AA JFK Termianl

[StraaightTaalk]

By any measure, the thing is HUGE...LOTS of room for growth. To be sure, a terminal SHOULD anticipate growth, expecially as we have seen in airports that have already outgrown recently completed terminal facilities.

I really wish there were a train or something running between the landside terminal building and the airside concourse.

Everything aside, I really like the terminal and all of its potential.

 

[Barfbag]

So, yes, WHO GIVES A RAT'S ASS ABOUT A NEW TERMINAL!

Exactly, the original subject matter was about the terminal and how it looks, not about your delusions to reverse executive bonuses via this forum.

 

[Hopeful]

Exactly, the original subject matter was about the terminal and how it looks, not about your delusions to reverse executive bonuses via this forum.

I'm there 5 days a week.. I could really care less! I liked the old shitbox better before concessions!

It had more sentimental value!

I tell you what, barfbag Let's give billions in more in concessions so the JFK terminal can have 50 gates!


would that make you happy?

 

[MiAAmi]

AA actually wanted the project stopped when 9/11 happened. the Port Authority said "no way." So AA drastically scaled back on the original design.

Dallas is AA's baby, not Kennedy. Never has been, never will be!

That is not true. AA put extra millions into the terminal to speed it up right after 9/11.

 

[FWAAA]

That is not true. AA put extra millions into the terminal to speed it up right after 9/11.

True, AA announced a speed-up immediately following September 11, 2001, but that was intended to minimize the total expenditures (by limiting the amount of time that AA was paying the interest on the tax free bonds sold to finance the new terminal while not occupying it).

Then, after a few more months, reality set in and AA drastically cut back the new terminal's design when it looked like bankruptcy was the next big event to strike AA. Several hundred thousand feet were slashed from the design and nearly 20 gates were eliminated. It was gonna have 55 or so gates; now it's more like 36.

On top of that, the interior and finish quality were downgraded substantially - ultimately reducing the price of the terminal by almost half a billion dollars when added to the reduction in square footage. Makes the place look cheap, but what do you expect from the airline that eliminated pillows from domestic flights to save half a million a year?

 

[Barfbag]

I could really care less!

A real passenger-service gem.

 

[Barfbag]

It's true AA has ordered a scale-down of the terminal, and subsequently, contractors has been allowed to re-bid their proposals. This meant work not being completed, and later completed by another contractor,or in house (AA personnel), cutting costs wherever possible. With the current commercial construction boom in the city, and more lucrative projects going begging. The AA terminal has become more of a sideline project, with construction crews showing up, whenever other project don't need them.

The Port of NY and NJ owns the terminal buildings at JFK, as it does the Liberty Towers site at the WTC in lower Manhattan.

It's a no-brainer, where the emphasis is going.

 

[Hopeful]

A real passenger-service gem.

Let me ask you this, Barf!

Would you rather work in a run down building and have all your concessions restored? Or would you rather work for peanuts and little benefits in a shiny new facility?

Do you think the passengers would prefer a safe aircraft with happy employees thus giving you great service in an old building?

Or would the passenger prefer a new facility with unhappy employees?

By the way, considering the cost of this new terminal which doesn't give us a whole lot more gates than the old setup, AA could have spent half the amount with decent upgrades.

 

[Barfbag]

Let me ask you this, Barf!


Do you think the passengers would prefer a safe aircraft with happy employees thus giving you great service in an old building?

I'm happy 😀.

Are you happy?

 

[Hopeful]

I'm happy 😀.

Are you happy?

Most management lackeys are! Do as your told Barfbag and you too can grow up to be a greedy executive!

 

[Bob Owens]

By any measure, the thing is HUGE...LOTS of room for growth. To be sure, a terminal SHOULD anticipate growth, expecially as we have seen in airports that have already outgrown recently completed terminal facilities.

I really wish there were a train or something running between the landside terminal building and the airside concourse.

Everything aside, I really like the terminal and all of its potential.

Exactly how many more gates were there going to be with the new terminal compared to the old? If I recall it was less than a handfull. So all that work and money for a few extra gates that will never pay themselves off.


You know, maybe they should tear down the Brooklyn Bridge and build a new one with a three foot wider pedestrian walkway right? Makes about as much sense as the New JFK Terminal.

 

[FA Mikey]

originally 55, that more than a handful difference of gates before construction began

 

[Hopeful]

originally 55, that more than a handful difference of gates before construction began

The difference is that there were going to be about 14-16 dedicated Eagle gates. That was one of the cutbacks. So now they took over 2 AA widebody gates on concourse C, G-31 and G-32.

Also, when B is done, they will knock down the old Concourse A and that will become hardstands. AA will be paying the lease on that land or they will lose that property to the Port Authority.

But come contract time, if they can get more concessions from us, they might finish off that concourse.

 

[FWAAA]

The old terminals had about 31 gates, with one of them used for Eagle (downstairs). Here's a map of the former Terminals 8 and 9 (there were two gates at some of the T-9 gates, IIRC):

http://www.geocities.com/citrus_air/jfk_termloc99.gif

The new design was to have 55 total gates, 38 of them for mainline jets and 17 covered jetbridge gates for RJs.

Here's a description of the original design:

http://www.dmjmharris.com/MarketsAndServices/39/99/index.jsp

Now it's only gonna have 36 gates, 27 of them for mainline jets, and 9 for RJs. Square footage sliced from 2.2 million feet to only 1.5 million feet. Instead of 200 checkin positions, only 67 or so. Instead of eight clubs (probably for all the OneWorld members), probably only 3 or 4. Total cost is down from $1.3 to $1.4 billion (varies depending on the source) to only $1.1 billion. Here's a description of the revised JFK Terminal 8 project:

http://www.queenschamber.org/queenschamber...an_airlines.pdf

The new terminal will indeed have fewer mainline jet gates than the original. Maybe it will be laid out more efficiently - or maybe AA will unload airplanes and then quickly move them to a hardstand to accomodate another arrival.

I liked the old terminal 9 (and some of the features of 8). But nothing stays the same for long. I liked 707s and AA's 747s, and AA doesn't fly them anymore.

Given that AA's JFK terminal rent is only increasing by a modest amount, the new terminal is not what's keeping AA from restoring $1.6 billion in annual pay concessions to the represented workers. Those were (and still are) painful, but they have nothing to do with AA's 1999 decision to replace the JFK terminals.

 

[Bob Owens]

originally 55, that more than a handful difference of gates before construction began

55 is the total, how many AA gates were there before construction, dont count the EAGLE gates, since after all we are talking about how many extra gates AA would end up with, how many more gates does AA end up with? Did AA spend a couple of billion so EAGLE Passengers didnt have to walk in the rain to the bus?