Slashdot Mirror
Critics Say It's Time To Close La Guardia Airport
HughPickens.com writes: George Haikalis writes in the NYT that last week, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey put off, yet again, deciding between two proposals for a nearly $4 billion project to rehabilitate the dilapidated Central Terminal Building at La Guardia Airport. But piling billions of taxpayer dollars into upgrading La Guardia, which has been likened to an experience "in a third world country," won't solve its fundamental problems. "It can't easily expand," says Haikalis. "Its two runways and four terminals are surrounded on three sides by water, making landing difficult and hazardous. Parking is a nightmare."
There are precedents for replacing airports close to the center city with modern, more outlying airports. Hong Kong and Denver are two examples; Berlin will soon follow suit. With the consolidation of the major United States airlines and the sluggishness in the global economy, the much larger Kennedy and Newark airports could accommodate La Guardia's passenger load, by adding more frequent service and using larger aircraft, if the F.A.A. were to lift the caps on the number of flights allowed there. Kennedy, with its two sets of parallel runways, could handle many more flights, particularly as new air-traffic control technology is introduced in the next few years. The money budgeted for the La Guardia upgrades would be better used to create a long-proposed one-ride express-rail link between Manhattan and J.F.K., by reviving a long-disused, 3.5-mile stretch of track in central Queens and completing the modernization of the terminals at Kennedy. "By avoiding the costly replacement of outmoded terminals at La Guardia and by creating a new express rail link and upgrading terminals at Kennedy, the increased economic activity could more than make up for the lost jobs," concludes Haikalis. "New York's importance to America's economy demands a first world vision to shutter this third world airport."
There are precedents for replacing airports close to the center city with modern, more outlying airports. Hong Kong and Denver are two examples; Berlin will soon follow suit. With the consolidation of the major United States airlines and the sluggishness in the global economy, the much larger Kennedy and Newark airports could accommodate La Guardia's passenger load, by adding more frequent service and using larger aircraft, if the F.A.A. were to lift the caps on the number of flights allowed there. Kennedy, with its two sets of parallel runways, could handle many more flights, particularly as new air-traffic control technology is introduced in the next few years. The money budgeted for the La Guardia upgrades would be better used to create a long-proposed one-ride express-rail link between Manhattan and J.F.K., by reviving a long-disused, 3.5-mile stretch of track in central Queens and completing the modernization of the terminals at Kennedy. "By avoiding the costly replacement of outmoded terminals at La Guardia and by creating a new express rail link and upgrading terminals at Kennedy, the increased economic activity could more than make up for the lost jobs," concludes Haikalis. "New York's importance to America's economy demands a first world vision to shutter this third world airport."
La Guardia is right next to the Triborough and at the top of the BQE. You can get to midtown via taxi in 20 minutes in heavy traffic. It takes ten minutes from the time you are off the Jetway, down the escalator, at the luggage carousel, and to the cab stand.
Granted, landing and taking off can be... exciting. One day we had a nasty tail wind, so the pilot had to gun the engines as we were making the turn onto the runway to get enough speed - something I've never seen anyone do before.
Otherwise, I'd give up useless amenities for expediency.
My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
Is La Guardia airport operating only North American flights ? And is it still there mostly for historical reasons ? I have googled it and the perpendicular runways surrounded by water seem quite exciting.
Don't you know it is now both immoral and criminal to think beyond the next quarterly report?
Surrounded by water makes the airport hazardous - right, that's definitely more hazardous then having buildings and other structures surrounding the airport.
Maybe they can remake the airport into a toxic waste dump instead. There are only 30 million additional fliers at newark and
Kennedy.
No problem at all there. The additional time on the ground while you sit on a runway waiting for your turn will more than be made up for
with a nice new train.
It can be guaranteed that New York will choose the most expensive option, will have a budget overrun and will be 20 years late.
When you see likening to the third world country is a mere beginning of the campaign so that people would be believe that the issue is so big, so unsolvable that only a multi-billion dollar project can solve the issue. There will be proposals for floating on water airports, airports to be build on artificial islands.
For all I care, the NYC with one of the largest subway systems in the world for the last 85 years could not extend a subway link to Laguardia. I do not know what was the issue: corrupt taxicab companies or some other sinister reasons.
The issue is not Laguardia airport here, the issue is poor public transportation to certain airports, or truth the be told - absence of if, and there are many other airports in NYC metro area: Islip, Westchester, teterboro, Trenton, and so on.
In my opinion, travelers do not care about the appearance of the airports, all they want is convenient way to arrive, park or rent a car, and leave shortly. Politicians want appearance, costs be damned.
"Parking is a nightmare."
This statement implies parking is even possible.
Last time I went there to pick someone up, I drove around in circles in a holding pattern comparable to the planes themselves. "Parking" is not something that actually occurs at La Guardia.
=Smidge=
And redevelop the land.
I find it far easier and more pleasant to take the train from Boston. Presumably the same holds for folks from Philly.
I'd also like to see more business travellers learn to use video conferencing instead of blowing off a few gigajoules on the theory that face-to-face is the only acceptable way to hold a meeting.
https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
Recently flew into JFK and I was amazed at how crappy that airport is. Dirty, nasty, and falling apart. just look at the ceiling and see how much dirt is everywhere.
It's like they can't bother to hire custodians and clean. seating all looked like hell, 90% of all the electrical outlets were destroyed.
Yeah, not impressed for a city that has as much wealth as it does.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
The linked article (about Berlin Tegel) is simply wrong or at least confusing. Berlin Tegel is an old airport within city limits that was supposed to be closed when new Berlin Brandenburg airport opened. As the later data is not in sight thanx to incompetence, political corruption, changing requirements and some other disasters the old airport is still open and its opening dates are like weather - change. Take any other airport if you want to show successful creation of a new airport outside city limits replacing an old one within.
This 3rd world website needs to be closed - further investment in it is pointless (beta).
...when you point to Berlin's new airport as an example to follow. It was originally scheduled to be opened in 2010. In 2012, they filled up the tanks in preparation for the grand opening, but then had to postpone the opening again. That was three years ago. It is currently scheduled for opening in 2017, but that has already been called into question again. Obviously it is so far beyond its original budget that people have joked that it might be cheaper to relocate Berlin to somewhere with a working airport.
The whole three major airport system in the NYC area is a mess. When we were looking at flying overseas we gave up on flying through New York. The flights from our local airport (YHZ) go in through LGA or Newark, but the outgoing Trans-Atlantic flights leave through JFK. We would either need to fly on separate tickets and risk loosing all of our money for a delayed flight, or make an unnecessary stopover in Detroit.
I understand that there may be too much traffic for one big airport, but there need to be airline run/approved shuttles between airports so flyers can transfer/connect without risk of losing a ton of money from a late flight.
------- Mark
Is that a joke?
It now costs $110 for a taxi to downtown. Yeah, rail is opening next year, 20 years after the airport. That'll make it convenient for those traveling without children, skis, disabilities, or extended-stay luggage, and whose Denver location is near a stop on Denver's rail system, which was optimized for miles of track laid rather than number of useful locations served or transit time.
Mahdia, Guyana or Mullen, Nebraska might have to sell an airport code, but that should be the most difficult thing in solving this problem: http://manhattanairport.org/
At my age I find coming up with a witty signature too exhausting.
It just like in Kansas City where the asshole politicians want to rebuild what is the most convenient airport (for the local traveler) of anywhere in the country. You can be at your car in 1 minute from stepping off the plane. It's not about serving the citizenry, more about leeching taxes.
As a New Yorker, I much prefer LaGuardia, and strongly disagree with calls for its closing. As a small airport, it isn't burdened with its own size in terms of processing passengers. Everything at JFK takes longer than at LGA strictly because of magnitude.
JFK is literally too big to provide efficient service to individuals. Once the check-in & security hurdle is cleared, one still has to walk nearly a mile to get to their actual gate. Once boarded, the plane has to taxi for minutes just to arrive at the runway, where you will likely have to queue for an additional wait to takeoff. As others have mentioned, I easily save at least 30 minutes by flying from LGA, when adding up travel, check-in, security, walking to the gate, taxi-ing, and runway queuing.
I would love to see these large airports replaced with multiple smaller airports. A larger percentage of the population would have an airport nearby, and average travel times would be reduced significantly. It seems to me that planners are optimizing for everything except your personal experience when they design and advocate for mega-airports.
New York's three airports, run by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, made about a half a billion dollars in profit last year. Why not use that money? Oh wait, they use it to pay for loss-making operations like the Port Authority Bus Terminal in Midtown. New York City's mass-transit system is $15 billion short of what it needs to invest over the next five years. The state-run Metropolitan Transportation Authority runs permanent deficits and depends on billions of dollars each year in tax subsidies to stay afloat. Personally I feel the rates for the mass-transit system should be raised to meet the financial demands of running that service. We'd have plenty of money to resolve the airport issue, *without* needing to worry about siphoning taxpayer dollars.
http://freakonomics.com/2009/0...
NYC is bankrupt and quite frankly, it can't afford to float a loss like La Guardia much longer. The airport is a dump anyway - might as well just give it to New Jersey.
Dirty, nasty, and falling apart.
That's my basic impression of most of NYC. Beat up, dirty, and falling apart and no one seems to care much. I went to school not far from the city and have visited plenty of times. Almost moved there for a job once. But never have thought it was a pleasant place to be. Interesting? Sure. Impressive? Definitely. But also dirty, gross and highly overrated. New Yorkers simply don't seem to care much about living in a clean place. It's among the dirtiest big cities I've been to and I've been to Hong Kong, Tokyo, Shanghai, Singapore, Mexico City, and most of the big US and Canadian cities. (Singapore incidentally is by far the cleanest big city I've ever seen)
Having an airport close to the center of the city is a really useful asset but NYC seems to have neglected it like so much of the rest of the city. La Guardia could be really something special but it's just taken for granted.
According to AirNav, La Guardia handles around 1013 aircraft operations a day; that's 1013 takeoffs and landings per day. Compare to JFK, which handles 1232 aircraft operations a day with twice as many runways, or Newark, with 1098 aircraft operations a day.
The airport might suck and may or may not be inconvenient, but it is handling far more traffic than can be diverted to another existing airport. You could expand another existing airport to handle the excess traffic--but where? Teterboro? Caldwell in Essex County? Long Island Mac Arthur?
And the entire industry is moving away from long haul flights to shorter regional hops, meaning traffic operations are only going to increase. So assuming you can just divert all the flights to JFK and Newark isn't going to work; split the number of flights between the two and now you have two airports handling about the same amount of traffic as LAX, with 1741 flights/day. So even if we assume those airports can handle the increase in traffic, that pretty much will max out both airports and prevent future expansion.
Hong Kong International took nearly a decade to construct, in a regulatory environment which makes it easy to steamroll in large infrastructure projects. So constructing a new airport near Rikers Island is not going to happen over a weekend.
And if you did go the Hong Kong route, you may be better off spending the money, moving everything off Rikers Island, and expanding the airport by paving Rikers and adding two additional runways, modernizing La Guardia, and extending the subway system to run out to the terminals there.
I work in midtown, potholes, drug dealers, prostitutes (he the UN is right there, someone's got to cater to the Diplomats). the NYC is a turd and it is hell going there. I live in Westchester and can't stand that filthy pile of shit.
American has a major presence at LGA. Delta operates LGA as their northeastern hub - good luck shifting all those flights to JFK or EWR. (Plane change in ATL anyone?) Most of the budget carriers (including Southwest) seem to prefer LGA as well.
There is one major airline that has an unusually minimal presence at LGA, but huge at JFK and EWR... Thus, based on that article, one can conclude that the Times staff flies United.
The author talks about using greater numbers of larger planes at JFK and Newark airports as if this were easy or without consequence.
All it would require is basically getting rid of most regional airlines, routing most flights to NYC through large hubs, having airlines buy new larger planes and inconveniencing every single passenger flying to or from NYC by requiring longer flights through hubs, much longer delays on the runway (50% more air traffic), longer waits to get through security and check in (50% more people), and traveling further just to get to the airport.
Teterboro can't handle aircraft over 100,000 lbs, which rules out being used for most commercial airliners. Also, since it's a general aviation airport, there is the small problem that it doesn't have a terminal at all.
Just wondering because everyone I know uses John F. Kennedy Airport. They take then take the Air Train to the A, E, J or subway line. Some of my other friends take the train to Penn Station.
Last year we were flying out of LA guardia, and it was awful. Our first flight was canceled, our second flight was delayed until the next morning. It was July, so the weather was awful. The air conditioning was broken, there weren't enough places to sit, all of the coolers in stores were broken so all the drinks were hot, and the drinking fountains had water that came out hot to the touch (I could have brewed tea). It was one of the worst experiences I've ever had anywhere, and I' very ridden greyhound from California to new Jersey and back.
Don't hold Berlin airport as any kind of good example. It is a clusterfuck that may actually never open. Already years and billions beyond predictions.
You used to be able to take the A train from JFK (if i remember properly, there was a shuttle bus to Aqueduct) it was surprising just how many business folks took that trip, even with the interesting clientell on the train. I think that was quashed when the airtrain was introduced. Lot of progress that was. Train to Jamaica and then subway. From LGA, the best bet is bus to grand central. I think it's about 15 bucks. I no longer live in NYC, but LGA is as was always the best choice if you were headed to manhattan. Second best was Newark with the train to Penn Station. Unless you are flying international, NY'ers know to avoid JFK. Closing LGA would be very bad move, but hey it's NY.
Given how bad the traffic is in and around NYC and New Jersey, as well as the bridges (thanks Gov Christie and flunkies), perhaps La Guardia can be re-purposed using smaller planes - on those smaller runways - to simply ferry people to/from JFK and Newark airports. :-)
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
which has been likened to an experience "in a third world country," won't solve its fundamental problems. "It can't easily expand," says Haikalis. "Its two runways and four terminals are surrounded on three sides by water, making landing difficult and hazardous. Parking is a nightmare."
So, perfectly suited to New York City itself?
Any company that does not have a good video conferencing system in at least 2 conference rooms is ran by morons.
Really? So I run a manufacturing company. My customers are almost all within 1 day's driving distance. Furthermore I have yet to run into a single problem that would have been better solved if only we had a video conferencing system in our conference room. Why? Because our problems are out of the factory floor, not in a conference room. When I need to visit a customer for something I can't do over the phone or email it's because I'm going to be spending time on a factory floor looking into the guts of a machine most likely. A conference room video chat would be utterly useless.
But we're morons because we don't have a good video conferencing system in two conference rooms. [/eyeroll] I think you don't know much about how business works in the real world.
Lots of LaGuardia traffic is coming from cities like Boston and Washington that already connect to NYC via train
Beef up and speed up the train service, it's probably cheaper than trying to fix LaGuardia
There are precedents for replacing airports close to the center city with modern, more outlying airports.
Sure. And there are precedents for expanding in-city airports bounded by water. Boston.
Any solution that involves emulating LAX is probably a mistake...
Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
HEY! I resemble that remark!
That freakonomics article proceeds from a false assumption -- namely that the ONE AND ONLY way to make changes to airspace in the NYC region is to completely shutdown an airport.
There are other ways to redesign the local NYC airspace that would substantially simplify routing and reduce controller workload but which no one there wants to talk about for two typical NYC reasons:
1) keeping the workload artificially inflated means the FAA has to pay those controllers higher salaries
2) nobody wants to give up their fiefdoms; if a piece of air has previously been split up a certain way then that's how it has to stay
If you're Daddy Warbucks you pay the higher JFK landing prices and tack on the high priced AirTran.
If you're cheap (but not so cheap as to take Amtrak), you get the cheaper fares to LGA then take a taxi into Queens to catch the NYCT the rest of the way into Manhattan.
Boy do those taxi drivers get peeved when they realize you're just going to be a $7 fare!
There is already an airport that can accommodate the closing of LaGuardia Airport; Stewart Airport in New Windsor, N.Y. This airport can handle any size airplane. The FAA and Port Authority don't want to see the expansion of this airport because once people see how easy it is to get to they will not only leave LaGuardia but Kennedy for Stewart.
How will it be at all reasonable to shut down LGA and move traffic to EWR and JFK? Traffic is already a nightmare getting out of Manhattan and on the GCP/Van Wyck. The problem is getting people to the airports.
It is a joke to try and take subways/buses to LGA. La Guardia and NYC need to make some hard and bold public policy choices to cut through a couple of neighborhoods, and make public transport more efficient to/from the airport.
The level of infrastructure quality in our supposedly world-leading financial center is a total embarrassment. You come back from Singapore or HK or even Munich, and you wonder, how are we still #1 with this shit? Fuck the investment required and cost/benefit ratios -- it's a indicator of your country's standing and priorities.
I think some people are just confused by the whole idea of factories in the US. We keep being told that all of that "factory-stuff" happens in China now.
Heh. Yeah, I get that a lot. The notion that we don't make anything in the US is a pretty bizarre one given that measured in dollars we manufacture more stuff than anyone. Funny thing is that many people take it as a given even though it's trivial to show that American manufacturing is alive and well and continuing to grow.
Berlin had three airports: Tempelhof (unfinished NAZI building project, quite interesting architecture, note round grassy field), Tegel (the one with its roots in the Berlin Air Bridge), and Schoenefeld (dillipated Soviet concrete). Enter "red/red" coalition presiding over a bankrupt Berlin, coming up with a prestige project to replace all three with one really big one, built anew next to the old Schoenefeld. Massive cost overruns, time overruns, ridicule, the whole enchilada. It should've been opened already but won't for a couple years yet and its price has already doubled also.
I remember the referendum for keeping Tempelhof open, more specifically the incumbent administration's propaganda to get people to vote against that: Apparently wanting to fly anything but cattle class from Schoenefeld is unsocialist, in fact it's putting on the airs of "the super rich". Given that the argument in favour of closing was that it too 10mio (1e7) euro a year to keep it open, in the face of 2mrd (2e9) euro overruns on a 2mrd project to replace it... yeah. It didn't have enough traffic, you say? That had been deliberately pushed to other airports in the years before; it wasn't because nobody wanted to use the thing, it was because the administration didn't want you to use it.
Personally I liked Tegel and Tempelhof well enough. Tegel IMO should've built terminal B like originally projected, akin to terminal A because that design has the property you can walk in from the street into an aeroplane in less than 100 metre, very unlike the rather shoddy terminal C they built instead. Tempelhof could perhaps have modeled itself after London City Airport (including its noise controls and such); it already had a connection with the metro and is smack dab in the middle of the city. That way you can separate out the frequent domestic flyers from the masses flying cattle class, enabling a better experience all around. But no, Berlin picked the One Airport For Everybody approach, even though all it does is bankrupt them further.
They did, in fact, have to expand Tegel well after they'd decided to eventually close it because Tempelhof went away and Schoenefeld didn't show any signs of getting closer to finishing up with the building and getting ready for opening.
I wonder how much land the critics own in the area that might be home to the new airport if they get their way.
The thing I always hated about LaGuardia is that it is Taxi accessible only, I could never fathom why the N didn't get extended to resolve that. Other than doing that I think investing in LaGuardia is a mis-allocation of resources.
Several Million People live in Nassau and Suffolk Counties, but to catch an airplane they need to drive past MacArthur/Islip Airport on their way to JFK or LaGuardia through rather intense traffic or take the Long Island Railroad (which may depending on when they're travelling and which line still be slower than sitting in traffic). Spending the money expanding Islip would both add significant capacity for the region and provide a lot of convenience.
Considering New York-Princeton-Philadelphia as a single very large market, Trenton is the most interesting of the Auxilliary Airports. It is not only the shortest drive airport for Central New Jersey (Princeton and New Brunswick), but it is also the shortest drive for airport for the Northern Philadelphia Suburbs including the Northeastern corner of Philadelphia itself and King of Prussia (which is the economic centre of the Philadelphia Market, not downtown). Right now the transit connections to Trenton are awful, but with about 6 miles of track to build there could be direct service from Trenton Airport on three lines to Center City Philadelphia, Camden NJ and New York City. Politically the region either needs to either be taken over by a state or regional authority or get an exemption from the outdated federal restrictions on commercial flights at private airports and be privatized because the Municipal authority that owns it changes their mind every few years as to whether they want to expand it or shut it down entirely.
Because of the tangled politics the money will probably be wasted on a renovation of LaGuardia (probably without the subway extension its always needed and no added capacity or other benefits to travellers than a shiny terminal), rather than on ISP or TNN expansion which would provide much greater benefit to travellers.
minds, get scrambled like eggs, abused and erased. Hard Hearted Alice is who you want to see.
And why is no one asking that question? According to:
https://www.panynj.gov/airports/lga-facts-info.html
"The Port Authority's total capital investment in the airport to date is $1.4 billion."
Why is it going to cost nearly three times as much to just upgrade it? I know a lot of taxi and car services want it closed because it is cheaper to get to than other airports, but we shouldn't let taxis dictate public policy.
"'Critics' say"? I only read one name on the article. So it's one guy's opinion. I fly in and out of LGA a lot and I've never had a negative reaction any worse than at any other airport. The biggest problem isn't the airport, as others have noted, it's ground transportation, which is not exactly a difficult engineering problem to solve. It is an unsolvable political-economic problem.
The summary is wrong. You would have to bump up the flights out of JFK and Newark by 50% to take the volume from LGA. That is no possible due to aircraft separation safety standards. The article states that if the FAA raises the cap on the number of flights at JFK and larger planes were used, then everything would be great. However, they CAN'T raise the cap because it is based on minimum separation for parallel runways that are closer together than 3600 feet. Also, you can't just dictate larger aircraft. The size of the aircraft is based on the wants and needs of the consumer. If you have multiple flights per day to a location, then you could consolidate flights on a larger aircraft, but that removes choice from the consumers. Also, if you have only a single flight to a destination on a day, then there is no point in flying a larger half empty airplane to it. You either stop flying to that destination altogether or keep flying the same equipment.
From the article, I can't see any compelling argument for shutting down the airport.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
Hydrogen filled, with a smoking room, of course.
Left MS Windows for Linux Mint and never looked back!
Vote for Bernie in 2016!
New York City is "America's" greatest Art Deco Third World City.
This city is Made For It's Mayor ! He will have it NO OTHER WAY !
"Don't Like NYC? [a razor blade to the belly] Eat shit and bleed your worthless life away on the Five Points !" :-)
Ha ha
"...New York's importance to America's economy demands a first world vision to shutter this third world airport....."
A taxi ride for the upper east side to LGA via Bronx, is as 3rd world as Bombay
Reduce the number of flights to what can be comfortably served by existing infrastructure. Reduce maximum planes size. Make it a domestic terminal for flights to several major airports where large, intercontinental flights depart.
As I understand all the problems originate from too high traffic at various points and all of them would need to be expanded. So what if you instead reduced the traffic to the narrowest choke point size?
Do build a large airport away from the city. If someone goes on a 14 hour flight, an extra hour of commute won't change much, especially if it means comfortable and organized boarding experience. OTOH it makes a difference if you want to visit your aunt seven hours of driving away, if you can get there through one hour of commute, half-hour of boarding and an hour of flight.
Closing down all that existing infrastructure would be a huge waste of money. Smaller planes mean safer landing. Less traffic means safety in air. Fewer passengers mean the terminals, parking lots and public communication will be able to handle the numbers comfortably, without need for upgrades.
Sure the solution shares some disadvantages of leaving the airport running at current capacity, and some disadvantages of shutting it down and building a new one - but it seems to me it resolves the worst of disadvantages of both.
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
Some guys in Cleveland decided to sell the old stock of sweaters that their family business had made in the past. Apparently it was a lot of them. The sweaters sold for high prices and customers said they were purchasing to wear them as they we much better than what is now generally available. Naturally they thought reestablishing the family manufacturing business. Looking into this they discovered that not only would machinery have to be imported but the entire supply chain was gone from the US.
The reason we now say measured in dollars is because by any other measure we are outdone by China and not "just getting better" but still declining. The dollar figures include military contracts to build things that never actually seem to get built where individual contracts dwarf the gdp of some countries. The rust belt is real. Detroit is dead.
It is much better to connect the large airports JFK and Newark to the many smaller airports in the region with high(er) speed rail links that go straight to the terminals (rather than the insanely expensive AirTrain from the subway station....used to be free bus shuttle!). Linking to airports in the region such as Bradley, Stewart, and even Albany with fast rail links will make not much difference for travelers in the end. Any investment in LGA will only benefit LGA. Closing LGA and investing into regional high speed rail will benefit the entire NJ/NY/CT region. Rail connection should be considered part of airport services, so if one flies to e.g. Stewart to then connect to a flight from JFK the rail transit should be seamless including baggage transport. There are even other smaller airfields in the region that might take on a few more flights. It will spread the investments, benefit more places, and spread the wealth.
I would much rather use La Guardia than Idlewild. La Guardia is convenient, Idlewild is a long ride. Objective of a business trip is seeing clients, not spending time getting to/from the airport.
Newark and JFK handle the load? Really? When someone sneezes in Whippany (okay when it rains anywhere on the east coast) - Newark goes into 1 hour delay mode.....New York needs all three airports thank you......
Having lived within walking distance, less than a handful of blocks away from LGA for the better half of the last decade, I've seen countless improvements to LGA over the past 3 years. It doesn't make sense to now close the airport after upgrading the terminals, adding new buildings, and adding the new ATC tower with the new radar antenna situated on top. Having flown from LGA on numerous occasions, I really don't see it being a 3rd world country airport at all. Is it shittier than JFK, yes, it doesn't have a gigantic mall in it like JFK does. But who goes to airports for the shopping? Or for the scenery? I suggest people take a flight to a 3rd world airport and see the conditions there. I've been to HK Intl too (to the new airport, not the old one), and in comparison, JFK is far shittier than that airport. It's all relative.
Some guys in Cleveland decided to sell the old stock of sweaters that their family business had made in the past. Apparently it was a lot of them. The sweaters sold for high prices and customers said they were purchasing to wear them as they we much better than what is now generally available. Naturally they thought reestablishing the family manufacturing business. Looking into this they discovered that not only would machinery have to be imported but the entire supply chain was gone from the US.
I was born and raised in Cleveland and my whole family has worked in manufacturing there, myself included. So some hypothetical (?) businessmen who were clueless about how global supply chains and manufacturing works wanted to revive a labor intensive business they had no personal experience in, in an area with high labor costs, no particular tradition in clothing manufacturing and no existing supply chain. Awesome business plan.
The reason we now say measured in dollars is because by any other measure we are outdone by China and not "just getting better" but still declining.
Not only not true, easily shown to be not true. The vast majority of manufacturing work that has left US shores for China is work that is labor intensive. That is work that will go wherever labor rates are lowest. Since that isn't the US anymore, most of that work has left US shores, probably never to return. Absent an economic catastrophe you won't see garment manufacturing come back to the US because that means US wages have fallen drastically.
US manufacturing is alive and well. We just make stuff like cars and jumbo jets and earth movers and microprocessors instead of happy meal toys, and clothes and walmart junk. Personally I see that as a good thing that it is rather than trying to mourn the loss of industries that are incompatible with earning good wages. Let China have those jobs so they can grow their economy and bring millions out of poverty the like of which you've never even seen much less lived with.
People bemoan the loss of manufacturing jobs that weren't going to stay here anyway. Used to be you could graduate high school and get a job on an assembly line that hugely overpaid you for what amounted to unskilled or semi-skilled labor. Then the real world caught up and people have to compete and get educated for decent paying jobs. There's plenty of work to be had in manufacturing but you'll need to be educated if you want to get paid more than minimum wages for it.
The dollar figures include military contracts to build things that never actually seem to get built where individual contracts dwarf the gdp of some countries.
Oh, well. Some military contractors got some jobs so clearly manufacturing is dead. Clearly the $3 TRILLION in manufacturing the US does every year and that keeps growing every year doesn't mean anything. US manufacturing by itself is an economy roughly the size of the GDP of Russia. All of Russia. And it is growing despite idiots like yourself trying to throw dirt on it.
The rust belt is real. Detroit is dead.
HA! I've lived in the "rust belt" most of my life and live in Detroit metro right now. You have no idea what you are talking about.
I fly A LOT.. Yes Laguardia is older, but its in much better condition than JFK both terminal wise, ease to reach, staff, planes, runways etc. JFK is a hell hole. EWR is better but in a dangerous area and really far from NYC. La Guardia should get the extra funding to make it even better. Forget JFK. Its so far from EVERYTHING. Yes LGA is far too, but JFK is just a mess.
No idea where the writer of the article got his ideas from. Also WHO DRIVES to LGA??? I always take the good ole M60. They need more buses as its always packed, but driving there... ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR MIND! DO WE WANT MORE TRAFFIC IN QUEENS! Public trans should be conveinent and used for every airport. I think the writer of this article is not a New Yorker (Must be remote at NYT) and has not flown much at either airport! The train to the plane was nice for JFK but its just good for Park Slope or Lower Manhattan.. If you live in queens or lower Brooklyn the train to JFK is a plain nightmare.
Newark is probably next on the list for shutdown, however. JFK is not in good shape either. Both are at the bottom of the barrel.
Get rid of the parking lots and force people to use public transit to go to the airport. I'm sure that commuters who travel on nearby connecting roads will be very happy at the ease of congestion. Use the existing parking lot land to expand as needed.
...because I hear Richard M. Daley is looking for work these days, and he's no stranger to closing airports overnight when necessary.
You know that this is a joke?
The Berlin situation is beyond repair and reason.
Even stand up comedians here have stopped making remarks about it, because this has been going on without result for too long