AA's derelict buildings at LGA: why?
 

I fly in and out of LGA pretty frequently, and AA's brown/beige brick buildings at LGA (which I'd guess are a hangar and cargo/office space, mainly) were run down-looking when I first started using that airport about 15 years ago. They appear unchanged, and they look terrible. Old, dirty signage; aging paint; air conditioners hanging out of the windows; shoddy-looking windows; etc.

Why can't someone at least give them a paint job? Is the problem the Port Authority or AA?

First off, I happen to like the huge vintage AA logo on the outside. Secondly, who cares? If it's the one I'm thinking of it looks like a cargo processing center and as long as the buildings are safe on the inside, then what does it matter? It's not like it's the Admirals Club in the terminal that appears in such disrepair and I can't honestly imagine employees quitting, passengers defecting or merchants finding other ways of shipping their cargo simply because of how the AA building facade looks.

Strangely those old buildings are like a time of yesteryear when a Kettle was a movie character from the black and white era. I kind of think they are very NYC in a way. Ever see the big UPS building on Houston?

I do. NY is my home and LGA in general and those buildings in particular create a poor image for people arriving in NY- just as Penn Station, the Port Authority Bus Terminal, etc. all do.

Secondly, AA should care. AA is a fine airline--certainly one of the world's premier carriers. Its brand could be diluted by highly visible, ratty-looking buildings with its logo on them. Think of the other corporate logos on high-profile locations around NYC- MetLife (MetLife Building on 44th-ish St.), GE (Rockefeller Center), Ernst & Young (Times Square), Trump (various locations)--how many of those are run-down?

If I ran a company and my logo were highly visible on a derelict building in a flagship location, I'd do something about it, at least to protect the brand. Even a paint job on those buildings and replacing some of the windows would be a big improvement.

ETA: I looked up the UPS building on W. Houston on Google Maps street view, using 320 W. Houston as the address that shows the UPS logo; I don't view it as a high-profile, visible location (I'd never seen it before, in years of living in NYC. It's a 2-story building near the Hudson, and while it's not stunningly beautiful, it doesn't look as derelict as the AA buildings.

I don’t have an issue with those buildings. HOWEVER, the condition of the central terminal, concourse C & D, is another story…..

Agreed. At least from a physical appearance perspective (I have no idea about operations of planes), if I had my way, I'd clean house on the management of ALL of NY's airports and bring in the people who run CLT and plenty of other airports. Milwaukee, John Wayne, Las Vegas, etc. all are nicer.

I guess it's a question of perspective. I'm a born-and-raised New Yorker who hasn't lived there for the past 30 or so years. But I'm still a New Yorker. I'm not as aware of the LGA building you mention since I generally fly into JFK. But I like the PABT, Penn Station, Grand Central, etc. just the way they are. They feel like "New York" to me. If they were all new and glass and gleaming and such (for example) it would look nice, but it wouldn't have the New York feel...to me.

Cheers.

Just to be clear- it's not the age of the buildings at LGA that's an issue; it's the condition.

I am crazy about Grand Central; it is a very, very attractive, pleasant building, and I think the main concourse is one of America's greatest public spaces; it creates a great first impression of NY.

It's the run-down condition of the other structures that I find disturbing--particularly the Port Authority and LGA. Penn Station isn't run-down; it's just poorly-designed and unappealing. Give me Grand Central, Union Station in Washington, 30th Street Station in Philadelphia or South Station in Boston (all built about 100 years ago) any day over that (versus, say, the Charlotte Amtrak station, built in the '60s, which is pretty unappealing).

Even some Third World countries that I've been to had airports in better condition than LGA--particularly those AA buildings.

:D

I'm guessing they have more pressing issues on their plate right now.

I agree with brp about the charm of those buildings but also want to point out that LGA is far from a "flagship location" for AA. JFK for sure, LGA not at all - LGA is just a bunch of Northeastern regional traffic as well as AA's major Midwest and East Coast hubs while JFK is one of the airline's largest international hubs, serving Asia, Europe and South America from a shiny new terminal as well as numerous transcontinental routes and several nice lounges (including one of only four Flagship Lounges).

While you were frozen, AA has declined into a third rate airline with shoddy service and old planes that is in Chap 11…more details below...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-PIidaqCyU

That describes a fair amount of New York City outside of the Disneyfied portions. I tend to like it and hope it never changes.

+1

Me too! I even miss the old Times Square before it became a Disney theme park.