No ORD to JFK?
Question:
Pete schrieb: > During Soviet times, international scheduled traffic to Moscow > went to Sheremetyevo-2 after completion of this terminal. > The Soviets built Sheremetevo in two locations – international (II) > and domestic (I) – to ensure that Soviet citizens did not have the > opportunity to mingle with westerners. The airport was built and/or > expanded for the 1980 Olympics
I guess they built terminal II for the Olympics. Regards, ULF
Response:
I checked the OAG for October 1975 to see what flights were available then from ORD – JFK. What a time-wasting book! 2.50a NW 244 747 (NW 244 MSP-ORD-DTW-JFK) 11.40a UA 252 72S (UA 252 DSM-ORD-JFK) 2.00p TW 880 727 (TW 880 ORD-JFK-ATH-TLV [1]) 2.20p UA 120 DC8 (UA 120 ORD-JFK) 4.55p UA 890 DC8 (UA 890 SFO-RNO-ORD-JFK) 7.25p NW 6 747 (NW 6 Transpacific-ORD-JFK [2]) 7.55p UA 168 (UA 168 LAX-OMA-MLI-ORD-ABE-JFK) 10.30p UA 130 D8S (SJC-SFO-ORD-EWR [3] Notes: 1 Either a change of equipment at JFK, or an error. 2 NW6 flew MNL-OKA-HND-ANC-ORD-JFK on days 1 and 4 TPE-OSA-HND-ANC-ORD-JFK on days 3,5,7 MNL-HND-ANC-ORD-JFK on days 2 and 6 3 The city-city list shows flight UA130 operating to JFK The airline flight itinerary shows EWR. I hope the pilots knew 
Effective October 26, 3.10P TW 800 B3F (TW 800 LAX-MCI-ORD-JFK-CDG to CDG every day continuing to TLV on days 1, 3 and 6 only) PanAm also flew ORD-JFK-FRA-WAW once a week but no local traffic between ORD and JFK. —
Response:
>>their will to flee. > Yup Miguel it’s certainly a prime example of 70’s – era Soviet architetcure, > that’s for sure. It reminds me of the of the Moscow "Novy Arbat" or those > "panelak" flats that encircle Prague…or my high – rise 1968 college dorm > in downstate Illinois.
Waterson? ISU. Noisy as I remember it. I spent a night there in 1985 during a scholarship competition between the top 100 rated junior college accepted transfers. There was a test (multiple choice and essay) and interview. The top 10 students got the Foundation-Alumni Distinguished Scholarship for 2 years. For 1985, I was one of those 10. Due to having to start my computer science classes almost from the beginning, and IBM interships in Austin, TX (Software Compatibility Testing on AT and XT) and Rochester, MN (coding for the soon to be released AS400), and my hectic Spring 1988 interview schedule (flying all over the country, I think it was a double mileage year), I finally graduated in August 1988. I lived at the ISU Apartments in Cardinal Court.
Response:
> Back in the 70’s there was a big diplomatique contretemps concerning the > USSR and USA embassy compounds in the respective countries. That USSR DC > site is the highest site elevation – wise in The District if i’m not > wrong…
I would believe that was the case back in the day, but now there is a whole new campus of embassies (and a satellite State Dept annex thing) out by the Intelsat monstrosity, looking down on UDC. It’d quite high up and I’d guess higher than anything in Georgetown (could be wrong though). There are about two dozen out there – Pakistan, Malaysia, Austria, UAE, Israel, etc. miguel — Hit The Road! Photos from 32 countries on 5 continents: http://travel.u.nu
Response:
> I would believe that was the case back in the day, but now there is a whole > new campus of embassies (and a satellite State Dept annex thing) out by the > Intelsat monstrosity, looking down on UDC. It’d quite high up and I’d guess > higher than anything in Georgetown (could be wrong though). There are about > two dozen out there – Pakistan, Malaysia, Austria, UAE, Israel, etc.
I used to work at that site when it was NBS. It is considerably higher than Georgetown, but so far north that it doesn’t have a "view" into downtown DC. For years after NBS (now NIST) moved to Gaithersburg they ran a shuttle to the Commerce Dept in downtown DC. In order to be able to talk to the shuttle driver in downtown DC they had a remote two-way radio site – I think at National Cathedral. I understand those big stone towers of the Cathedral are full of two-way radio sites – it has a commanding view over much of DC. The Cathedral is some blocks north of the present Russian embassy location.
Response:
> During Soviet times, international scheduled traffic to Moscow > went to Sheremetyevo-2 after completion of this terminal.
The Soviets built Sheremetevo in two locations – international (II) and domestic (I) – to ensure that Soviet citizens did not have the opportunity to mingle with westerners. The airport was built and/or expanded for the 1980 Olympics, but even then the Stalin mindset of never allowing Soviet citizens to become tainted with western ideas was paramount. Pete
Response:
> Yep. Back in those days even Aeroflot stewardesses/flight crews were kept > "confined" during flight turnarounds so as not to mingle with Westerners, > and in most cases if they had to overnight they usually put up at the local > Soviet embassy compound (a good example of such a "compound" is the present > Russian embassy in NW Washington DC, it was built as a whole self – > contained little Soviet "world" back in the 70’s – 80’s and if you’ve seen > it from the air to/from the approach to DCA you’ll know what I mean)
It’s fascinating even today to walk around the compound (you can walk around 3 sides of it, more or less). Between the little parks and playgrounds, the apartment buldings of various quality ranging from luxury to craphole, and all the fortifications and camera mounts, it’s like something from a movie. These days it seems like people still sort of hang around inside, swinging listlessly in the little playground rather than going to the nicer parks in the neigborhood, even though the gates are no longer locked for them. Perhaps there’s something in the architecture (or the water) that takes away their will to flee. miguel — Hit The Road! Photos from 32 countries on 5 continents: http://travel.u.nu
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Yep. Back in those days even Aeroflot stewardesses/flight crews were kept > "confined" during flight turnarounds so as not to mingle with Westerners, > and in most cases if they had to overnight they usually put up at the local > Soviet embassy compound (a good example of such a "compound" is the present > Russian embassy in NW Washington DC, it was built as a whole self – > contained little Soviet "world" back in the 70’s – 80’s and if you’ve seen > it from the air to/from the approach to DCA you’ll know what I mean) > It’s fascinating even today to walk around the compound (you can walk around > 3 sides of it, more or less). Between the little parks and playgrounds, the > apartment buldings of various quality ranging from luxury to craphole, and > all the fortifications and camera mounts, it’s like something from a movie. > These days it seems like people still sort of hang around inside, swinging > listlessly in the little playground rather than going to the nicer parks in > the neigborhood, even though the gates are no longer locked for them. > Perhaps there’s something in the architecture (or the water) that takes away > their will to flee.
Yup Miguel it’s certainly a prime example of 70’s – era Soviet architetcure, that’s for sure. It reminds me of the of the Moscow "Novy Arbat" or those "panelak" flats that encircle Prague…or my high – rise 1968 college dorm in downstate Illinois. Back in the 70’s there was a big diplomatique contretemps concerning the USSR and USA embassy compounds in the respective countries. That USSR DC site is the highest site elevation – wise in The District if i’m not wrong…there was some wrangling back in the worst of the Cold War daze that we were "giving away" the site because the Soviets would be able to eavesdrop on all important US sites, including a "straight line" view to the CIA HQ in Langley VA (which you can also see to/from the approach to DCA, you’ve seen it many times Miguel I know…)… [of course there is also the infamous "Soviet Safeway" supermarket on 17th St. in Dupont Circle...but this is not a store that is especially frequented by Russian diplomatic personnel - it is called by that moniker because it is service and selection - wise an amalgalm of a simply crummy rude retail experience...] The original USSR embassy was IIRC was in a nice mansion on 17th St. NW IIRC (you can read about the sumptuous WWII -era parties held there in David Brinkley’s _Washington At War_, e.g "caviar canapes and chilled vodka with Stalin’s portrait glaring down at us" ) but the negotiations for new embassies in the respective capitals was fraught with complications and dragged on for decades…the building of the US complex in Moscow was put to a halt because the Russian construction crews were installing bugs in the walls…the complex in the mid – late 80’s was basically torn down by US Dept. of State construction crews and rebuilt from the ground up…meanwhile the USSR complex in DC was built by mainly *Russian* construction crews…go figure… "In other news the rent dispute over Spaso House, the plush US Ambassador’s 1914 – era mansion (just off the Arbat) in Moscow has finally been resolved. In 1985 the US State Department and the USSR signed a long – term lease that set the yearly rent at some "x" thousands of rubles. The rouble – dollar exchange rate back then was something like 1.6 = 1.00…ravaged by post – Soviet rouble deflation we were later paying the Russkies something like $2.00 per year for the one of the prime residences in Moscow… New terms have been set, both parties decline to state the rent…such are the "vagaries" of diplomatic real estate deals…" — Best Greg
Response:
> Steven Hiatt schrieb: > I guess I’m surprised: I never realized that LaGuardia and JFK had > specialized roles, since it’s impossible to fly direct from San > Francisco to LaGuardia–all our nonstops go to JFK or Newark. Seems > highly inefficient in transport terms–thus you get inquiries like > another recent one in the newsgroup about getting from LGA to JFK and > the problems with rush-hour traffic. Other metro areas split air > traffic among different airports, but don’t specialize to that extreme > extent–eg, Heathrow and Gatwick.
LGA is a bit small for the "heavy iron". Should they abandon it? But traffic already strains JFK and EWR, they couldn’t take more. So LGA specializes in smaller/shorter flights. JFK & EWR have a full mix. The situation is similar in Washington. DCA (max runway 6800 ft) takes only smaller planes and has only a very few transcontinental flights (those recently imposed by Congress). BWI handled all the big jets until IAD was built. Now IAD has most of the long-range traffic, but also some low price carriers and FlyI short-range flights. BWI has a few long range flights and lots of Southwest Airlines (etc) flights.
Response:
Steven Hiatt schrieb: > I guess I’m surprised: I never realized that LaGuardia and JFK had > specialized roles, since it’s impossible to fly direct from San > Francisco to LaGuardia–all our nonstops go to JFK or Newark. Seems > highly inefficient in transport terms–thus you get inquiries like > another recent one in the newsgroup about getting from LGA to JFK and > the problems with rush-hour traffic. Other metro areas split air > traffic among different airports, but don’t specialize to that extreme > extent–eg, Heathrow and Gatwick.
Hmmm, try Moscow. Sheremetyevo 1-2 (two sides of the same airfield), Domodedovo, Vnukovo, Bykovo (no scheduled flights at the moment but aircraft stored), Ramenskoye (freight)…. During Soviet times, international scheduled traffic to Moscow went to Sheremetyevo-2 after completion of this terminal. Fullstop. Correct me if I am wrong. Regards, ULF
Response:
>I guess I’m surprised: I never realized that LaGuardia and JFK had > specialized roles, since it’s impossible to fly direct from San > Francisco to LaGuardia–all our nonstops go to JFK or Newark. Seems > highly inefficient in transport terms–thus you get inquiries like > another recent one in the newsgroup about getting from LGA to JFK and > the problems with rush-hour traffic. Other metro areas split air > traffic among different airports, but don’t specialize to that extreme > extent–eg, Heathrow and Gatwick.
Heathrow and Gatwick? "that extreme extent?" There are destinations that must be served from Gatwick rather than from Heathrow (i.e., Dallas/Houston/Atlanta) and airlines that must serve only Gatwick (most U.S. carriers, for example). LaGuardia is overcrowded and has relatively short runways, necessitating some sort of rationing of space/slots. In the case of LGA, it is by distance rather than destination. Whether that’s better or worse than Heathrow/Gatwick is immaterial. It is just different. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> >We live in California, but will need to fly from Chicago to New York > >next month. After checking Orbitz and various airlines websites, we > >found that there are no direct flights from ORD to JFK (except from one > >expensive Delta flight). UA, for example, mostly sends people to JFK > >via Dulles. What’s up with this? Apparently, people flying to, say, > >Europe from ORD via a JFK flight have to fly through Dulles or go to > >LaGuardia and take a cab. No wonder US airlines are in financial > >trouble! > I would imagine it is also due to the fact that most people would > rather NOT fly into JFK. It’s twice as far from Midtown Manhattan than > LGA or EWR and the Van Wyck Expressway can be an exercise in > frustration to put it mildly. > You have to remember that prior to JetBlue’s arrival, JFK was pretty > much used for international traffic and domestic flights in excess of > LGA’s permitted distance.
Response:
>I guess I’m surprised: I never realized that LaGuardia and JFK had >specialized roles,
LGA has a pair of 7000 foot runways with low weight limits since the end of one of the runways is on piers over the river. JFK has a 10000 and 14000 foot runway with very high weight limits. DL flies a few 767s into LGA from ATL, otherwise the biggest stuff there is 757 and A321. There’s very little international traffic at LGA, flights to Canada and a few warm places like Bermuda and Aruba. LGA was originally a waterfront airport for 1930s flying boats, so it never had a whole lot of land and has no room to expand. The Marine Air Terminal that DL shuttle flights use is the old flying boat terminal. It still has a dock that boats to Manhattan use. As several other people noted, for less than transcon distances, the traffic into JFK is either feeders for international flights or low fare Jet Blue. Since ORD has plenty of international flights of its own, Jet Blue doesn’t fly to Chicago, and United would rather you connect at IAD, it’s not surprising that there’s no JFK flights.
Response:
I guess I’m surprised: I never realized that LaGuardia and JFK had specialized roles, since it’s impossible to fly direct from San Francisco to LaGuardia–all our nonstops go to JFK or Newark. Seems highly inefficient in transport terms–thus you get inquiries like another recent one in the newsgroup about getting from LGA to JFK and the problems with rush-hour traffic. Other metro areas split air traffic among different airports, but don’t specialize to that extreme extent–eg, Heathrow and Gatwick. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->We live in California, but will need to fly from Chicago to New York >next month. After checking Orbitz and various airlines websites, we >found that there are no direct flights from ORD to JFK (except from one >expensive Delta flight). UA, for example, mostly sends people to JFK >via Dulles. What’s up with this? Apparently, people flying to, say, >Europe from ORD via a JFK flight have to fly through Dulles or go to >LaGuardia and take a cab. No wonder US airlines are in financial >trouble! > I would imagine it is also due to the fact that most people would > rather NOT fly into JFK. It’s twice as far from Midtown Manhattan than > LGA or EWR and the Van Wyck Expressway can be an exercise in > frustration to put it mildly. > You have to remember that prior to JetBlue’s arrival, JFK was pretty > much used for international traffic and domestic flights in excess of > LGA’s permitted distance.
Response:
> Why would people from Europe want to fly to JFK via Chicago?
If someone lives in Chicago and intends to fly to Helsinki via Finnair, the JFK hub is the only choice. I am sure there are other examples as well. And as I wrote in my other post, considering that American is a oneworld partner of Finnair, this omission is hard to understand. Pete
Response:
>> We live in California, but will need to fly from Chicago to New York > next month. After checking Orbitz and various airlines websites, we > found that there are no direct flights from ORD to JFK (except from one > expensive Delta flight). UA, for example, mostly sends people to JFK via > Dulles. What’s up with this? Apparently, people flying to, say, Europe > from ORD via a JFK flight have to fly through Dulles or go to LaGuardia > and take a cab. No wonder US airlines are in financial trouble! >Why would people from Europe want to fly to JFK via Chicago? >Hilary
What a fucking retarded CUNT you really are. No wonder you like Mr. Travelpedo Michael Voight of Cisco so much. The OP is talking about going FROM Chicago TO Europe VIA JFK. Learn to fucking READ you moronic BITCH! –
Response:
>UAL has a fair amount of flights from IAD onward to Europe >and other International Dests.–no reason to go out of JFK.
From ORD, my first priority would be to fly direct to Europe. Otherwise, UA is pushing connections through IAD and if you are a member of their FF programme, there are bonus miles to be gotten from flying IAD to abroad. gld
Response:
:>We live in California, but will need to fly from Chicago to New York :>next month. After checking Orbitz and various airlines websites, we :>found that there are no direct flights from ORD to JFK (except from one :>expensive Delta flight). UA, for example, mostly sends people to JFK :>via Dulles. What’s up with this? Apparently, people flying to, say, :>Europe from ORD via a JFK flight have to fly through Dulles or go to :>LaGuardia and take a cab. No wonder US airlines are in financial :>trouble! Actually, most customers (of the Chicago/New York route) prefer flying into EWR or LGA. To schedule flights to JFK just so that certain Californians will find things easier would be a waste of money. A cab from LGA is around $24. — http://www.dissensoftware.com Should you use the mailblocks package and expect a response from me, you should preauthorize the dissensoftware.com domain. I very rarely bother responding to challenge/response systems, especially those from irresponsible companies.
Response:
> We live in California, but will need to fly from Chicago to New York > next month. After checking Orbitz and various airlines websites, we > found that there are no direct flights from ORD to JFK (except from one > expensive Delta flight). UA, for example, mostly sends people to JFK via > Dulles. What’s up with this? Apparently, people flying to, say, Europe > from ORD via a JFK flight have to fly through Dulles or go to LaGuardia > and take a cab. No wonder US airlines are in financial trouble! > Why would people from Europe want to fly to JFK via Chicago? > Hilary
I flew NCL-LGW-DFW-FLL in 2002 because it was a lot cheaper than flying via BOS or NYC. Perhaps the same logic (?) applies here. JohnT
Response:
> We live in California, but will need to fly from Chicago to New York > next month. After checking Orbitz and various airlines websites, we > found that there are no direct flights from ORD to JFK (except from one > expensive Delta flight). UA, for example, mostly sends people to JFK > via Dulles. What’s up with this? Apparently, people flying to, say, > Europe from ORD via a JFK flight have to fly through Dulles or go to > LaGuardia and take a cab.
Acutally people flying to ORD from Europe most likely would take direct nonstops flights. If they do connect in the New York Area they would connect in EWR. dennis
Response:
> We live in California, but will need to fly from Chicago to New York > next month. After checking Orbitz and various airlines websites, we > found that there are no direct flights from ORD to JFK (except from one > expensive Delta flight). UA, for example, mostly sends people to JFK > via Dulles. What’s up with this? Apparently, people flying to, say, > Europe from ORD via a JFK flight have to fly through Dulles or go to > LaGuardia and take a cab. No wonder US airlines are in financial > trouble!
Delta has a toy-plane (CRJ) flight ORD-JFK, but that seems to be it. I am a little surprised that United does not fly that route, but given that they use IAD as a hub, I am not terribly surprised. What does really surprise me is that American does not fly that route. They use ORD as a hub and supposedly are partners with Finnair. People flying out of ORD expecting to fly Finnair out of JFK are somewhat screwed. Then again, American does not really support Finnair on most routes, so I guess they are consistent. I will never understand why Finnair jumped from Delta’s arms to the arms of oneworld. Pete
Response:
UAL has a fair amount of flights from IAD onward to Europe and other International Dests.–no reason to go out of JFK.
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> We live in California, but will need to fly from Chicago to New York > next month. After checking Orbitz and various airlines websites, we > found that there are no direct flights from ORD to JFK (except from one > expensive Delta flight). UA, for example, mostly sends people to JFK > via Dulles. What’s up with this? Apparently, people flying to, say, > Europe from ORD via a JFK flight have to fly through Dulles or go to > LaGuardia and take a cab. No wonder US airlines are in financial > trouble!
Response:
We live in California, but will need to fly from Chicago to New York next month. After checking Orbitz and various airlines websites, we found that there are no direct flights from ORD to JFK (except from one expensive Delta flight). UA, for example, mostly sends people to JFK via Dulles. What’s up with this? Apparently, people flying to, say, Europe from ORD via a JFK flight have to fly through Dulles or go to LaGuardia and take a cab. No wonder US airlines are in financial trouble!
