Don't forget that the Saucer design was also functional. Back in the day it functioned as a nice overhang to provide a bit of shelter for people walking out to the airplanes prior to the jetway revolution. I actually like the exterior architecture of T3, FWIW, but the interior is worthless.

This is not good idea where DL wants go to T6 but, it was too far away from DL terminals 2/3. I think DL are remains where its belonged in DL terminals 2/3 for a long time. DL aircraft will be remains by remote areas near DL terminals 3.

I knows T6 are too crappy and are very old terminal who served some airlines is UA and etc. T6 is already builts sometimes in 60s or 70s. I think T6 should be demolished soon as possible. Its should need to get rebuilt brand new terminal 6. Its should need to get more room and more conveniently at T6.

I rememebr this is last time where we flown on B6 from last year in summer 2007. I didn't like it in JetBlue old terminal at all. It was very extremely overcrowded are not enough more seat at the gate areas. That's why its has no room where I want to sit there at JetBlue terminal. Its absolutely is terribly for everyone. That's why it was too much time in the old B6 terminal 6.

This is best time where Port Authority need to get finalization approval to be demolished by old terminal 6 and will able rebuilding brand new terminal 6 for only with Virgin America. I think Virgin America will have best opportunity to becoming JFK hub. Its should be consideration where VA will moved into T6 to need expanded more potential new routes coming soon near of the future.

I actually like the idea of DL taking over T6. It will provide DL with a lot more gates and more access points for passengers originating at JFK.

Absolutely not! Because DL will be remains where its exact in terminals 2/3.

Actually, I proposed this on another aviation site a while ago. I think it would be a great idea to use T6 as a temporary replacement for T2. It has enough gate space to accomodate both DL's RJ operation and a bunch of domestic flights (737's & 757's). I think if they set up some kind of airside connection operation, it could work. This way T2 could get knocked down and rebuilt as part of a new terminal with FIS/Customs. Then flights at T3 could move to the new T2 while T3 is knocked down and rebuilt as more int'l gates as well as some domestic gates.

Who here think T6 would be any worse than T2 is? Not me! ;)

There isn't enough room around T2 to allow for it to get much bigger. Sure, T6 could handle the capacity and they could even run a bunch of buses between T3 and T6 while it is under construction, but they aren't going to end up with much more space in a renovated T2 so why bother?

Similarly, T3 doesn't have much room to expand because of T2 on one side and T4 on the other.

I just don't see it happening.

Pax circulation flows between T2 and T3 and into T3 from AirTrain are poor, indirect and inconvenient.

The trick is to think of the combined footprint of T2 and T3 and how to construct a new terminal with a more rational pax circulation. I've seen past plans (conceptual ones) whereby T3 is connected into T4, with the T4 western pier further extended towards Jamaica Bay--thus creating a mega T2/3/4.

During peak hours it is not uncommon to see queues just to enter T3 because of the location of security screening, the segmented ticketing and check in areas and constrained interior spaces. This is one reason why I've avoided DL out of JFK--their terminal facilities are horrid with chaos and confusion I've never seen in T1, T4, T7 and now T8. I'm sure the same can be said of T5 (but I've yet to visit since it opened).

Using T6 as swing space while T2 and T3 are sequentially demolished and rebuilt makes a certain amount of sense--assuming that flight frequencies require it.

I just had another 2hr sit in JFK yesterday and was suprised at what I saw. I was under the impression that T6prime "The Trailerpark" would be dismantled and moved. That is not the case. The Trailerpark was being demolished and torn down. It was pretty cool to see as the machines just ate their way through the aluminum skin of the building. It looked like they just started it and were at Gate 23 and moving towards Gate 18.

They announced recently (I think in the Q3 earnings call) that they couldn't find anyone who wanted to buy the building so they were going to knock it down since that was cheaper.

Ah thanx for the information!

That's interesting about T6 Prime, as I thought the whole idea of the "trailer park" was that it was not permanent and could be easily dismantled and removed once T5 was complete. I'm also surprised that there were no other airlines/airports that could have used those structures. Surely FLL could have used that extra gate space, or DL with their upcoming JFK redevelopment...

:confused: What has Delta actually announced for their JFK terminal?

And I don't know what the cost would be to move it versus trashing it, but clearly trashing it won from a TCO perspective.

$8 million to tear it down, so my sources have told me. They also said that the company basically wrote off the cost of the destruction. I don't know how true it is so take it with a grain of salt. I'm about 90% positive it was $8 million to tear it down but if we wrote it off or not, i can't attest to.

I would imagine that the cost of temp T6 was considered a part of doing business and part of T5's cost. Using temp T6 (as opposed to T6) is not attractive for other airlines as the same busing issues and cost of busing to
T6 comes into play.

Finally, there is the issue that sometimes you don't want too many empty gates around, as it gives an opening for competitors to move into (assuming they can get landing slots).

I'm somewhat fond of T6. The idea of two terminal buildings (arrivals/departures) was quite good. Unfortunately the land-side building was a much better building architecturally than the air-side. Those tall glass windows would have been awesome at the gates. The round rotundas as the gates could have been stunning if they were 2-stories tall and 2x as large than the cramped spaces they are. It also didn't help that the buildings were beat-to-hell and poorly maintained. It felt like a 3rd world country airport, esp. the ramps to baggage claim + baggage claim. I would have liked to seen what the original drawings/photos of the building showed. The airside building had skylights, but primarily over the food service counters and also lacked windows to the runways unless you were in the rotundas.

I'm kind of surprised they wasn't a market for this. There's almost always a need for more gate space somewhere. At the very least, I would have thought they would have cut it apart and haul the trailers out like they do regular trailer homes. Plenty of aluminum there that has to be worth something. Copper's worth quite a bit as well and there's plenty of copper wiring in there.

$8M !?!?!!? Those buildings couldn't have even been worth $8M when they were built. I know union labor is substantially more expensive, but it can't be THAT much more.

Any word on what from T6/T6' was kept/moved to T5? I was told by a B6'er awhile back that they were hoping to take the seating with them and jetways from the trailer park.

Also, what did they do with the "Trumpet" part of the original T5 gates they kept? The Google Maps image shows it attached awkwardly to the end of T5 (not sure why they saved it).


I concur. For kicks, I Google Map'd a few airports, scaled them all to the same and set them side-by-side. In some ways, they have managed to fit quite a few gates in a small area of space. BUT at the same time there's terrible wastes of space all over the apron.

For comparison,all scaled to 500ft/1": JFK Airport, ORD Airport, DFW Airport, LAX Airport

Quite an interesting comparison when you view them side-by-side. The first observation I have is that the gate density of JFK is terrible -- too much space, not enough gates. LAX does a good job of absolutely squeezing every last bit of space out of the gate areas. I'm also kind of intrigued by ORD's remote terminal with no direct surface connection to the main terminal. I'm thinking this might be useful to squeak out a few extra gates from JFK.

The close runway and taxiway kill quite a bit of potential space near the existing T1-3. It'd be nice to pull those terminals closer to the center, but with the AirTrain sitting there, that's impractical.

LAX also shows you could easily demolish JFK T2 and fit 2x-3x the # of gates there, more if you considered ditching T3 as part of the process and used as much as you could without impeding T4.

T4's a terrible waste of space for the limited # of gates it has. Granted, it sees mostly trans-con flights with larger planes, but it's angled A concourse really kills a lot of space that could be better used for T4 and T5 expansion.

Ideally... a T7 + T6 demo would really open up large amounts of land for gates. T7 is a huge waste of space, esp. it's W side. I'd probably allocate some land for future T5 expansion here as well.