via the federal gasoline tax. We have more than enough transportation options now.
Why should the basically broke US and state and local governments build even costlier systems for a small minority of cranky travelers (often not taxpayers in the affected locale) who don't like to take the bus?
It's great that other countries have extravagant rail programs. Bravo. The US has an effective automobile infrastructure that pays for itself via the federal gasoline tax. We have more than enough transportation options now.
Although I agree that the state and federal governments may not be able to afford costlier systems at the moment, the reality is that this is a necessary investment for the city. New York had 50 million tourists last year--that's a lot of people to be stuffing in buses and taxis. There should be an easier way to take a 16 mile trip from JFK to Manhattan.
Yes, there are options from Jamaica for JFK but when you arrive from a trip the last thing you want to do is get on a train to take a train to a subway, especially when the times are not as regular as they should be.
Yes, taxis are also available (not always readily), but they are subject to horrible traffic depending on time and season of travel. Not to mention they aren't cheap--I pay the $50 every time I need to get to and from JFK because I have to, but this adds up quickly if its coming out of your pocket for private travel.
Sure, there are loads of buses to LGA, but schlepping luggage on a bus (which isn't always close) is a nightmare, so taxis are really the only option to get there. Which seems absurd considering the airports proximity to the city.
I agree that the current options do at least provide viable, albeit minimal, transportation to the airport. The issue here is that New York considers itself a business and pleasure capital of the world. Which means that it should have modern and efficient means of traveling from its airports to its playgrounds and work spaces. For most people these airports are the first experience of New York or in many cases of the U.S. in general, our most populous city should be able to provide a better first impression.
Feb 2, 2012, 7:33 am
#54
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: New York
Programs: AA EXP 1.0mm, not sure where I am with hotels these days
Posts: 2,795
I don't understand the repeated complaints here and elsewhere about the transport options to/ from airports. JFK has a $2 billion rail link to Jamaica and Howard Beach, the Airtrain. LGA has bus after bus after bus. There are taxis galore. There are hundreds of livery companies as well. Every airport has thousands of employees that somehow get to and from that airport just fine every day.
Why should the basically broke US and state and local governments build even costlier systems for a small minority of cranky travelers (often not taxpayers in the affected locale) who don't like to take the bus?
It's great that other countries have extravagant rail programs. Bravo. The US has an effective automobile infrastructure that pays for itself via the federal gasoline tax. We have more than enough transportation options now.
Why should the basically broke US and state and local governments build even costlier systems for a small minority of cranky travelers (often not taxpayers in the affected locale) who don't like to take the bus?
It's great that other countries have extravagant rail programs. Bravo. The US has an effective automobile infrastructure that pays for itself via the federal gasoline tax. We have more than enough transportation options now.
The Airtrain to JFK is great. I take the LIRR from my town to Jamaica, get off the train, go up the escalator, use my subway Metrocard to get on the Airtrain, and ten minutes later I'm getting off at T8. As for LGA, it is easy for me to drive from home. However, driving/cabbing/bussing particularly from western Queens, Manhattan, Brooklyn/Staten Island and Jersey is a real hassle. While the logistics and costs would be astronomical in NYC, adding what would be a shorter (than Airtrain) light rail link from the end of the Astoria line subway station to LGA with stops at Central, USAirways (soon Delta) and Delta would be far more convenient. To say nothing of reduced traffic on the Grand Central. If they tore down one of the AA hangers to use as a rail car storage yard or station, then I'm all for tearing them down.
Feb 2, 2012, 3:56 pm
#55
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: New York
Programs: AA EXP 1.0mm, not sure where I am with hotels these days
Posts: 2,795
Planned $3.6 billion replacement of LaGuardia Central Terminal. Deadline for returning RFI was yesterday.
Frankly, I would rather see an additional 2,000 feet tacked on to the end of the runways.
http://www.globest.com/news/12_277/n...998a:&st=email
Frankly, I would rather see an additional 2,000 feet tacked on to the end of the runways.
http://www.globest.com/news/12_277/n...998a:&st=email
Feb 2, 2012, 8:55 pm
#56
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: JFK, DCA, BUR, YVR
Programs: AC, AS, BA, DL, HH (D), MR (T/LTP), UA (*S), UScAAre (PLT/1,87MM), WN
Posts: 5,207
Why?
Historically speaking, AA was chiefly responsible for bringing air traffic directly into NYC. Prior to that, the only airport located near Manhattan was in New Jersey. As a result of AA's commitment to the project, the city got desperately needed federal dollars from the WPA and created thousands of jobs in the midst of the depression to build LaGuardia Airport. Given the influx of new revenue into city coffers, then Mayor Fiorello La Guardia rewarded AA w/ the four dilapadated hangars you see today.
Last edited by uxb; Feb 2, 2012 at 9:04 pm
Feb 2, 2012, 11:11 pm
#57
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: "Baron of Bayside," Long Island, NY
Programs: DL-KRYPTONIUM, DL-PM, HHonors Gold, Priority Club Plat, Club Carlson Silver, Hyatt Plat.
Posts: 564
Back to the original topic.
I drove to LGA yesterday (it's on my way to work) specifically to take a more detailed look at the buildings. The buildings in question are really not in bad shape at all -- its just with the brown bricks, old style small window panes and individual air conditioning window units, the buildings appearance looks really dated. Especially because they are situated next to the more modern terminals of the airport. I rather liked the old school AA logos above the entrances and the period architecture. These buildings are definitely not awe inspiring works of art or design but they did invoke in me a feeling of nostalgia.
I drove to LGA yesterday (it's on my way to work) specifically to take a more detailed look at the buildings. The buildings in question are really not in bad shape at all -- its just with the brown bricks, old style small window panes and individual air conditioning window units, the buildings appearance looks really dated. Especially because they are situated next to the more modern terminals of the airport. I rather liked the old school AA logos above the entrances and the period architecture. These buildings are definitely not awe inspiring works of art or design but they did invoke in me a feeling of nostalgia.
Feb 3, 2012, 5:11 am
#58
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: New York
Programs: AA EXP 1.0mm, not sure where I am with hotels these days
Posts: 2,795
Back to the original topic.
I drove to LGA yesterday (it's on my way to work) specifically to take a more detailed look at the buildings. The buildings in question are really not in bad shape at all -- its just with the brown bricks, old style small window panes and individual air conditioning window units, the buildings appearance looks really dated. Especially because they are situated next to the more modern terminals of the airport. I rather liked the old school AA logos above the entrances and the period architecture. These buildings are definitely not awe inspiring works of art or design but they did invoke in me a feeling of nostalgia.
I drove to LGA yesterday (it's on my way to work) specifically to take a more detailed look at the buildings. The buildings in question are really not in bad shape at all -- its just with the brown bricks, old style small window panes and individual air conditioning window units, the buildings appearance looks really dated. Especially because they are situated next to the more modern terminals of the airport. I rather liked the old school AA logos above the entrances and the period architecture. These buildings are definitely not awe inspiring works of art or design but they did invoke in me a feeling of nostalgia.
Feb 3, 2012, 5:19 am
#59
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: lax
Posts: 3,886
I just cannot imagine AA spending much money on a facelift right now. Unless of course, it's mine
Feb 3, 2012, 6:58 am
#60
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: JFK, DCA, BUR, YVR
Programs: AC, AS, BA, DL, HH (D), MR (T/LTP), UA (*S), UScAAre (PLT/1,87MM), WN
Posts: 5,207
Back to the original topic.
I drove to LGA yesterday (it's on my way to work) specifically to take a more detailed look at the buildings. The buildings in question are really not in bad shape at all -- its just with the brown bricks, old style small window panes and individual air conditioning window units, the buildings appearance looks really dated. Especially because they are situated next to the more modern terminals of the airport. I rather liked the old school AA logos above the entrances and the period architecture. These buildings are definitely not awe inspiring works of art or design but they did invoke in me a feeling of nostalgia.
I drove to LGA yesterday (it's on my way to work) specifically to take a more detailed look at the buildings. The buildings in question are really not in bad shape at all -- its just with the brown bricks, old style small window panes and individual air conditioning window units, the buildings appearance looks really dated. Especially because they are situated next to the more modern terminals of the airport. I rather liked the old school AA logos above the entrances and the period architecture. These buildings are definitely not awe inspiring works of art or design but they did invoke in me a feeling of nostalgia.
Why can't someone at least give them a paint job? Is the problem the Port Authority or AA?
