|
Originally Posted by nova08
(Post 29416335)
OP has a legitimate argument. Despite movements being significantly down, certain banks have presumably increased a bit and subsequently put stress on the airfield during those very busy times. Runway 9/27L is being (has been?) extended with associated taxiways and holding areas, but there still are some taxiway congestion spots.
|
Originally Posted by ashill
(Post 29416450)
Sure, PHL expansion isn't unlimited, but I think it's very fair to say that AA has a lot more ability to grow TATL capacity and connecting feed at PHL than at JFK. So AA's JFK strategy is largely limited to markets that can support themselves with O&D on the JFK end and O&D plus any partner connections on the other end.
|
Originally Posted by nova08
(Post 29416335)
OP has a legitimate argument. Despite movements being significantly down, certain banks have presumably increased a bit and subsequently put stress on the airfield during those very busy times. Runway 9/27L is being (has been?) extended with associated taxiways and holding areas, but there still are some taxiway congestion spots.
Originally Posted by george 3
(Post 29416402)
There has been discussion about the OW moving to T8 for a few years. However, with Governor Cuomo's announcement that he will run for president, errrr, corrected, wants to redevelop JFK, those plans have to be on hold.
EDIT: B6 stays at T5 |
Originally Posted by DA201
(Post 29416785)
I’m not arguing that PHL isn’t congested. However, when comparing JFK to PHL, as we are now, JFK is clearly more congested. From what I have seen regarding the JFK redevelopment, it will not solve basic issues. It will just make the airport look nicer while the number of gates and taxiway space remains the same. In my opinion, they need to take a different approach to fixing JFK. 1) Expand T8 and move art OW carriers T8. 2) make T7 a domestic terminal for Alaska and Sun Country, and bring in UA and WN. 3) Make T4 a terminal just for DL and ST. By doing this, DL should have enough gates to give T3/T2 back to the airport. T4 can be expanded past the A gates if need be. 4) T1 is bulldozed and replaced with a large international terminal where T1/T2/T3 was. 5) Turn the road system in the middle of the terminals into a ring road and put all of the parking in the middle. Think EWR-like. |
Originally Posted by Pasqualle7
(Post 29416830)
you move B6 and Alaska to T7.
Originally Posted by DA201
(Post 29416199)
Also, I think more OW carriers will eventually move into T8 at JFK, and a couple more gates may be needed when BA moves.
Originally Posted by Pasqualle7
(Post 29416830)
All of this is under the assumption that BA wants to sell T7. Remember they own T7 and the NYPA cant make them move or sell.
All you JFK AA fans can rest assured that T7 isn't going anywhere for at least a few years (until BA has recouped their facilities investment). |
Originally Posted by Pasqualle7
(Post 29416830)
create a massive OW hub where they can destress PHL a little.
If AA can profitably strengthen their O&D traffic at JFK by adding/maintaining flights which rely partly on connections, great; that's a legitimate argument (and one that has been hashed out ad nauseum in this thread). But if the main goal is making connections better, JFK is just about the worst airport in the world to choose. Connecting traffic doesn't intrinsically care which hub they use, and AA can expand at PHL considerably more easily than they can at JFK (see the previous few posts). Of course, US/AA at PHL has had considerably better TATL connections than AA at JFK for many years, so any expansion there has a big head start over PHL. |
Originally Posted by DA201
(Post 29416785)
I’m not arguing that PHL isn’t congested. However, when comparing JFK to PHL, as we are now, JFK is clearly more congested. From what I have seen regarding the JFK redevelopment, it will not solve basic issues. It will just make the airport look nicer while the number of gates and taxiway space remains the same. In my opinion, they need to take a different approach to fixing JFK. 1) Expand T8 and move art OW carriers T8. 2) make T7 a domestic terminal for Alaska and Sun Country, and bring in UA and WN. 3) Make T4 a terminal just for DL and ST. By doing this, DL should have enough gates to give T3/T2 back to the airport. T4 can be expanded past the A gates if need be. 4) T1 is bulldozed and replaced with a large international terminal where T1/T2/T3 was. 5) Turn the road system in the middle of the terminals into a ring road and put all of the parking in the middle. Think EWR-like. |
PHL is HORRIBLE for incoming international connections - particularly with checked bags. Must allow AT LEAST 3 hours.
1. From my experience, it typically takes 45 mins - 1 hour for bags to show up on the carousel - even for Priority Bags - eliminating much of the benefits of Global Entry 2. Long walk, then long lines for domestic security, PreCheck is not always available in the evening 3. Airspace can become quite congested, not unusual to spend 15 - 45 minutes waiting for a landing slot - particularly when there is weather If AA is seeking an alternative to JFK (and DFW, MIA) for international connections, particularly to the Caribbean, Mexico, Central and South America, my preference would be CLT over PHL. |
Originally Posted by diver858
(Post 29417139)
PHL is HORRIBLE for incoming international connections - particularly with checked bags. Must allow AT LEAST 3 hours.
1. From my experience, it typically takes 45 mins - 1 hour for bags to show up on the carousel - even for Priority Bags - eliminating much of the benefits of Global Entry 2. Long walk, then long lines for domestic security, PreCheck is not always available in the evening 3. Airspace can become quite congested, not unusual to spend 15 - 45 minutes waiting for a landing slot - particularly when there is weather If AA is seeking an alternative to JFK (and DFW, MIA) for international connections, particularly to the Caribbean, Mexico, Central and South America, my preference would be CLT over PHL. And crowded airspace is a consequence of demand, which is desirable for an airline. PHL is not an alternative to DFW and MIA for Caribbean and Latin America connections; AA is only talking about using PHL as a trans-Atlantic hub. |
Originally Posted by diver858
(Post 29417139)
PHL is HORRIBLE for incoming international connections - particularly with checked bags. Must allow AT LEAST 3 hours.
1. From my experience, it typically takes 45 mins - 1 hour for bags to show up on the carousel - even for Priority Bags - eliminating much of the benefits of Global Entry 2. Long walk, then long lines for domestic security, PreCheck is not always available in the evening 3. Airspace can become quite congested, not unusual to spend 15 - 45 minutes waiting for a landing slot - particularly when there is weather If AA is seeking an alternative to JFK (and DFW, MIA) for international connections, particularly to the Caribbean, Mexico, Central and South America, my preference would be CLT over PHL. Isn't Pre-Check always at A-West and C now? |
Originally Posted by diver858
(Post 29417139)
PHL is HORRIBLE for incoming international connections - particularly with checked bags. Must allow AT LEAST 3 hours.
1. From my experience, it typically takes 45 mins - 1 hour for bags to show up on the carousel - even for Priority Bags - eliminating much of the benefits of Global Entry 2. Long walk, then long lines for domestic security, PreCheck is not always available in the evening 3. Airspace can become quite congested, not unusual to spend 15 - 45 minutes waiting for a landing slot - particularly when there is weather If AA is seeking an alternative to JFK (and DFW, MIA) for international connections, particularly to the Caribbean, Mexico, Central and South America, my preference would be CLT over PHL. |
Originally Posted by Pasqualle7
(Post 29416830)
So many things wrong with this. UA gave up on JFK when they moved opps to EWR. They sold all of their slots and being JFK is congested they should not even be part of the move.
Originally Posted by Pasqualle7
(Post 29416830)
Southwest is another one there is just no room for them.
Originally Posted by eponymous_coward
(Post 29416890)
There's no way BA is going to want to dump $65 million into refurbishing T7 facilities and then have the Port Authority go "syke! We want you to give up that space 5 minutes after you built it because AA wants a superterminal."
If the Port Authority presented this theoretical plan tomorrow, they would then spend a year or two filing permits and completing studies, then spend another few years expanding T8 before BA could actually move in. Realistically, the Port Authority would likely not do anything until LGA is wrapping up in 2021, because having major construction at 2/3 airports would be a nightmare. The work would likely be done in stages, not all at once like LGA, because of JFK's enormous size, and T1/the road network would likely be prioritized due to them being higher priorities, so that's another couple years. Then, T8 needs to be expanded so BA can move, which is another few years. BA wouldn't likely move for about 8-10 years. |
Originally Posted by eponymous_coward
(Post 29416890)
AS is already in T7. They're building a lounge there, too.
There's no way BA is going to want to dump $65 million into refurbishing T7 facilities and then have the Port Authority go "syke! We want you to give up that space 5 minutes after you built it because AA wants a superterminal." All you JFK AA fans can rest assured that T7 isn't going anywhere for at least a few years (until BA has recouped their facilities investment). |
Originally Posted by DA201
(Post 29417597)
Kirby is at the helm now and has said (many times) that it was a mistake for UA to leave JFK. I doubt they would revert back to the schedule they previously had, but a handful of ORD/IAH/DEN flights are definitely not unrealistic should the terminal be open and available.
If you expand/rebuild, there are more gates available. Additionally, JFK's peak congestion is during international arrival/departure times. Since WN would operate domestic flights, most of there flights would be during off-peak times. UA is spending millions of dollars refurbishing 763s it plans on retiring within 10 years. DL has spent boatloads of money at LGA over the past decade and the entire airport is now being rebuilt. Airlines sometimes spend millions of dollars for projects that don't last decades. If the Port Authority presented this theoretical plan tomorrow, they would then spend a year or two filing permits and completing studies, then spend another few years expanding T8 before BA could actually move in. Realistically, the Port Authority would likely not do anything until LGA is wrapping up in 2021, because having major construction at 2/3 airports would be a nightmare. The work would likely be done in stages, not all at once like LGA, because of JFK's enormous size, and T1/the road network would likely be prioritized due to them being higher priorities, so that's another couple years. Then, T8 needs to be expanded so BA can move, which is another few years. BA wouldn't likely move for about 8-10 years. |
Originally Posted by Pasqualle7
(Post 29417734)
Yes ment to state AS stays in T7. I know T7 isnt going anywhere, that was an opinion on my behalf. Even a secure connector between 7 and 8 would help OW out a lot.
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 3:04 pm. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.