DL to redevelop its terminals as part of LGA CTB redevelopment

[eolesen]

MAT was the first airline terminal to gain national landmark status, followed by the Saarinen terminal at JFK. It can't be modified without maintaining the historic elements.

The best description I heard of the DL portion of the announcement was that it's political vision more than it is a finalized strategy on the part of the Port Authority. DL's redo won't happen until later in the program, and assumes that the political winds stay as they are. Getting private investment into the project may only be half the battle.

 

[topDawg]

MAT was the first airline terminal to gain national landmark status, followed by the Saarinen terminal at JFK. It can't be modified without maintaining the historic elements.

The best description I heard of the DL portion of the announcement was that it's political vision more than it is a finalized strategy on the part of the Port Authority. DL's redo won't happen until later in the program, and assumes that the political winds stay as they are. Getting private investment into the project may only be half the battle.

The idea has pretty much always been to rebuild the CTB first then deal with C/D later. 
 
IMO it'll be a while before Delta gets a new terminal in LGA. 

 

[WorldTraveler]

it also is unlikely that DL will follow the same design for its terminals as exists for the CTB in part because DL has its own operational needs but they are not the same as for other airlines. DL doesn't need taxi way space at the end of D like other carriers need at other terminals so there is little reason to move the terminal if DL can't get more gates. Further, D was designed to accommodate widebodies and it can easily accommodate 757s so there is less need for more space like there in the CTB. DL undoubtedly does want to have a single check-in area instead of one in each terminal and also would certainly like to have a covered walkway/boarding area to the regional jet gates that park beside D if they are going to continue to use those gates.

but DL also is likely to give up its MAT gates if US will leave C and I would strongly bet that part of the deal is for that to happen. Even if the MAT is not going to be used for airline gates long-term, the Port Authority has no choice but to use it during the transition when gates in the CTB will have to be closed during construction. It is also certain that WN would love to be out of the congested CTB and I'm sure other carriers would as well.

also, LAX is just one example of an airport that has single airline terminals and yet federal funds have still been used for construction so the concept of DL getting government funds to rehab C and D is not limited just because the terminal is exclusively for one airline.

 

[jcw]

Interesting that now the theory is DL is not on board with the state on LGA and it will want to do its own thing depending how things progress

 

[WorldTraveler]

no one said that DL isn't on board with the state.

Several people have noted that the agreement is likely conceptual at this point and there is no definite cost or timeline for redeveloping DL's terminals because they will come later.

I assert that DL will likely not follow the same design as the CTB because it isn't clear that tearing its terminals completely down is necessary.

the only part that likely applies to DL in the short term is the rearrangement of gates that could see US move out of C, AA consolidate all of its operations in the CTB, and likely one or two carriers move to the MAT during the reconstruction process.

I also would not be surprised if DL's agreement to redevelop its terminals is linked to lifting the perimeter rule - whether directly or indirectly. DL has enough space to operate its current schedule out of its existing terminals.

LGA will take a very long time to redevelop. Let's get the CTB finished and see how long that takes and how much it costs. By coming after, DL is certain to ensure that its costs for operating at LGA remain below those of other carriers.

 

[700UW]

No parking garage, and the current ones will be torn down.
 

 

[WorldTraveler]

There will be parking garages

 

[FrugalFlyerv2.0]

No parking garage, and the current ones will be torn down.

 
I think I read an article where it states that the current one(s) have to be torn down.  And the drawings / renderings do not show any parking garage structures.
However, I can't imagine no parking garage(s) whatsoever.
 

There will be parking garages

 
WT is correct.  They've got to have a parking garage(s) built elsewhere on the airport grounds (or around the airport grounds).
It's an airport, not a bus terminal.  Parking is needed.  Not everybody is going to take the ferry or public transit or taxi to the airport.

 

[700UW]

WT stated the terminals will be built over the parking garage, that is not the case, the article clearly stated the existing garages will be torn down.

As Maury would say, "Facts shows that to be a lie".

 

[eolesen]

What I find interesting is that there's all this spending being proposed, and none of it is going towards extending the MTA from Jackson Heights or Flushing so that there's train to plane service. Seems that they could use an over-the-median approach on the BQE just like the AirTrain did on the V-W.

PANYNJ is finishing up a new garage on the east end of the airport, but that's clearly not enough.

 

[topDawg]

it also is unlikely that DL will follow the same design for its terminals as exists for the CTB in part because DL has its own operational needs but they are not the same as for other airlines. DL doesn't need taxi way space at the end of D like other carriers need at other terminals so there is little reason to move the terminal if DL can't get more gates. Further, D was designed to accommodate widebodies and it can easily accommodate 757s so there is less need for more space like there in the CTB. DL undoubtedly does want to have a single check-in area instead of one in each terminal and also would certainly like to have a covered walkway/boarding area to the regional jet gates that park beside D if they are going to continue to use those gates.

but DL also is likely to give up its MAT gates if US will leave C and I would strongly bet that part of the deal is for that to happen. Even if the MAT is not going to be used for airline gates long-term, the Port Authority has no choice but to use it during the transition when gates in the CTB will have to be closed during construction. It is also certain that WN would love to be out of the congested CTB and I'm sure other carriers would as well.

also, LAX is just one example of an airport that has single airline terminals and yet federal funds have still been used for construction so the concept of DL getting government funds to rehab C and D is not limited just because the terminal is exclusively for one airline.

Doesn't work that way. 
 
Unless Delta wants to pay for it 100% (and they wont) then they will go along with what the Port wants to do. Sure Delta's opinion, just like *gasp* American's opinion, will be taken in and considered but at the end of the day the airport isn't going to go hog wild and build a terminal that only fits Delta's needs.  

 

[WorldTraveler]

I didn't say that the Port Authority will build a custom terminal that only matches DL's needs.

I said that DL's terminals aren't in near as bad of shape as the CTB and also that it is possible that DL might not see any value or need in the design that includes a taxiway under a pedestrian bridge between the terminal and the concourses. Unless DL gains a whole lot more gates and also has alot more slots or can fly much bigger planes from LGA - ala removing the perimeter restriction in a grand way - there is no reason to extend the size of DL's terminals. Taxiway congestion is rarely as bad near DL's terminals as it is in front of the CTB.

You also realize the price per gate that LGA will spend on the CTB based even on this estimate? It is as much or more than major int'l airports where the cost per gate is spread over a much larger number of passengers per flight. When you compare the number of gates DL has with the size of the CTB, DL could spend 3X more than they did at JFK and still totally rebuild two terminals at LAX for the same amount per enplaned pax as the PA will spend on the CTB.

DL is simply not going to spend a fortune on terminals at LGA, esp. when it is very possible that other carriers' Cost per enplaned passenger could soar to levels that make LGA too expensive for many of them. DL simply does not spend $100 million per gate for a domestic airport.

 

[topDawg]

I didn't say that the Port Authority will build a custom terminal that only matches DL's needs.

I said that DL's terminals aren't in near as bad of shape as the CTB and also that it is possible that DL might not see any value or need in the design that includes a taxiway under a pedestrian bridge between the terminal and the concourses. Unless DL gains a whole lot more gates and also has alot more slots or can fly much bigger planes from LGA - ala removing the perimeter restriction in a grand way - there is no reason to extend the size of DL's terminals. Taxiway congestion is rarely as bad near DL's terminals as it is in front of the CTB.

You also realize the price per gate that LGA will spend on the CTB based even on this estimate? It is as much or more than major int'l airports where the cost per gate is spread over a much larger number of passengers per flight. When you compare the number of gates DL has with the size of the CTB, DL could spend 3X more than they did at JFK and still totally rebuild two terminals at LAX for the same amount per enplaned pax as the PA will spend on the CTB.

DL is simply not going to spend a fortune on terminals at LGA, esp. when it is very possible that other carriers' Cost per enplaned passenger could soar to levels that make LGA too expensive for many of them. DL simply does not spend $100 million per gate for a domestic airport.

What is it with you guys and expecting airlines to over play their hands? 
 
No WT it doesn't work that way. The Port owns C/D. If they want to rebuild them then they will and its that simple. Its not a matter of they will rebuild them if Delta gets this or that. 
 
 
No at the end of the day, the port owns the buildings and can do with them what they want. No airline lease I have ever seen can prevent that. (for example, Delta's lease in Atlanta doesn't prevent the city from doing basically whatever they want as long as the number of gates Delta has a lease for (along with office space/clubs etc) are met.) 
 
If you can prove that Delta has that level of control over C/D I would love to see it, if not you are back in the fanboy fantasy land you and other around here share.  

 

[700UW]

The redesign will net the main terminal five gates, currently there are 65 gates at CTB and C/D, that will rise to 70 gates.

 

[WorldTraveler]

There is no contract under which DL will redevelop its terminals. it is all conceptual.

and DL could very easily tell the PA that it won't spend the money on its own terminals that the PA wants to spend.

Airlines do that all the time.

DL has done wonders to take 125 slots which US didn't want and turned them into viable flights which DL continues to upgrade - and wants to do even further.

Further, it is very doubtful that the CTB redevelopment will come in anywhere close to what is being proposed even at $4B and even if it does based on current boardings, LGA will be have one of the highest Cost per Enplaned Passenger in the US - and higher than most other airports in the world.

Not only will airlines simply not be able to sustain that kind of service - esp. the low cost carriers that the DOJ says NYC needs - but also legacy carriers that will not be able to justify keeping even a 76 seat RJ on a gate that is as costly as the CTB will be.

All of the great conceptual ideas sound great now and the CTB airlines may have no choice but I can absolutely assure you that DL doesn't and won't go along with a plan that leaves it with costs that are so high that the airport is no longer economically viable.

and that is a very high risk whether you understand it or not.

but to help you understand, how about you tell us the price of some of the most recent airport terminal projects in the US?