Misplaced Pages

Talk:John F. Kennedy International Airport: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 03:37, 13 April 2017 editIrehdna (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users511 edits →Qantas to Sydney← Previous edit Latest revision as of 11:23, 10 July 2024 edit undoQwerfjkl (bot) (talk | contribs)Bots, Mass message senders4,012,081 editsm Removed deprecated parameters in {{Talk header}} that are now handled automatically (Task 30)Tag: paws [2.2] 
(80 intermediate revisions by 46 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header}} {{Talk header|bottom=yes|hide_find_sources=yes}}
{{Article history
{{FailedGA|{{Date|2013-7-6}}|topic=Transport}}
|action1=GAN
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
|action1date=6 July 2013
{{WikiProject Aviation|class=c
|action1link=Talk:John F. Kennedy International Airport/GA1
|peer-review=yes
|action1result=failed
<!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. -->
|B-Class-1=no
<!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. -->
|B-Class-2=yes
<!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. -->
|B-Class-3=yes
<!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. -->
|B-Class-4=yes
<!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. -->
|B-Class-5=yes
|Airports=yes}}
{{WikiProject New York City|class=c|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Long Island|class=c|importance=Mid}}}}
{{Image requested|in=New York City|of=Airport Building 141 - 141 Federal Circle, Jamaica, NY}}
{{Image requested|in=New York City|of=] - BUILDING #144 JOHN F KENNEDY AIRPORT VAN WYCK EXPRESSWAY NEW YORK, NY 11430 - , , }}
{{Image requested|in=New York City|of=] Cargo at JFK - }}
{{OnThisDay|date1=2014-07-31|oldid1=619079932}}


|currentstatus=FGAN
== Location ==
|topic=transport
|otd1date=2014-07-31|otd1oldid=619079932}}
{{afd-merged-from|Kennedy Steve|Kennedy Steve|29 January 2021}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|vital=yes|1=
{{WikiProject Aviation|Airports=yes|old-peer-review=yes|B-Class-1=no|B-Class-2=yes|B-Class-3=yes|B-Class-4=yes|B-Class-5=yes}}
{{WikiProject New York City|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject New York (state)|LI=yes}}
}}
{{Image requested|in=Queens|of=Airport Building 141 - 141 Federal Circle, Jamaica, NY}}
{{Image requested|in=Queens|of=] - BUILDING #144 JOHN F KENNEDY AIRPORT VAN WYCK EXPRESSWAY NEW YORK, NY 11430 - , , }}
{{Image requested|in=Queens|of=] Cargo at JFK - }}
{{User:MiszaBot/config <!-- LOWERCASE SIGMABOT III - DO NOT REMOVE -->
| algo=old(90d)
| archive=Talk:John F. Kennedy International Airport/Archive %(counter)d
| counter=2
| maxarchivesize=75K
| archiveheader={{Automatic archive navigator}}
| minthreadsleft=2
| minthreadstoarchive=1
}}


== Aeroflot suspension ==
Is it entirely on the coast of the bay, or is part of it actually in the bay? (Did they extend a runway beyond the natural coastline onto landfill that they dumped in the bay?)


Aeroflot service shouldnt be removed as their is no indication that service wont return
::You can see how much they filled by comparing the 1924 aerial pics with the 1951 and more recent ones at http://gis.nyc.gov/doitt/nycitymap/ ] (]) 21:05, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
] (]) 18:54, 2 March 2022 (UTC)


In agreement here, similar to COVID suspensions there’s nothing telling us the routes won’t come back when the Russian situation is resolved. I’d say just leaving the route with ‘suspended’ is fine (] (]) 23:57, 2 March 2022 (UTC))
it is actually in Queens... not on Long Island. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 18:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


:Russian Airplanes are banned from entering United States Airspace therefore Aeroflot cannot fly into JFK ] (]) 22:20, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
== Name ==


::Sure, they’re banned right now but there’s nothing telling us that the routes won’t come back eventually. No need to remove them when we can just list them as suspended. (] (]) 05:28, 10 March 2022 (UTC))
I think that this page should be renamed to the fuller "John F. Kennedy International Airport", since the airport is also well known under this name. ] 00:57, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)
:] it looks like its already done! <span style="border:2px solid #000;background:#fff">]]</span> 04:03, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


Safe to say any mentioned Aeroflot return now borders on ]. Sure they may 'come back' someday, but without a firm date due to the political/war situation out there, it's very much breaches CRYSTALBALL (and trumps any WikiProject Guideline/rules) at this point. ] (]) 09:55, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
== Terminals ==


:I agree. This is clearly a situation where the return of service would require a significant change to come back any time soon. They're more than just suspended, they're banned. If the chart is supposed to represent the current routes at the airport, including routes that haven't flown for over a year and would require a major change in real-world geopolitical events to begin again doesn't fulfill that purpose. There's no reason for keeping them here without engaging in CRYSTALBALL speculation. ] (]) 00:59, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
I added a new short stub relating to the Pan AM worldport called ]. i also added some information related to the architects of the Worldport in the kennedy main article, and am wondering because there is so much info on the individual terminals, they might need their own longer articles and need to pull out that sort of information from the kennedy main article. As info is added on the structures, they might get too long. For instance, the TWA terminal deserves a very long wikipedia article, as it has been written about alot through the years. ] 12:14, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


== Major robberies section ==


Like to propose adding that the robberies/ heists covered under this section inspired the 1990 film Goodfellas. ] (]) 20:46, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
== Tragedy ==

The word '''tragedy''' has been in the article since the first version. I strongly disagree with those who state that it is POV. Are we now required not to offend al-Qaeda supporters? ] 23:21, Apr 13, 2004 (UTC)

Its not necessary to call it a tragedy. Let the reader decide if September 11 was a tragedy or not. ] 23:32, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It may be tragic, but the word Tragedy suggests a certain amount of inevitability. ] 14:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

==Why was this moved?==
Is there a reason "New York/" was added? That does not seem to be part of the official or common name. --] (]) 23:46, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:I have moved it back, after finding no evidence of a name change. --] (]) 00:06, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
::I was just about to do the same. That was exactly the right thing to do. ] 00:13, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There are three airports in the New York area and to avoid confusion with which one. Like O'Hare is Chicago O'Hare. ] 19:14, 7 Aug 2005 (UTC)
::Yep, but they don't do that in New York. ] 20:19, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

== The Christopher Elliot comment ==

Does this deserve to be here? I did a Google search on him, and the results were weak, at best. ] 18:44, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

==Significant Presence==
I've removed the line that BA has a significant presence and someone has been restoring it. Being the leading non-US carrier out of Kennedy does not earn British Airways special mention. They have 8 flights a day to their hubs (7 to London, 1 to Manchester). American, United, and Air Canada each have 10-11 flights a day out of Heathrow and SAS has 20, so do they have a significant presence there? ] 22:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I sort of think that while BA only has a certain number of flights, maybe it continues to be reinserted because they have a name at the top of the terminal. it does indicate they have a larger presence than other international carriers, but see both points] 12:07, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

==New York-JFK or New York-Kennedy??==
When listing the destinations of airlines that fly to this airport, what is the best designation for JFK? New York-JFK or New York-Kennedy? I think that the designation should be listed as "New York-JFK" because every single airport article on Wiki have "New York-JFK" as the designation for JFK Airport. What are your suggestions? ] 20:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
:I'd go for New York-JFK, since I don't think people say "I'm flying from Kennedy to XXX" but rather "I'm flying from JFK to XXX". ] 21:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
::Okay, because I saw one user kept putting the designation "New York-Kennedy" instead of "New York-JFK" under the airport articles Louis Armstrong New Orleans International Airport and Austin Bergstrom International Airport but I have switched it back from "New York-Kennedy" to "New York-JFK". ] 22:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
:Kennedy or JFK are both acceptable according to Wiki:Airports Talk page. I would stick with Kennedy, though, since other cities with multiple airports don't use the codes. Such as Hobby, LaGuardia, O'Hare, Midway, Intercontinental, Dulles, etc., etc. ] 01:05, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
::I agree but I would recommend looking at all the airport articles and see that "New York-JFK" is used and not "New York-Kennedy". But you can feel free to change them all to Kennedy but I think it will look weird. ] 02:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
::It would be easier to change this sole code JFK to Kennedy than to change LaGuardia to LGA, Dulles to IAD, Hobby to HOU, O'Hare to ORD,... ] 04:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
::What exactly is the determining factor in naming the airport? IMHO, it should be named according to what it is more commonly known. It just happens that JFK is known by its IATA code. Can there be a vote on this if it is an issue? ] 05:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
:::While this issue seems to have died over a year ago, I will add my comments. Being a local, I can tell you that both "JFK" and "Kennedy" are used in reference to the airport. Both are appropriate, IMHO. This is easy to compare to because of NYC's 3 major airport, since while locals often refer to JFK as "JFK", you virtually never hear LaGuardia referred to as "LGA" or Newark referred to as "EWR"... in both cases its generally just "LaGuardia" and "Newark". I think the BIG difference here compared to other multi-airport cities is that JFK is not just the code, its the VERY FAMOUS initials of the VERY FAMOUS guy its named after...] 01:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

== SriLankan Airlines (Formerly Air Lanka) ==

What terminal does SriLankan Airlines (Formerly Air Lanka) go to? I did not see it in the list of airlines at each terminal.
] 04:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

:AFAIK, JFK is not a destination of UL. It only codeshares with EK on flights to JFK. ] 07:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

== Chairs ==

Are the chairs in other terminals as impossible to sit in without slouching down & compressing your spine as they are in Terminal 7? --] 04:04, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

== Abandoned Runways ==

There are at least 3 abandoned runways at JFK that have been converted to taxiways. They've always looked obvious to me from the airport diagram. I've only seen mention of them on an airliners.net discussions board which is not reliable enough to use as a source. If anyone has more info on them with a definitive source we may want to include it in the article. Taxiway L and a section of taxiway Y were runway 7R/25L. This runway was abandoned either after Worldport was constructed or expanded. The instrument approach lights for it were mounted on wood pilings extended into Jamaica Bay. The wood pilings are still there and easiy visible on Google Earth. Taxiway Z was once runway 1R/19L. Taxiway E was a commuter plane runway 14/32 and only recently converted to a taxiway. Runways 7L/25R and 1L/19R have been completely built over though.

] 02:45, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

==Destinations ==


Doesn't United operate a direct flight to Tokyo-Narita (UA891 via LAX) and a direct flight to Melbourne (UA839 via LAX and SYD) so shouldn't these be included as they're direct flights?] 13:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
:also US Airways flies JFK-LAS-DEN (US601 operated by America West) so should that be included too?] 13:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
::United also flies to Hong Kong from JFK (direct flight, UA891 JFK-LAX-NRT-HKG) so should that be included too?] 13:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
:::UA also has a direct flight to Seoul-Incheon (UA893 via SFO) so should that go in too?] 13:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
::::US airways flies JFK-LAS-SAN (US532 operated by America West-does that go in too?] 13:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

:::::If I am correct, these are faux direct flights, the airline uses just one flight number but there is an aircraft change in the last US city (ie. LAX or SFO) before proceeding to a foreign destination. And because of that, we don't list it here. See ] for details. Cheers. ] 14:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
::::::From the ] page:
:::::::List non-stop and direct flights only. That means the flight number and the aircraft, starts at this airport and continues to one or more airports. Avoid using the description 'via' since that is more correctly listed as another destination. If passengers can not disembark at a stop on a direct flight, then do not list it as a destination or as 'via'. Direct flights are not always non-stop flights. However, avoid listing most domestic United States direct flights, as virtually all of these are simply flights from one "spoke city" to a hub, with the plane continuing from the hub to a second spoke city. Including these flights dramatically increases the length of destination listings, artificially inflates the airline's presence at a location and requires constant updating, as these "timetable direct" destinations have little rhyme or reason and may change as often as every week or two.
::::::therefore the US Airways flights shouldn't be included but what about the United Flights? This doesn't say anything about plane changes. ] 07:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::::"...the flight number and the aircraft..." means no plane changes. ] (]) 18:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

An anon. editor continued to list Qantas as serving LAX from JFK. Qantas does not operate this route. This route is operated by American with a Qantas flight number, and connects to a Qantas flight at LAX. If this editor is reading this, please stop restoring this incorrect information. It will be removed each time. ] 20:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

To the above person: Qantas does fly its own planes between JFK and LAX once per day as Qantas Flight 108, which continues to Sydney. However, domestic passengers can't fly Qantas from JFK to LAX. Yes, American does have Qantas codeshares on its flights from JFK to LAX, but one flight is actually operated by Qantas on a Qantas aircraft. I made the latest change to the article, but I made a note of how domestic passengers can't fly Qantas to LAX. I think my edit might be a little bit wordy, however, so if someone wants to fix it up then go ahead. Please note that I was not the individual previously adding LAX as a Qantas destination. ] 00:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Jasepl adds Northwest Airlines as flying to Tel Aviv beginning June 3 from terminal 3. Where does this mystery flight come from? NWA does not currently fly to TLV. Its own reservations site offers either the regularly scheduled Delta Airlines JFK-TLV non-stop route (from terminal 3), or KLM's JFK-Amsterdam-TLV route (which in any case, departs from terminal 4). If one tries to make a reservation on NWA's website for a flight after June 3, the same options are offered, Delta or KLM. Nowhere on NWA's website is there any mention of Tel Aviv as a NWA destination. Besides, by June 3, will not NWA cease to exit as a brand?
:It is not a mystery flight. The existing JFK-TLK flight is flown with a Delta owned 767. That will, from June 3, be flown with a NWA owned 744. Ergo it's a NWA flight/route (based on the longstanding guideline to list ops on NWA aircraft as NWA flights). Plenty of such examples around, where aircraft have been swapped. if the two airlines do merge by then, the fix will become just one of hundreds. ] (]) 10:17, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
::NWA may presently own the 747 which will be used on the JFK-TLV route after June 3. Delta owns NWA, by June 3, there will be no more NWA brand. Tickets will be issued by Delta, Ticket counters and the terminal will be branded Delta. The plane's livery will surely be changed to Delta by then. Delta's website does mention the fact that the 767-300 will be replaced by a 747-400, but with no mention of NWA owning the plane. NWA makes no mention of such a flight. It is a "virtual flight" by means of legalistic reasoning regarding the Delta-Northwest merger. It is misleading to any reader of the Misplaced Pages article, you must admit.
:::I agree with you for the most part. I'm not a fan of the way things are currently listed either. However, there was a long discussion involving many editors over this, and the current format is what was agreed upon by majority consensus. Even though I wasn't one of those in support of the current format, it's what I too follow across the board. See the discussion archives over at ] (and possibly ]) if you want to read more. Thanks. ] (]) 10:45, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
::::Perhaps there are instances where equipment owned by a partner airline or a subsidiary airline is used or is planned to be used in the future, then such a listing would be warranted. But in this case, the NWA brand will be but a mere nostalgic memory by June 2010. I think you may be misinterpreting the guidelines for listing airline destinations. If the NWA 747 is currently being used on the route, then fine, by all means call it a NWA destination. But the plane is now owned by Delta, it will be a Delta plane in June, there will be no NWA. Again, the information is misleading as you list it.
Also, there is a discussion ] at the Delta talk page regarding how to list NW flights. Please add your thoughts to that page. However, for right now....NW/DL still operating as seperate carriers. Once the operating certificates have merged (i.e. the merger is complete in 2010), we can then list all the flights as Delta. So, I would just listed them as just "Northwest Airlines"/"Delta Air Lines" seperated with no "operated by" until the certificates are merged. ] (]) 20:41, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Someone has withdrawn Rio de Janeiro-Galeão as a destination for American Airlines, but AA still flies directly from JFK to GIG, via GRU (it is a tag flight) with Boeing 777-200ER aircraft. AA has applied for daily JFK-GIG nonstop to DOT, but it continues to be a regular scheduled destination from JFK, only now it is a 1-stop daily flight. Please do not erase it again!

== Ground Transportation ==

Am I the only one who thinks that the Helicopter section reads like an advertisment? ] 07:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

==Terminal 7==
Anon. editors continue to tout this terminal as the British Airways Terminal. Terminal 7 was the BA terminal at one time, but today is used by more airlines than just BA. It has not been referred to as the British Airways Terminal in official or legitimate writings for some time now. Please stop renaming Terminal 7 the British Airways Terminal. Your edit is incorrect, and will be reverted. ] 22:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
:I have requested semi-protection on this article seen here: ]. If approved, hopefully this will make the load lighter.. ] 23:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
::I arrived from Manila, Phillipines via Hong Kong, Hong Kong, last March 29, 2007. the airline I rode was Cathay Pacific Flight 831 from Hong Kong. When we got out of the jetway and proceeding to US Customs it was announced, "Welcome to the British Airways Terminal, Terminal 7 at John F. Kennedy International Airport. After you have gone through US Customs please proceed to Baggage Claim 9 to get your baggage. Welcome to New York!". So Terminal 7 is called the British Airways Terminal, ain't I correct? ] 04:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
:::I guess that is the official name. However, considering the number of airlines operating out of that terminal, I'd still leave it out. In most WP airport articles that attach an airline name to a terminal, the terminal isn't actually named after the airline. However, due to one airline controlling the terminal, it is commonly referred to as that (e.g. United Airlines terminal at O'Hare, Delta terminal in Boston, etc.). ] (]) 05:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
::::I have read on airliners.net that BA actually owns Terminal 7 (which, ironically, is not the case with any of its terminals in the UK). I do not know how or where to verify this, however. ]

==Semi-Protected==
Semi-Protection has been applied, hopefully this will help the article ] 00:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
:Excellent. Thank you! ] 02:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

== Helipad ==

When there is regular Helicopter service from JFK to Downtown Manhattan, why is there no mention of a helipad on the list of runways?
] 08:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

==Seperation of domestic/international flights==

I've noticed that at a few US airports (specifically JFK, EWR, ORD and LAX) some airlines domestic and international destinations are seperated. This is not set up in the standard form as set forth in the ProjectWiki Airport guide. Plus, when it's being done, it's inconsistent even within the airport page - i.e. DL and UA destinations being seperated, but AA and NW remaining intact at LAX. Also, people don't/shouldn't break it down for the airlines' regional ops, because 1) it looks awful, and 2) it just doesn't make much sense. So, stop doing it. Thanks. ] 17:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

==QF JFK-LAX==

Stop adding Los Angeles as a destination for Qantas!!! Many anon IPs have been adding it as a destiantion for Qantas. Yes, they do fly JFK-LAX-SYD but Qantas has no rights to transport passengers from JFK to LAX only! You cannot book a ticket for JFK-LAX only! Your edits are incorrect and '''will''' be reverted. ] 02:59, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
:If you contact the Qantas call center, you <i>can</i> book a ticket for JFK-LAX, a two-day (or however long) stopover in LAX, then a continuing flight LAX-SYD. Both parts are required, but this clearly constitutes a trip to Los Angeles, and in any case it is misleading to state merely Sydney--at least the designation should be "Sydney via Los Angeles" so as not to imply that a nonstop commercial flight of this distance is possible. I have not, however, made any edits on this point personally. ] <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 00:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::True, but if you put Los Angeles as a destination you are giving them a thought that they can fly, and by fly I mean only fly JFK-LAX without a connecting flight to SYD, AKL, MEL, or BNE after a day or two. It is a policy on ] to write direct flights, and direct flights is a flight that operates with one flight number and aircraft from one destination to another with a stop or two. That's why we should list Sydney as a destination. But if we list '''Sydney via Los Angeles''' we are giving the people an impression that you can't fly to SYD directly as you need to change flights in LAX, thus it is not a direct flight if we list it as '''Sydney via Los Angeles'''. ] 03:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
:::so, am i right or not? Qantas would not let me book a JFK-LAX ticket only on their website.] 18:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
::::I think you are right. Being able to stop in LA is not a "trip to Los Angeles," it's a trip to Australia with a stopover. If one cannot buy a ticket just to LAX, it shouldn't be listed as a destination. ] 20:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
:::::I agree. Qantas won't let me book just JFK-LAX...well I could, but I would have to go via SYD, but forget it. It should not be listed as a destination. ] 04:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

To help solve the Qantas issue, I made a note stating that the Sydney flight from New York involve a stop in Los Angeles but passengers cannot purchase to fly from JFK-LAX on QF. Hopefully this will help. Cheers!!! ] 23:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Would it not be pertinent to include MEL, BNE and AKL as destinations somewhere. Although the flight number is a continuation for the SYD flight, this appears to be just a technicality, as passengers can connect to any one of these flights. BNE, MEl and AKL, in terms of conveying Qantas' operations from JFK, have as much right as to be included as SYD. Also, would the footnote not be more appropriately attached to the destinations? ] (]) 16:38, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
:Please see my comments at ]. I wouldn't oppose to adding LAX with a note, but I don't see how we can add those other three, even in the note. Maybe a wikilink to ] in the note will do. We should probably also bring this up to ]. ] (]) 00:34, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
::Have added the other three in as a simple addition to the note. I completely agree however with everything said before about NOT having LAX. ] (]) 00:26, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

==Terminal 4==
I used to depart from Terminal 4 when I used to ride NWA to MNL. And I noticed that in Terminal 4 all the gates either begin with A or B and if you want to go to the A gates you have to go through final security screening. And to go to the B gates you have to go to a different security screening. And the A & B gates are separated by the food court so if you want to go to the B gates from the A gates you have to go thru security screening again. So technically Terminal 4 is divided into Concourse A & B. So in the article page of this airport Terminal 4 should be divided into Concourse A & B. Right? ] 23:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

'''Anybody?!''' ] 14:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

:While most airlines stick to one side, it is possible (at least in theory, not sure if this ever happens in practice) that an airline might switch back and forth depending on which gates were available on a particular day, or that an airline with multiple flights might operate from both sides (I think Virgin America may already be doing this). So it is not straightforward to divide the two, and unlike say the Central Terminal Building at LGA, all T4 departures and arrival facilities (check-in, customs, baggage claim) are integrated, weakening the claim of separate terminals. ] <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 01:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

Does anyone have any good pictures of the terminal that you can post on this page? The immigration halls is not exactly the most interesting part of this great and hugely important terminal. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 00:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Why is there absolutely nothing in this article, save for a small mention? ==

Of the recent terror plot against JFK International? I can find very few news items or sources about this anywhere, save for the linked article or the tiny mention in the section for accidents and other incidents.

Does anyone else find this a bit weird? ] 22:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
:In the grand scheme of things, the alleged plot is a minor footnote in the airport's history, so it really shouldn't get much more than a small mention in this article. It should link to a larger article specifically about the plot, though - but nobody's written it yet. Misplaced Pages is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, after all. ] 23:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
::Alleged plot. Heh. NPOV might be nice, Travis. ] 00:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
:::NPOV is exactly why I said "alleged plot," good sir. All crimes are alleged until proven otherwise by admissions of guilt or a conviction in a court of law. My personal opinion on the existence of the plot is of no consequence - what does matter is fundamental fairness and the justice system. If we start ruling people guilty before they've been convicted, we're no better than the Iranians. ] 00:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
::::"we're no better than the Iranians" - rather ironic in a discusion about NPOV ;-) (although for what it's worth, I agree totally with that statement, however POV it may be). ] <sup>] ]</sup> 16:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
::::Actually, Travis, as far as the criminal justice systems is concerned, the accused is innocent until proven guilty. This principle of one field does not apply universally. It would make little sense to say, for instance, that a witness to a crime should reserve judgment on whether the person was guilty until a jury verdict were reached. "Innocent until proven guilty" has a lot less application than people seem to think. It's not a rule of truth, it's a rule of a small number of cases in the United States judicial system (most are civil cases anyway). So, even in the courts, "innocent until proven guilty" is applicable to less than a majority of cases. ] 22:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
:::::The rule of "innocent until proven guilty" is applicable to all Misplaced Pages articles, and that's what we're discussing here. ] 07:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
::::::A plot cannot be proven guilty, nor can it be presumed innocent. It's not a criminal defendant; it's not even a person. Stop embarassing yourself, Travis. ] 17:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
:::::::The existence of the plot is not proven until those who allegedly devised it are convicted in a court of law of the conspiratorial crimes related to its creation. It's a pretty simple concept, really. This situation is not like a crime of physical violence or property loss, where the death, injury or theft is provable whether or not anyone is ever charged with a crime. (It would be rather silly to say "alleged murder" where there is a body lying in a pool of blood with 10 gunshot wounds, after all.) In this case, there is no independently ] evidence that the plot exists, outside the statements of FBI officials and federal prosecutors. Given that the allegation that the plot exists is a point of legal contention, and that it has not yet been proven in a court of law, it is an alleged plot. Stop embarrassing yourself, anonymous user. ] 19:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

==]==

This is a very poor picture, both in illustrating the subject and in composition and I have removed it from the head of the article. The diagram it replaced did a much better job of representing the article visually. ] 15:07, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

== Calgary on Northwest Airlines ==

There has been some editing disputes on whether or not Calgary should be listed as a destination. Per ], we do not list thru flights that require a connection at one of its hubs. Should Calgary be listed as a destination for NWA? ] 16:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
:I don't think we should include it. Like you said, the flight goes through a NWA hub, so really CGY is a destination from whatever hub its coming from, and not JFK. <strong>]<font color="blue">]</font></strong> 19:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

== Brussels on BA? ==

Is there a source for this? The BA website doesn't show any JFK-BRU flights that aren't connecting flights for May, June or July 2008.
21:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
:Brussels Airports has New York-JFK listed as a destination for BA but i have removed it from that page. ] (]) 03:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

== Travel Time Inaccuracies ==

The Article says:
<center>Travel time between JFK and Midtown Manhattan is approximately 30-40 minutes (depending on the originating/terminating terminal at JFK) using AirTrain and the Long Island Rail Road at Jamaica Station ($8 to $12); or approximately 75 minutes using AirTrain and the New York City Subway A train at Howard Beach-JFK Station ($2) or E, J and Z trains at Sutphin Boulevard Station ($2).</center>

Alot of this is inaccurate.

Getting to Manhattan by the AirTrain and the ]'s A-train takes much longer than the E,J, and Z trains, though still not nearly a 75-minute trip.
The A-Train station at Howard Beach is closer than Jamaica Station or Sutphin Boulevard though not by a whole lot. The A commutes to Manhattan via traveling all the way through souther and central Queens, through Brooklyn and into Manhattan, with a fairly lengthy commute time for a Subway though 75 minutes it may not be. The latter three trains simply travel west through northern Queens, with the J and Z using the ] and the expedient E train using Queens Boulevard and a tunnel. As far as the LIRR goes, the majority of people use it to <u>connect</u> to the AirTrain and not vice versa. It wouldn't make much sense to use it to get to Manhattan.

-Alan ] (]) 18:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

== El Al ==

El Al operates out of Terminal 4 not 8. They have since Terminal 4 was built and I know of no plans for this to change. I work in Terminal 8 so I would know.

] (]) 08:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

== American Airlines + Terminal 8+9 ==

As of 02.16.08, American Airlines has vacated Terminal 8 and moved to Terminal 9 (leaving the remaining airlines it shared with in Terminal 9 there) ] <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 04:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
== BA London-City Flights ==

Has BA announced flights to LCY from NYC yet...some sources say just to New York City but not saying service will be from JFK or Newark. Cause I just removed it again from the destinations list. Couldn't find anything to back this up. Thanks!! ] (]) 03:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

== OpenSkies ==

Will OpenSkies operate flights from JFK to CDG or ORY? Since OpenSkies is not listed on the Charles de Gaulle Airport...instead it is listed on the Orly Airport page instead. ] (]) 12:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not yet very experienced with Misplaced Pages, so I did not make any edits on the JFK airport page. But I am wondering why there are so few images of the airport and its terminals and so little information about JFK, which is the most important international getaway in the United States. There are no pictures of JFK Airtrain, no view of the great terminal 4 (only a picture showing the passport control area which is certainly not the highlight of this tremendous terminal), etc.. There are no images of the new Jet Blue terminal that is currently under construction and is scheduled to open in the Fall of 2008. The page on Israel's Ben Gurion Airport which was a featured article on Misplaced Pages short time agi, I think, is a good example of how the JFK should look like. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 00:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Redevelopment ==
Have a look at this. http://www.asicma.com/visor.aspx?Id=1963&ed=11 Has info on terminal 2 and 3. ] (]) 06:45, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

== China Airlines bus service ==

I don't see the exact addresses of boarding points for the China Airlines complimentary buses as being encyclopedic. See ]. Other public transports do not have exact addresses, so why this less important one? We have two online references so anyone interested in further details can already click there and find out. At ] the CI bus mention is down to neighborhood level only. ] (]) 18:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

==Original Name==
The article first states the the original name was Idlewild Airport, then it was changed, and then changed again to New York International. Later in the article it states that Idlewild was the unofficial name, and that the airport was dedicated New York International Airport. This is a little confusing. Could someone clarify what the first name official name of the airport was?] (]) 08:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

==Houston Bush==

Changed the shorthand name "Houston-Intercontinental" to "Houston-Bush" in the listing of destinations, because that Houston airport's official name was changed several years ago to George Bush Intercontinental Airport" and the shorter "Houston-Bush" is the most common shorthand name used now.

== Kid Controller ==

I know there has been one attempt already to put it on the article and I agreed with the removal to the reference. It could be that this will all simply fade away without major repercussions or minor reprimands and be forgotten. To prevent any future edit wars, perhaps we should wait to see what the official outcome would be? If it gets out of hand, we could always add it later. just my .02 --] (]) 10:52, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

== DL Terminals ==

Right now it looks like we need to update the terminals for Delta though that is not certain. Right now, the terminals listed are for where you check in, not where you fly out of. Right now, the article states all Delta and Delta Connection flights (except LHR, LAX, SFO, and a couple in 4) are in Terminal 3 but in real life, Delta uses Terminals 2, 3, and 4. Last time I was there, Delta had domestic mainlines both at T2 and T4 (personally, my flight to PHX was in T4) and all DCI flights were out of 2. Right now though, this falls under Original Research so I haven't changed it until I find an actual source. ] (]) 08:09, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

On August 16, 2010, I edited the info about Delta's T2, T3 and T4 based on official governmental, aiport authority and airline press releases. In the T4 section, I added a link to a photo showing and additional 11 regional jet gates to T4's B-wing and 9 gates to the A-wing. These gates are not mentioned in the official press releases. Additionally, the photo has since dissapeared from the official press releases. People at airliners.net's Civil Aviation Forum captured the photo before it dissappeared. The forum people are calling the additional gates, "Phase 2". We need some confirmation that the additional gate plans are really being considered, and not just some architect's dream. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 11:31, 16 August 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

Now that Terminal 3 is closed the gates in Terminal 2 have been renumbered as C60-C70. I put in an edit in to reflect this but someone reverted it even though Delta and Port Authority show this to be true on their pages. I don't have the exact numbers for which ones have jetways and which are commuter gates but revert to gate numbers in the 20's is clearly not correct. Perhaps someone with more info, and more patience for incorrect reverts, can correct and clarify this. (http://www.delta.com/content/www/en_US/traveling-with-us/airports-and-aircraft/airports/new-york-jfk.html) ] (]) 11:02, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

== The "KIA" code ==

For some reason people like to think the airport got a three-letter code "KIA" when it was renamed for JFK. Can't speak for IATA, but FAA and the Official Airline Guide always called it "JFK". The NY Times had an article around 1 Jan 1964 about the new JFK code. (Looks like an airport coded KIA already existed, in New Guinea.)] (]) 22:41, 8 August 2010 (UTC) ] (]) 22:40, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

== Cargo airlines and destinations ==

Hi guys, I've just added a list of scheduled cargo airlines and their destinations served from JFK. I hope you like it. These flights are all operating on a regular basis, and the information is verifiable by the airlines' timetables (in some cases this reference might not have been included in the respective airline articles yet, but I will sort this issue out, too). I dare say that I cannot find any reason why this list should be unsuitable for the airport article, as it describes the importance of the airport (which is the sense of the whole Misplaced Pages article). Obviously, there is no consensus on whether to include cargo dest-lists (for example, ORD, LAX or HNL feature such lists, but ANC or EWR not), but IMO it can stay as long as only regular, scheduled and properly referenced services are included, as should be the case here. ] (]) 23:11, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

:it's great. Good job ! ] (]) 09:29, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

==11 April 2011==
* On 11 April 2011, '''] 007''', an ], preparing to depart for ] at ], collided while taxiing with a ] ] (Comair 553 / ] 6293) which had just arrived from Boston.<ref> Flight Global, , David Kaminski-Morrow, 11 April 2011 </ref><ref> CBS News, , 11 April 2011 </ref>

So, should this be added to the list of incidents? ] (]) 11:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Improved:
* On April 11, 2011, '''] Flight 007''', an Airbus ], while taxiing for departure to ], had its left wing strike the tail of ] Flight 553, a ] which had just arrived from ].<ref> Flight Global, , David Kaminski-Morrow, 11 April 2011 </ref><ref> CBS News, , 11 April 2011 </ref> There were no injuries to passengers.

I think this should be recorded <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 02:01, 13 April 2011 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

==Sources==
* Wilson, Linda J. "." '']''. July 15, 2009.
* Dunlap, David W. "." '']''. October 6, 2011.
] (]) 22:31, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

== Construction and Dedication Dates. ==

The dates for start of construction and completion as stated in the article may be incorrect. I attended the dedication of what was then called New York International Airport and was given a commerative coin which I still have, that has a date of July 6, 1946 for the dedication, and states construction started in April, 1942 <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 22:23, 20 October 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:Question is, what does "dedication" mean? Probably everyone agrees scheduled airlines didn't appear at Idlewild until July 1948, but maybe someone in a Piper Cub could legally have landed there before that? ] (]) 01:32, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

==Destination Map==

I have looked at the JFK destination map, and it seems to be missing Singapore as a destination country. Singapore Airlines flies JFK-FRA-SIN and while there is a stopover, Singapore is definitely a destination country. Perhaps somebody could tell me how to edit the map to reflect that. ] (]) 06:51, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

{{Talk:John F. Kennedy International Airport/GA1}}

== Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page ==

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted.
Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Misplaced Pages.
This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link.
If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the ].
If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the ].
If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the ].
When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags.
The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true.
Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

'''Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:'''

*<nowiki>http://www.airport-technology.com/projects/jfk/</nowiki>
*:''Triggered by <code>\bairport-technology\.com\b</code> on the local blacklist''

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact ] and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—] ]<sub style="margin-left:-6.1ex;color:green;font-family:arnprior">Online</sub> 12:26, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

== Use of "JFK" in History section ==

Since the History section is mostly about the airport before 1963, it seems confusing that the "JFK" abbreviation is used throughout to refer to the airport. <span style="font-size: 110%;">&mdash;''']'''&rarr;<span style="font-size: larger;">]</span></span> 15:12, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

== Viracopos is known as São Paulo-Campinas==

There is a new flight scheduled to begin on December 2, 2014, connecting the ] to the JFK Airport. However, as the airport is at a close distance from the actual city of São Paulo, it is marketed by airline carriers as São Paulo-Campinas and not Campinas-Viracopos. I think this should be changed. ] (]) 21:12, 25 August 2014 (UTC)


==Qantas SYD-LAX-JFK==
Please see ] - ]]] 02:34, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

== External links modified ==

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to {{plural:2|one external link|2 external links}} on ]. Please take a moment to review . If necessary, add {{tlx|cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{tlx|nobots|deny{{=}}InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131126083532/http://www.panynj.gov:80/corporate-information/pdf/board_minutes_feb_6_2013-final.pdf to http://www.panynj.gov/corporate-information/pdf/board_minutes_feb_6_2013-final.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140110215449/http://www.dot.gov/sites/dot.dev/files/docs/US%20International%20Air%20Passenger%20and%20Freight%20Statistics%20Report%20for%20June%202013.pdf to http://www.dot.gov/sites/dot.dev/files/docs/US%20International%20Air%20Passenger%20and%20Freight%20Statistics%20Report%20for%20June%202013.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the ''checked'' parameter below to '''true''' to let others know.

{{sourcecheck|checked=false}}

Cheers. —]<small><sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS">]:Online</sub></small> 08:31, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

== JetBlue ==

JetBlue Airways uses JFK as an operating base not a hub. <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 00:47, 28 January 2016 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:JFK is considered a "hub" as it has been well discussed on the JetBlue talk page. ] (]) 16:59, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

== JFK-HAV ==

I removed the destination "Charter: Havana" under American Airlines but my edit was quickly reverted. I can find no sources indicating that American flies this route. Also, I see two sources indicating that American flies other charters to HAV, but not from JFK.<ref>http://www.aa.com/i18n/urls/cuba.jsp?anchorLocation=DirectURL&title=visitcuba</ref><ref>https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/Charters%202015%20as%20of%20December%2016%2C%202015.pdf</ref> If anyone would like to provide a source other than another Misplaced Pages page showing the revert was correct, that would be great.] (]) 04:51, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

:{{ping|Jim0101}} Hi Jim0101, the only reason that I had reverted your edit in the first place was because you never removed JFK as a destination at the Havana airport article. From this I assumed that the route had been sourced awhile ago and the source had been moved awhile ago... Now that you mention it though, I can't find anything regarding AA JFK-HAV flights. I only see JetBlue operating this route... ] (]) 05:47, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

== External links modified ==

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to {{plural:1|one external link|1 external links}} on ]. Please take a moment to review . If necessary, add {{tlx|cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{tlx|nobots|deny{{=}}InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140304071756/http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/200900925/FREE/909259988 to http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/200900925/FREE/909259988

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the ''checked'' parameter below to '''true''' to let others know.

{{sourcecheck|checked=false}}

Cheers.—]<small><sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS">]:Online</sub></small> 21:24, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

==Stop deleting the note links==
Whoever keeps deleting the references for the notes, please stop. The refs are there because it is referencing the notes, which give extra information about that flight. (Ex. Refueling stopover)

] (]) 10:48, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

== External links modified ==

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified {{plural:5|one external link|5 external links}} on ]. Please take a moment to review . If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.chmhotel.com/property.php?id=394
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0111/17/smn.21.html
*Added {{tlx|dead link}} tag to http://newsalerts.delta.com/2016-06-07-Delta-doubles-network-to-Scotland-with-new-route-between-New-York-JFK-and-Glasgow#assets_117
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130927144956/http://www.cargolux.com/nop/nopSearchInternet.do to http://www.cargolux.com/nop/nopSearchInternet.do
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110309183728/http://www.jfkiat.com:80/ to http://www.jfkiat.com/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121004104510/https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/operating/opdm/aviation/repository/air_dir/jfk.pdf to https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/operating/opdm/aviation/repository/air_dir/jfk.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the ''checked'' parameter below to '''true''' or '''failed''' to let others know (documentation at {{tlx|Sourcecheck}}).

{{sourcecheck|checked=false}}

Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 01:44, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

== Air India to Mumbai ==

It seems to be difficult as whether or not Mumbai should be added as an Air India destination from New York. AI flew JFK-BOM nonstop until 2010, and now offers a same-number (AI 102) service JFK-DEL-BOM via Delhi. However, according to , there are ''occasionally'' plane changes at Delhi from 777-300ER to another 777-300ER or even the occasional 747 or 777-200. Should Mumbai be kept as a destination as the physical plane used from JFK sometimes does not continue to Mumbai?

For example, SQ 25 JFK-FRA-SIN must be on the same plane as SQ does not have any other aircraft available at FRA. AI has tons of aircraft at Delhi as that is their hub, so subs are quite frequent. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 01:19, 9 April 2017 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:{{Ping|Wallacevio}} It's not that big issue as you are making it. AI 102 (JFK-DEL-BOM)/ AI 101 (BOM-DEL-JFK) is a daily direct flight. You are simply pointing to a random source and misinterpreting that source. '' makes it clear that the daily flight AI 102 at minimum flies in same aircraft '''every third day''' and at maximum can fly in same aircraft on '''consecutive days''' also. Correspondingly, it can be said that this flight either don't change aircraft or if it does, it does that on third day; but it never change aircraft on consecutive day basis. Please analyse your source carefully. This is quite common with daily direct flights. Is this a reason for expressing doubt regarding mentioning a direct flight destination on an article ? Well, you not only expressed doubt but removed the concerned destination beforehand without any consensus or discussion.''

:And since you have started this discussion, it's upto you to establish consensus before removing Mumbai from destinations. Nevertheless, the fact as per your suggested source remains that '''at minimum, the concerned flight flies in same aircraft every third day. By every third day, I mean every third day. At maximum (if not every third day), it flies in same airplane in consecutive days also'''. Check the source. We have so many mono-weekly, bi-weekly, tri-weekly and so on kind of direct flights. Will you suggest to remove them just because they do not fly daily ? You are simply making an issue out of a useless thing. ] (]) 13:44, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

::{{Ping|Wallacevio}} Delhi is not the only hub of Air India. Air India maintains ] at Delhi and a ] at Mumbai. Till now (''see the previous message''), my explanation was factual. ''Coming to the logical side, just an argument (even though we have much more than this argument) that the given direct flight (here, it is a daily direct flight) operates in same aircraft in entire journey on "most of the days of its operation" is enough to support the inclusion of the destination of that flight in the concerned airport article.'' Collecting all these facts together, your naive assumption, "there seems to be disagreement on whether or not BOM should be added" seems to be restricted to you only. Knowing that AI 102 mostly operates in same aircraft throughout its journey, why do you still disagree in including BOM ? Does the daily flight to BOM need to fly in same aircraft on all seven days of week (''if not on most days'') so that BOM could be included ? Considering your views and confusions, you should have established consensus on whether it could be removed or not instead of your removing it first and then asking other users to establish consensus for including it again. Though there is no necessity of continuing this discussion, still I'll try to engage more editors in this discussion to seek more opinions. ] (]) 16:37, 9 April 2017 (UTC)


::: Plain and simple none of this is important and it is clear that this flight does not qualify for inclusion under the through hub rule and the same plane rule. Such detail is not what Misplaced Pages is for and also fails ]. And by the way it is up to you as the person introducing the information to gain the consensus that this is valid - and I'm suspecting there is no such consensus. ] (]) 20:30, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

::::Plain & simple. Mostly, this flight do not change aircraft. It is changing aircraft occasionally either on third day (mostly) or on fourth day (rarely) but never on second or consecutive day. due to which this discussion cum debate started proves it. What about the other days when it flies in same aircraft ? This flight operates daily. It is direct same aircraft flight either on every third day (mostly) or on every second day (rarely) but never on fourth day. How does ] applies here ? ''That it is a "same aircraft" flight on every third day or on every second day is being "interpreted" from source in the same manner as the flight being "different aircraft" on every third day or every fourth day is being "interpreted". How is former original research and latter not ?'' The source does not explicitly mentions whether the flight is changing plane or not. It's upto the observer to "interpret" correctly by seeing the type of aircraft and then generalize. Is this original research ? ] (]) 21:45, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
:::::I was invited by {{U|Vibhss}} to comment here. I think one key point here is ]. I'd not use Flightradar as a source. What I would do is to look at the airline's timetable. I did this, and requested the system to show direct flights only. The timetable shows AI102 as a direct flight, with a stopover of 2 hours and 10 minutes at DEL. This warrants inclusion.--''']'''&nbsp;''{{sup|]}}'' 22:37, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
::::::I'm interpreting ] as the inclusion of through hub direct services should be avoided, regardless of plane changes or not. ] (]) 22:45, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
:::::::It is a direct flight with one stop.--''']'''&nbsp;''{{sup|]}}'' 22:51, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
::::::::{{Ping|Garretka}} Mumbai is the ''secondary hub'' of Air India (primary hub being Delhi). Mumbai is not a "spoke-city" as ] says. The particular content you are referring to in bullet#7 applies on direct flights starting from spoke-city and having layover at domestic hub. And of course, what guarantees the accuracy/ correctness of flightradar.com. It is one of those many websites giving flight and airline information. Thanks {{User|Jetstreamer}}. ] (]) 22:59, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
::::::::: I understand that it's a direct flight with one stop. My point was whether or not Mumbai is considered a hub. What exactly is the differentiator between a primary and secondary hub, as is the case here? ] (]) 23:04, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
::::::::::{{Ping|Garretka}} Well, you can see difference between primary and secondary hub ]. Due to capacity constraints at primary hub, an airline forms forms a secondary hub. Both these are placed together and whether they are primary or secondary, they are hubs. Since ] refers to only "domestic hub", this surely incorporates both primary and secondary hubs. Since this is a flight from secondary domestic hub - primary domestic hub - foreign city, the particular bullet#7 content can't apply here. And then, regarding aircraft change. Is flightradar.com a reliable and dependable source ? Are we going to maintain Airlines Tables as per this source ? The clearly mentions the given flight as a direct flight with same type of aircraft. ] (]) 23:27, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
::::::::::: Ultimately, they are both hubs, so bullet #7 should and would apply. I do have an issue with the way that particular bullet is worded, but that's a different discussion. Regarding sources, airline timetables tend to be the most accurate source of information. I'm not a fan of flight tracking websites as sources. ] (]) 23:32, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
::::::::::::{{Ping|Garretka}} Actually, when I said, "the particular bullet#7 content can't apply here", I meant to the content prohibiting inclusion of direct flights from "spoke-cities" through domestic hubs. Of course, the rest of the content is applicable. But you can't compare a secondary hub with a "spoke-city". Anyways, you agree that airline timetables tend to be the most accurate source of information. Right ? ] (]) 23:43, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
::::::::::::: I think you're misunderstanding my point. The flight goes from hub to hub to spoke, which I would consider to be a through hub direct service, which is what bullet 7 is all about. Yes I have always been an advocate for airline timetables being used as they are the most accurate, and I do understand they are listed as direct in this case. We just need to be mindful that through hub direct flights should not be listed. ] (]) 00:40, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
::::::::::::::{{Ping|Garretka}} I am not misunderstanding you. The bullet#7 mentions ''"avoid listing direct flights that contain a stop at a domestic hub, as virtually all of these are simply flights from one "spoke city" to a hub, with the plane continuing from the hub to a second spoke city."'' But here in case of this flight, it starts from a domestic hub, have a layover at another domestic hub and then flies to first spoke-city. So, this flight is not only ''through hub'' but it is ''from hub and through hub''. It has to be included definitely. And ] mentions clearly that the Airline's published Timetable is the implicit source for current destinations. Unless a particular destination is not mentioned in timetable, there is no need for an explicit source. And since mentions BOM-DEL-JFK/ JFK-DEL-BOM flight in direct flights, Mumbai should be definitely included. Flightradar.com is non-verifiable and unreliable. How can it be used in place of published timetable of Air India ? ] (]) 09:10, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
::::::::::::::: I understand where you're coming from - but you're fixating on words. Perhaps through hub direct isn't the best describer - timetable direct is a better word. Timetable directs, it does contain a stop at a hub, should not be included. I feel it doesn't matter that it doesn't originate at a spoke or a hub as long as it stops at a hub. This is the issue I have with the wording of that bullet. Again, be mindful of timetable direct flights. Virtually all airlines in North America have timetable direct flights that are not listed, what's the special occasion with this one? ] (]) 11:05, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::{{Ping|Garretka}} I still disagree with you. A flight travelling from a spoke-city to a domestic hub to another spoke-city (in foreign country) is different from a flight travelling from a domestic hub to another domestic hub to a foreign spoke-city. Maybe, there should be a discussion on this topic elsewhere, perhaps at ]. This discussion was started here by a user referring to a random flight tracking website documenting occasional change in aircraft by the concerned direct flight. ] (]) 11:51, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::{{Ping|Jetstreamer}} What do you think ? Do you think Mumbai should be included now ? Though ] and are agreeing with each other, the particular content of bullet #7 appears to be unclear. Can you throw light on this ? ] (]) 11:51, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
{{od}}
BOM warrants an inclusion as it is a direct flight with one stop. {{ping|Garretka}}, your argument is invalid. ] is for connecting flights which are through hubs obviously. All direct flights irrespective of the number of stops are listed in every airport, so BOM should be listed as an AI destination. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">&mdash;] <sup>]</sup></span> 15:01, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
:How does bullet #7 not apply? It's a flight through a 'hub', with the same flight number. Direct flights through hubs are not included, for the reasons explained. Figuring out if it's same aircraft is more often than not ]. Also, incorrect irrespective of stops. If that stop is a hub, the first city is not listed. I'm indifferent to whether it be included or not, I'm just bringing a logical defence to the table. ] (]) 15:07, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
::{{ping|Garretka}} As explained before, Mumbai is a secondary hub of Air India. When a direct flight starts from a hub and makes a layover at another hub, how can that particular content of bullet#7 apply here which refers to ''flights from one "spoke city" to a hub, with the plane continuing from the hub to a "second spoke city"'' ? I am not fixating with words as you said. According to bullet #7, both non-stop and direct flights must be included. However, some direct flights (as explained before) must not be included. There is a reason why an airline has declared two airports as hubs. Whether they are primary or secondary, the meaning of hub remains same for both and both are different from ]. ''Therefore, neither virtually nor actually, Mumbai acts as a spoke city.'' To understand "Spoke–hub distribution paradigm", you can have this example (just a hypothetical example which correctly indicates meaning of spoke and hub):
::]
::As you can see this image, Los Angeles and Denver are acting as hubs. Both the hubs are interconnected. Similar thing goes with Delhi and Mumbai. ] (]) 16:00, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
:::{{ping|LeoFrank}} Thanks for joining this discussion. Though I don't know why a discussion is going on regarding an obvious direct flight which has been included in this article right from its commencement. As you can see, a user started this discussion citing a random flight tracking website (whose validity and accuracy is questionable). On the other hand, as I already said, ''] mentions to use airline's published timetable as implicit source for current destinations.'' (]), if you disagree regarding ''Timetable directs'', then please ask those who made these rules instead of questioning me. The issue over which this discussion is going on (a random flight tracking website mentioning "occasional aircraft changes on 3rd day or 4th day but never on 2nd or consecutive day") seems to be pretty trivial. What guarantees accuracy of this site ? It's content is also somewhat confusing for general readers to understand. Can this discussion be resolved faster ? ] (]) 16:00, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
::: I'm sounding like a broken record. Mumbai is a hub. I, nor the reader, care if it is a primary or secondary hub. A hub is a hub. It is a stop. Regardless of flight number. It should not be included as per the points I've made. I've stated my opinion on this matter, and frankly you saying the same thing over again is not progressing this discussion any further. Timetable directs are strictly against bullet #7. I agree flight tracking websites are not reliable sources, but the inclusion of this is where I'm recommending people take a second look. ] (]) 16:12, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
::::{{ping|Garretka}} If you don't care to read full meaning of bullet #7 (not "interpreted" by me but conveyed by that bullet itself) that I explained again and again, then it's your folly. And why do you claim that all Timetable directs are against bullet #7 ? ''Only those (yet again I am telling) travelling from one spoke city to another spoke city through a domestic hub are not to be included. That is what bullet #7 says.'' A hub (Mumbai here) certainly don't equals a spoke-city. Please read complete bullet #7 again. And your claims don't reflect anything of bullet #7 but indeed contradict bullet #10. ] (]) 16:30, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
::::: You're really picking at words. How is this case any different? It's travelling from a city to a city via a hub. Quite frankly I don't see the difference but, as you were. ] (]) 16:37, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
::::::{{ping|Garretka}} Well, the difference is in the involvement of two hubs and one spoke city. While ] explicitly states to avoid listing direct flights "from one spoke-city to a hub to second spoke-city". Read it. And again, as I showed you in the above diagram, a hub certainly doesn't equal to a spoke-city in any case (virtual or actual). If it did, this would rule out and ignore the existence of starting point (Mumbai) as hub (of Air India). Thus, only New York is the spoke-city here. And it were you, who said you wouldn't care if it is primary or secondary hub and would consider it only hub. Then how can you undermine one of the hubs as a spoke-city ? ] (]) 17:18, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
:::::::I don't edit much on Misplaced Pages. But I just happened to come across this page. A question is suddenly being raised by a user regarding a current direct flight destination which has been mentioned in this article for very long time. The user cites one among the lot of flight tracking sites.
:::::::{{Ping|Wallacevio}} Mostly, flight tracking sites don't agree with each other. ''If you can point to a source mentioning "occasional" change in aircraft by the particular direct flight, I also have (also a flight tracking site) which clearly mentions that both legs of AI 102 direct flight are completed in same aircraft.'' Check (mentioning aircraft type for both legs as Boeing 777-300ER) and . (not mentioning aircraft type at all). I can mention a dozen of such sites. The reliability of all such sites (including your flightradar24.com) is questionable and such sites can't be used as sources. As rightly explained by ], ''] insists on using the published timetables by airlines as sources for current destinations. And exactly mentions AI102 as direct flight with same type of aircraft.'' This warrants Mumbai's inclusion in the table. ] (]) 13:11, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
::::::::{{Ping|Digangana}} Wonderful ! I was busy in explaining to some users that "through hub" content of ] can't apply here. I should have instead mentioned the above so-called sources to enlighten the initiator of this discussion. Anyways, it can be resolved soon. ] (]) 13:33, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

== Qantas to Sydney ==

I think the direct destination which Qantas flies to should be Sydney, and not Brisbane. Even through it switches plane, the flight number remains the same for both legs between JFK to LAX and LAX to SYD. However, while the same aircraft is used for JFK to LAX and LAX to BNE, the flight number changes, meaning they are different flights that happen to use the same aircraft. If you look at the Sydney Airport website, it lists New York JFK as a direct destination from it AND the New York JFK website lists Sydney as a direct destination from it. Thanks. --] (]) 07:36, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

::{{Ping|Agent5514}} What happens is that QF 12 flight number is JFK-LAX-SYD. However, the physical aircraft (747-400) from JFK-LAX continues to Brisbane, not Sydney. But then the 747 operates on 2 different flight numbers QF 12 and QF 16. ''Effectively, there is no way to fly from New York to Australia on Qantas on a direct 1-stop flight with both the same aircraft and same flight number.'' By this logic, Qantas should not be included in the JFK destinations table at all, but how should we address this since QF still serves the airport?

Latest revision as of 11:23, 10 July 2024

Please place new discussions at the bottom of the talk page.
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the John F. Kennedy International Airport article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 3 months 
Former good article nomineeJohn F. Kennedy International Airport was a Engineering and technology good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 6, 2013Good article nomineeNot listed
On this day...A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on July 31, 2014.
Kennedy Steve was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 29 January 2021 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into John F. Kennedy International Airport. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.
This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconAviation: Airports
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation
B checklist
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
  1. Referencing and citation: criterion not met
  2. Coverage and accuracy: criterion met
  3. Structure: criterion met
  4. Grammar and style: criterion met
  5. Supporting materials: criterion met
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the airport project.
Note icon
This article has had a peer review which is now archived.
WikiProject iconNew York City Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconNew York (state): Long Island
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject New York (state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of New York on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York (state)Misplaced Pages:WikiProject New York (state)Template:WikiProject New York (state)New York (state)
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Long Island, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.
It is requested that an image or photograph of Airport Building 141 - 141 Federal Circle, Jamaica, NY be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.
Wikipedians in Queens may be able to help!
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.		Upload
It is requested that an image or photograph of Ramada Plaza JFK Airport - BUILDING #144 JOHN F KENNEDY AIRPORT VAN WYCK EXPRESSWAY NEW YORK, NY 11430 - Directions, Map, See copyrighted image be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.
Wikipedians in Queens may be able to help!
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.		Upload
It is requested that an image or photograph of Korean Air Cargo at JFK - Map be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.
Wikipedians in Queens may be able to help!
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.		Upload

Aeroflot suspension

Aeroflot service shouldnt be removed as their is no indication that service wont return DisneyAviationRollerCoasterEnthusiast (talk) 18:54, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

In agreement here, similar to COVID suspensions there’s nothing telling us the routes won’t come back when the Russian situation is resolved. I’d say just leaving the route with ‘suspended’ is fine (VenFlyer98 (talk) 23:57, 2 March 2022 (UTC))

Russian Airplanes are banned from entering United States Airspace therefore Aeroflot cannot fly into JFK 108.50.206.142 (talk) 22:20, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Sure, they’re banned right now but there’s nothing telling us that the routes won’t come back eventually. No need to remove them when we can just list them as suspended. (VenFlyer98 (talk) 05:28, 10 March 2022 (UTC))

Safe to say any mentioned Aeroflot return now borders on WP:CRYSTALBALL. Sure they may 'come back' someday, but without a firm date due to the political/war situation out there, it's very much breaches CRYSTALBALL (and trumps any WikiProject Guideline/rules) at this point. Coastie43 (talk) 09:55, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree. This is clearly a situation where the return of service would require a significant change to come back any time soon. They're more than just suspended, they're banned. If the chart is supposed to represent the current routes at the airport, including routes that haven't flown for over a year and would require a major change in real-world geopolitical events to begin again doesn't fulfill that purpose. There's no reason for keeping them here without engaging in CRYSTALBALL speculation. oknazevad (talk) 00:59, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Major robberies section

Like to propose adding that the robberies/ heists covered under this section inspired the 1990 film Goodfellas. 173.59.118.212 (talk) 20:46, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Categories: