Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Recently, there's been a big splash about how JFK airport will be completely redone with two new 'world class' terminals to consolidate operations and add capacity, much like the recent LGA makeover. But the root of JFK's problems (and all 3 NYC airports by extension) is not the terminals, but rather the runway configuration.
JFK actually has a horrible configuration for an airport of its land size. Two pairs of perpendicular intersecting runways mean JFK effectively functions as a 2-runway airport despite officially having 4. The Northeast-Southwest runway pair (the 4/22s) in particular are spaced close together and aircraft often have to taxi across the active takeoff runway. This configuration severely restricts JFK's total aircraft movement limit, and leads to a very inefficient airfield. This is acutely felt on bad weather days when the queue to takeoff can be hours long.
The only solution is to add two new runways in the 4/22 direction on the west side of the airport. This would give 4 parallel runways and effectively double total capacity. Of course, the green eco warriors will make a big stink, but if NY state really wanted to make the airspace more efficient, this is the only way to do it.
I thought of this years ago. I'd somewhat reorient the existing 13/31 runways to 10/27, and add two more of them, one on either side of the terminal block. This would let the airport operate with four runways simultaneously.
The reorientation has two strong benefits. One of the problems with 13/31 configuration is it puts flight paths directly over Manhattan. The new configuration puts them out over the harbor. And the new configuration would also open up land for new terminal development. A lot of this space would be in the area of what is now Terminal 1, which they're looking to replace.
I thought of this years ago. I'd somewhat reorient the existing 13/31 runways to 10/27, and add two more of them, one on either side of the terminal block. This would let the airport operate with four runways simultaneously.
The reorientation has two strong benefits. One of the problems with 13/31 configuration is it puts flight paths directly over Manhattan. The new configuration puts them out over the harbor. And the new configuration would also open up land for new terminal development. A lot of this space would be in the area of what is now Terminal 1, which they're looking to replace.
Would your 10/27 proposal change the JFK approaches/departures, and would it impact LGA and EWR air traffic?
Would your 10/27 proposal change the JFK approaches/departures, and would it impact LGA and EWR air traffic?
I don't think a 10/28 runway arrangement would be feasible, not least because it interferes with LGA and EWR which are predominantly 4/22, but also because it would require a complete rearrangement of the JFK airfield. A new airport out in the Atlantic could probably be built for what it would cost.
The easiest and most cost effective option is to simply add a pair of runways on the west side of JFK in the 4/22 direction. ORD in Chicago managed to add 4 new 09/27 direction runways and it's improved the airport experience immensely.
The current set up interferes more with LGA runway 4 than mine would. Mine would would improve use of runway 4 at LGA, because the line of the 10 runways would intersect the line of the 4 runway at LGA further out from that runway's threshold. I don't think they do departures from Runway 22 at LGA, so that wouldn't be an issue.
As far as EWR. Straight line departures from 10 and approaches to 28 would be almost directly over the field at EWR. The lines of approach and departure at EWR are not right over it's field. So a straight run in to 10 or out from 28 shouldn't interfere with EWRs approach departure paths. And, of course, JFK and EWR are separated enough that aircraft approaching and departing JFK can turn parallel to EWRs approach / departure lanes will before interfering with them. Current runway 13 approaches and 31 departures from JFK would have the same potential problems and solutions, and would more likely interfere with EWR northern flight paths.
There's no real land to build western 10/24s. My idea would require some landfill, but relatively close to the existing airfield and in the dead zone created by the landfilling that made the current airfield. Western 10/24s would require much larger more disruptive landfills going much further into Jamaica bay. I also thing the noise corridors from my layout work much better.
Quote:
Originally Posted by minnomaboidenapolis
I don't think a 10/28 runway arrangement would be feasible, not least because it interferes with LGA and EWR which are predominantly 4/22, but also because it would require a complete rearrangement of the JFK airfield. A new airport out in the Atlantic could probably be built for what it would cost.
The easiest and most cost effective option is to simply add a pair of runways on the west side of JFK in the 4/22 direction. ORD in Chicago managed to add 4 new 09/27 direction runways and it's improved the airport experience immensely.
JFK is a large airport, with large runways, designed for large aircraft. But it also hosts a large number of smaller aircraft, commuter turboprops and regional jets, that could operate from a much smaller airfield. And intermingling the operations of these aircraft with the very large aircraft has the effect or reducing the total number of operations for unit of time the airport can processs.
To solve this, I would take what likely was NY's first commercial airport, and rebuild / reactivate it for commercial use. This is, of course, Floyd Bennett Field. It is now part of the Gateway National Recreation area. I'd float a bill in Congress to detach FBF from GNRA, and give it to the the entity that owns JFK (either the city or the Port Authority.) This isn't so farfetched, give that there would need to be a lot of federal money needed to execute any of this plan, so the return of FBF would be part of that that funding authorization.
At FBF I would build a commuterport, specifically designed to operate smaller commercial aircraft at high volume. It would likely have two or three runways, on the same orientations as the mail JFK airfield, and a terminal designed for a high volume of smaller planes. Between JFK and FBF, I would run a people / luggage mover system, that would be behind the security cordon, so passengers could transfer between commuter aircraft at FBF to main line larger aircraft.at JFK.
This would give the entire airport complex much more capacity.
Yea, expanding JFK and EWR were both part of the 4th plan from RPA and exactly for those reasons while basically ignoring LGA--one interesting exercise would be to study how JFK's runways could be reconfigured were there to be no LGA flight paths to contend with and what the total capacity would be with that configuration. The other part of the proposal was to reconfigure transit to JFK and do a horse trade where for the environmental disruption there would be restoration of wetlands in other parts of Jamaica Bay. One thing left out of the plan, and should have been in there as part of being actually regional is to invest in transportation to and improvements to secondary airports which have generally seen air traffic increase (pandemic period notwithstanding).
Last edited by OyCrumbler; 11-30-2022 at 01:46 PM..
The best way to get rid of the contention between JFK and LGA, without closing LGA, would be to get rid of LGA 4/22 runway. If they didn't just do a major project at LGA, I would make that part of an LGA plan, moving it to a two parallel runway setup with two 13/31s getting rid of all of the existing terminal structures, filling in the old seaplane basin, and moving terminals in the area of the approach end of runway 4 (the runway where planes land over the Grand Central Parkway) using the land that used to house that runway and the seaplane basin area. The old terminal area would be crossed by 13R/31L. Getting rid of the intersecting runways would significantly increase LGAs capacity in most situations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OyCrumbler
Yea, expanding JFK and EWR were both part of the 4th plan from RPA and exactly for those reasons while basically ignoring LGA--one interesting exercise would be to study how JFK's runways could be reconfigured were there to be no LGA flight paths to contend with and what the total capacity would be with that configuration. The other part of the proposal was to reconfigure transit to JFK and do a horse trade where for the environmental disruption there would be restoration of wetlands in other parts of Jamaica Bay. One thing left out of the plan, and should have been in there as part of being actually regional is to invest in transportation to and improvements to secondary airports which have generally seen air traffic increase (pandemic period notwithstanding).
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
