Speculation: Will AA continue to pull back in NYC?
#286
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: YYF/YLW
Programs: AA, DL, AS, VA, WS Silver
Posts: 5,955
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.
#287
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 2,515
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.
#288
Join Date: Sep 2015
Programs: UA Million Mile, Mileage Plus Premier 1K, SkyMiles Gold Medallion, AAdvantage Gold
Posts: 875
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.
EDIT: B6 stays at T5
Last edited by DA201; Feb 14, 2018 at 4:05 pm
#289
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: New York, NY
Programs: AA EXP Plat, Mariott Gold, Hilton Gold
Posts: 165
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.
Last edited by Pasqualle7; Feb 14, 2018 at 1:20 pm
#290
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: SEA, but up and down the coast a lot
Programs: Oceanic Airlines Gold Elite
Posts: 20,415
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).
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).
Last edited by eponymous_coward; Feb 14, 2018 at 1:29 pm
#291
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: YYF/YLW
Programs: AA, DL, AS, VA, WS Silver
Posts: 5,955
Everything else you say makes sense, but using JFK to destress PHL?!
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.
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.
#292
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’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.
#293
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: San Diego, Ca
Programs: AA 2MM LT PLT; AS MVP Gold75k; HHonors Diamond; IHG PLT
Posts: 3,509
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.
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.
#294
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: YYF/YLW
Programs: AA, DL, AS, VA, WS Silver
Posts: 5,955
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.
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.
#295
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: PHL
Programs: AA
Posts: 343
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.
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?
#296
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: NYC
Programs: AA EXP
Posts: 1,372
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.
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.
#297
Join Date: Sep 2015
Programs: UA Million Mile, Mileage Plus Premier 1K, SkyMiles Gold Medallion, AAdvantage Gold
Posts: 875
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.
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.
#298
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: New York, NY
Programs: AA EXP Plat, Mariott Gold, Hilton Gold
Posts: 165
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).
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).
#299
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: SEA, but up and down the coast a lot
Programs: Oceanic Airlines Gold Elite
Posts: 20,415
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.
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.
#300
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Arizona
Programs: BA (GGL G4L), AA (Gold), HH (Diamond); Marriott (Gold)
Posts: 3,013
My understanding is that with the JFK Expressway running between terminals 7 and 8, such a connector would be very expensive to build.