Is T6 Shut Down?
 

Hi All-

I flew out of JFK last Friday and I noticed that T6 had no jetBlue aircraft parked at its gates (there were of course a few planes, though not many, parked at T5). I also noticed that a BA 747 and the Open Skies 757 were hard-standed in front of T6's western-most gates, around 3-7, though were not parked at the jetways (they were parked parallel with the Alpha & Bravo taxiways short of Whiskey). Does anyone know what the deal is with T6 and the temporary "Trailer Park" terminal? What are the plans for its use now with T5 open? Is it officially shut down?

Thanks for any insight!

The trailer park will be demolished to open up access to the five gates it is currently blocking.

As for the old T6, there are no current plans that I am aware of to have planes operating out of it, though that can always change if demand at JFK picks up.

What does hard-standed mean?

As of right now T6 (original) is closed up. I've heard that a couple of gates are still being used for over night parking and maybe to park planes should another winter storm move in but as of right now T6 is a ghost terminal.

It means a plane that is not on a gate. IE: may have airstairs connected to it or may be buttoned up for the night, as in not in use.

Heard today, from Chief Pilot, T6 will be demolished. All the way to the ground. Rumor is Delta is trying to block this as they want to add more flights and would like to use T6 for their Northwest merger.

So......Delta wants to use T2, T3, and T6. Seems like a hassle. Plus I think we have dibs on first refusal for anything that goes on with T6.

I have a nice 2hr sit in JFK tomorrow so I get to explore T5 for some time!! I'm stoked. I didn't think I was heading there till early next week but the sooner the better.

If you fly through JFK and see all those aircraft parked out in front of T3 and T4, those are hard-stands. You usually see Delta, El Al, Air India, JetBlue parked out there.

Delta & T6
 

I wonder if Delta thought about requested T6 be marked as a landmark (it was designed by IM PEI ) I believe , so that B6 cannot tear it down. Although in reality only gates 1-8 may be usable with T5 . Perhaps B6 should tear down T6 and then let DL put up a 6 gate temporary terminal (like T6') so B6 can make some money on this deal.

I see them.

So it means planes that are parked, but not at a gate?

T6 was designed by IM Pei but does not currently have landmark status. The only terminal at JFK that has the landmark designation is T5, which is why the new T5 had to be built behind the old TWA Flight Center.

T6 is architecturally distinguished but perhaps not as unique as Saarinen's T5 to merit landmark designation.

Also, this is not the first time T6 has been shut down, so it is not inconceivable that it may return to use in the future.

I don't know who designed T3, but the "Flying Saucer" roof line and its brief status as the world's largest airline terminal give it some historical cache and make it pretty miserable for modern usage. From what I've read the original T6 doesn't have much to recommend it historically and had some work to make it usable by JetBlue, so I can't imagine that an effort to get it a historical landmark designation would be successful.

I cannot imagine Delta making a successful go of operating out of the three terminals without a reasonable air-side connection, though I suppose a fleet of buses could solve that problem. But they can also just leave NW in T4 and bus folks from there if they need to, so I'm not sure what T6 gets them unless they really want to build up service from there, and I'm not yet convinced that is on the roadmap for the newly merged mega-airline that the NW/DL combination will bring us.

The Flying Saucer was built in 1960 and designed by Ives, Turano & Gardner Associated Architects and Walter Prokosch of Tippets-Abbett-McCarthy-Stratton.

This soon proved far too small a facility for Pan Am's NYC hub and an expansion was built in 1972. The interconnection between the two buildings is very poor indeed, although most of what is today T-3 is the 1972 expansion built behind the Flying Saucer.

If DL really ends up using T-6 this would be one of the more inconvenient transfers around, one which would put the CO EWR Terminal C to A or the US DCA airside bus transfer to shame.

Regarding the NYC landmarking process, I doubt T-6 would pass muster although it was built by a starchitect (Pei) and could be a wonderful building if adequately renovated and modernized.

Personally, though, I would rank the Flying Saucer ahead of T-6 as a piece of architecture, even if the Flying Saucer is not nearly the masterpiece that T-5 is.

PanAm's "Flying saucer" which is the "root" of T3 may be miserable by today's standards, but when it was built at the height of the cold war, it was seen as enough of a provocation by the USSR for them to rush to have one too:
The carbon copy of the original small T3 (4 gates for 707s if I remember well) is still in existence at Moscow Sheremetyevo's Terminal 1 which is being used by the baby-Aeroflots. Its condition is pretty dismal.

T-3 also in part inspired TWA to commission Eero Saarinen to design T-5.

Also, it's fair to say that T-3 before the expansion was a much cleaner, sharper piece of architecture.

Of the remaining old-line terminals at JFK none is worse as architecture than T-2, the horrid metal box of built for Northwest and Northeast Airlines in the early 60's

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.

The trumpet was moved off the airport ground and/or destroyed. I'm not exactly sure what they did with it but an agreement was reached with the historical society that allowed us to remove it and do something with it. I'm not too sure what exactly happened.

I believe the $8 million incorporated the removal of the jetbridges, seats, and necessary equipment and place them into T5. It also incorporates the needed ramp repair that is needed to support the weight of the moving aircraft and all the improvements in the concrete. It would also include the destruction and removal of the T6prime facility as well as all of the costs associated with that.

T5 long walk from Airtrain -
 

I dont know If some one has discussed about this already, I was there last week end, It was really a long walk to the new terminal. Though they had soo many security check gates, most of them were closed and people were still lining up.

The interior was Amazing ...!! I was under the impression there are going to use the TWA building also, any idea whats going to happen to that?

I some how miss the land side of T6 :(

I've not been to T5 yet, probably will be next month, but the aerial photos on Google Maps show the trumpet sitting by gates 14/15. Is it still there or did they remove it entirely?

And $8M for all of that is starting to sound more reasonable. Still seems high to me, but NYC's a union town and construction prices, especially materials, are terribly high today.

In my opinion, the air side of T5 is brilliant, but the land side is lacking.

The Trumpes is gone completely. It was suppose to sit exactly where google/msp maps have it shown but it has since been removed.

Terminal 5 Trumpet

That is where it was suppose to sit but according to this New York Times article the trumpet has been destroyed.

Renovated T.W.A. Terminal to Reopen as JetBlue Portal

From my waiting outside for the hotel van the other night I was able to peer into the old TWA building. It looks like the entire inside is filled with scaffolding and it is being renovated.

T5
 

Landed at T5 and thought it was nice (all I did was walk from my gate to the luggage area) . The luggage are was much improved over T6. Looks much betterr than T6 .

Interesting... After seeing the pictures of trumpet structure sitting at the end of T5, it definitely looked out of place.

In hindsight, it would have been nice if the T5 architects had designed a trumpet-like flute at the end of T5 as a nod to what was once there. Such a gesture certainly wouldn't have cost the "$10M" that they claim it would have cost to restore the original trumpet and would have created an amazing lounge with a view of 4L-22R & 13L-31R. Or a bar, lounge w/couches, or who knows.

As a lifelong admirer of TWA and T-5 I am thrilled that the Saarinen terminal was retained (although I sincerely hope it doesn't become some kind of ridiculous shopping mall) but the loss of the trumpet is, in my mind, not a huge loss.

I am glad they kept the tubes which were, like the TWA Flight Center itself, unique and determining features of flying out of the old TWA T-5.

As far as the gate areas, I think all of the TWA veterans will agree with me that these left much to be desired, even if they had been fully restored. The trumpet may have appealed to a small number of preservationists, but I would doubt that even they would claim the trumpet represented the kind of outstanding architecture that the terminal bldg and the tubes did.

jetBlue did great retaining what they did. Now it's time to tweak the current T-5 to work out the few bugs that affect any new operation.