Comments on: Piling on Planes at JFK

By: DT

DT — Thu, 03 Mar 2011 21:09:20 +0000

With all being said, plain and simple the FAA needs to get there act in together and be more proactive.

By: Vladimir Gagic

Vladimir Gagic — Wed, 16 Feb 2011 22:22:05 +0000

So much for deregulation making life for consumers better. I think we may be at the point where people realize more regulation, like the banks or airlines, is not necessarily a bad thing.

By: adub

adub — Mon, 08 Oct 2007 21:57:32 +0000

I flew out of T2 this summer on Delta – at a “non-peak” hour, and it was utterly absurd. Almost every other gate at that wretched terminal had a plane leaving within 10 minutes of our flight. Not surprisingly, although our flight boarded and pushed back “on time”, we then had to sit in place at the gate for 60 minutes waiting for traffic to clear at our terminal and at T3 – all other Delta planes – before we were able to sit for 30 minutes in line to take off. I’m silver medallion on Delta, but there is no way at all that I’m flying them out of JFK again. I’m based in NY and travel 60k+ miles/year – yes, all NY airports are bad, and yes, JFK is the worst – but Delta at JFK is the worst of the worst.

By: Jared Geiger

Jared Geiger — Mon, 08 Oct 2007 20:41:07 +0000

Ah, I was suggesting to move the hub to PIT instead of having it in JFK. Granted there wouldn’t be a lot of traffic originating from PIT, but it would reduce the number of flights in and out of JFK.

By: CF

CF — Thu, 04 Oct 2007 20:16:24 +0000

Well, there’s a reason there’s plenty of room – there’s just not much demand. I can’t see why Delta would want to operate there. With Cincinnati and JFK, they pretty much have everything covered. And JetBlue? Well, I’ve heard rumblings that the flights there aren’t exactly the star performers now. I wouldn’t expect them to add much more if that’s the case.

By: Jared Geiger

Jared Geiger — Thu, 04 Oct 2007 20:14:30 +0000

What about Pittsburgh? Plenty of room there to operate flights out of since US Airways reduced flights. It would be a good place for either Jet Blue or Delta to use. However with the new Jet Blue terminal going in at JFK, will they ever move?

By: Cliff Barnard

Cliff Barnard — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 01:18:08 +0000

The other tricky part of this that no one seems to have mentioned this time around is the Anti-Trust act.

At more congested multi-airline airports (not your traditional ATL, ORD, PHL, CLT, DEN, DFW, etc hubs) but airports that are congested where no one airline controls a majority of the flights if the airlines had some anti-trust immunity they could perhaps make some selective service choices together. Instead of both airlines flying smaller planes into two markets they both serve perhaps they’d each chose one market to serve and fly larger planes to each of their market and fly larger planes to it. I’m sure there are examples of this where a rationalization could be made between airlines to divide markets and utilize airspace more efficiently.

Of course this is anti-capitalistic and unamerican in some ways, but there are tradeoffs to capitalism, like air traffic delays..

But in reality the FAA needs to get their @#($*@#$ act together. Thats the bottom line for the issue.

By: Henry

Henry — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 01:16:56 +0000

I flew DL a week ago, JFK-SFO. I wanted to try their new allegedly upgraded F transcon service (big mistake on my part).

The flight left from JFK Terminal 2 (T2). T2 is one of the original “Terminal City” facilities. Its original occupants were Braniff International, Northwest (the called Northwest Orient), and Northeast (since merged into DL). Two of those airlines are gone. That should be a hint.

The building is a disaster. It is simply not a terribly comfortable bulding to be in. The building was built for 707s — and nothing larger. NW strained in the 70s when it ran its 747s from there. It’s tired, raggedy, and is archiecturally unremarkable. T2 should be razed.

DL’s other JFK building, T3, may be viewed by some as being architecturally significant, and it certanly has a historical place as Pan AMerican’s former home. But sentiment is an expensive indulgence at JFK today. I’ll leave it to those with greater expertise about architecture to decide whether the orginal oval part of the building warrants preservation. To me, at elast, the “Worldport” addition that PA built in the 70s should go.

With AA already operating from its new terminal, and JetBlue about to open its new terminal next year, DL will offer a disgustingly miserable experience to its JFK customers. DL at JFK is tangibly inferior to those two airliens, as well as to airlines that operate from other newer faciliaties, like T1 and the IA. Instead of piling on planes flying to places that no one wants to go to — if they did, wouldn’t the flights exist already? — DL should invest its captial resources into a new JFK complex that will allow it to create a competitive customer experience.

By: CF

CF — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 18:54:27 +0000

I would say that every New Yorker would be willing to fly through any other airport if they don’t have another option. If Delta doesn’t do this, I don’t think anyone else will, so they’ll either fly through Atlanta or Europe.

If New Yorkers support these flights, then yes, they should have it. But New Yorkers might also be able to support 500 more flights a day to a variety of destinations. That doesn’t matter. The airports can’t support it.

By: Jason H

Jason H — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 17:22:11 +0000

I think now is the time for expansion. They have the planes, the routes, and the gates and if they don’t do it then another airline will. It’s all about business. Sure people will be inconvenienced, but I don’t think Delta is scheduling these flights to make a point to the FAA. They are scheduling them because they see the demand is there and they are trying to make their bankruptcy re-organization work.

Besides, how many New Yorkers would be willing to fly to ATL or CVG to go to Dakar? New York is the biggest market on the east coast and deserves the direct flights, just like LA deserves direct flights because of its market size.