Print from Airliners.net discussion forum
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/5626548/

Topic: Latest Update On LAX Plans
Username: aklrno
Posted 2012-12-04 14:35:12 and read 11653 times.

Yesterday LA World Airports released the draft of the final plan for LAX improvements. The schedule is to have the final plan approved in about 6 months.

Key features: Runway 24L lengthened
24R relocated 260 feet north
Taxiway between 24L and 24R
Terminal 3 reconfigured (replaced?)
New TBIT terminal extended to the north, (the unbuilt TBIT west also extended north)
Terminal 1 shortened
New Terminal 0
New consolidated rental car building with people mover. No more buses!
Several streets realigned to allow for runway changes. Pray for In-n-Out!

Of course this is California. Let the lawsuits begin!

Topic: RE: Latest Update On LAX Plans
Username: LAXintl
Posted 2012-12-04 14:50:37 and read 11604 times.

What happened was the airport staff presented their recommendations from the SPAS (Specific Plan Amendment Study)

It now goes to the politicians.

Quoting aklrno (Thread starter):
Key features: Runway 24L lengthened
24R relocated 260 feet north
Taxiway between 24L and 24R

This is all to comply with FAA recommended spacing for Group 5 aircraft on the north airfield and provide adequate spacing similar to southside.

Quoting aklrno (Thread starter):
Terminal 3 reconfigured (replaced?)

Potentially. Adding it in the EIR just gives LAWA flexibility.

Quoting aklrno (Thread starter):
New TBIT terminal extended to the north, (the unbuilt TBIT west also extended north)

The dog leg being built on the new TBIT concourse would be straightend.

Quoting aklrno (Thread starter):
Terminal 1 shortened

The end gates shaved off to allow for taxiway spacing

Quoting aklrno (Thread starter):
New Terminal 0

Again it simply give LAWA flexibility. T-0 would really be part of T1 with a L shaped concourse attached to help make up for lost gates.

Quoting aklrno (Thread starter):
New consolidated rental car building with people mover. No more buses!

There still will be buses. The consolidated lot wont house every company.

Also a trains to connect the central terminal area would be up to MTA to build and fund. With loss of measure J in recent elections, who knows if/when that money would be available.

Quoting aklrno (Thread starter):
Several streets realigned to allow for runway changes. Pray for In-n-Out!

Yes the land In-n-Out sits on was always under threat, and with current plans it will become part of the redesigned Westchester Parkway road.

Quoting aklrno (Thread starter):
Of course this is California. Let the lawsuits begin!

Not just lawsuits, this will likely be a topic in upcoming municipal elections. Several council members and mayoral candidates oppose these for the impacts on adjacent communities.

Frankly I think much of it is simply wishful thinking that might be 10-20 years away at best.

Topic: RE: Latest Update On LAX Plans
Username: LDVAviation
Posted 2012-12-04 16:22:16 and read 11326 times.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 1):
Also a trains to connect the central terminal area would be up to MTA to build and fund. With loss of measure J in recent elections, who knows if/when that money would be available.

The money is there (from the first Measure J) to build the LAX station on the Crenshaw Light Rail Line.

Metro has been pushing LAWA to amend the MasterPlan to allow for construction of such a station and also a connector/station to the Green Line.

Topic: RE: Latest Update On LAX Plans
Username: LAXintl
Posted 2012-12-04 16:35:45 and read 11283 times.

Quoting LDVAviation (Reply 2):
The money is there (from the first Measure J) to build the LAX station on the Crenshaw Light Rail Line.

Yes that's the station -- to be located at the intermodal and consolidated rental facility outside the airport. Measure R paid for that.

Question is how to get the line into the airport. That is the $$$ issue.

With measure J dead, future funding for all of MTA's shinny ideas is very questionable.

Topic: RE: Latest Update On LAX Plans
Username: PITrules
Posted 2012-12-04 16:58:55 and read 11181 times.

Quoting aklrno (Thread starter):
Key features: Runway 24L lengthened
24R relocated 260 feet north
Taxiway between 24L and 24R

Outstanding news, especially from a capacity and safety standpoint. So much for the notion there is not land available to the north for such a large move.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 1):

This is all to comply with FAA recommended spacing for Group 5 aircraft on the north airfield and provide adequate spacing similar to southside.

Are you sure this is not to accommodate Group 6 aircraft (A380/748)? The south side relocation was 50', this move of 260' on the north side should allow for unrestricted movement.

Topic: RE: Latest Update On LAX Plans
Username: LAXintl
Posted 2012-12-04 17:20:46 and read 11102 times.

Quoting PITrules (Reply 4):
So much for the notion there is not land available to the north for such a large move.

Well there isn't. You are pushing the airport boundary and roadways north into the local community.

Wait for the fire works.

Quoting PITrules (Reply 4):
Are you sure this is not to accommodate Group 6 aircraft (A380/748)? The south side relocation was 50', this move of 260' on the north side should allow for unrestricted movement.

Its for unfettered Cat-5 ops which are projected to represent about 10% of all airfield operations.

Cat-6 will continue to have some restrictions (as they do on the rebuilt southside)

The move of 260ft north includes building a parallel centerfield taxiway in between the two runways.

Topic: RE: Latest Update On LAX Plans
Username: ikramerica
Posted 2012-12-04 17:29:47 and read 11062 times.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 1):
This is all to comply with FAA recommended spacing for Group 5 aircraft on the north airfield and provide adequate spacing similar to southside.

Unnecessary expense. Unless LAX sees over 40% Group 5 and higher movements, it's just ridiculous to go through the expense for this, not to mention the years of congestion getting to and from LAX to implement this at the ground level.

LAX has the luxury of 4 parallel runways and a near consistent wind direction year round (with an occasional 180 degree shift). Many airports around the world the size of LAX operate with fewer runways at all times. It's a matter of want, not need, to have all 4 runways capable of optimized operation of the largest aircraft.

Most LAX traffic is narrowbody. It works fine now. And that won't change. WN will still fly tons of 737s. US and UA and AA and DL will still fly tons of 737/A320/MD. Central American carriers will still fly narrowbodies. Hawaii flights are going more and more narrowbody. AS isn't going to buy Group 5 aircraft any time soon.

Quoting PITrules (Reply 4):
Outstanding news, especially from a capacity and safety standpoint. So much for the notion there is not land available to the north for such a large move.

There is always "room" unless there is water. It's a matter of who has to be moved to use that "room."

This is a stupid plan.

It won't increase capacity, because that is not allowed, and any agreement by the NIMBYs to this kind of plan would likely involved decreasing capacity further. It won't increase gate numbers (not allowed either, and wouldn't be under this plan). It's a huge expense and a decade long inconvenience to accommodate a handful of A380s and 77Xs (which don't even exist) and the occasional 748s on 4 runways rather than the south 2.

It also won't increase safety. Incursions will still happen because they happen now due to PILOT ERROR. More spacing will not prevent pilot error. Pilots who don't listen will still fail to listen.

Spend the money on restructuring the parking, auto loops, etc., not on moving runways and businesses.

Topic: RE: Latest Update On LAX Plans
Username: PITrules
Posted 2012-12-04 19:10:07 and read 10856 times.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 5):

Well there isn't. You are pushing the airport boundary and roadways north into the local community.

Not true, the area known as "LAXnorthside" is owned by LAWA. There may be some need to realign roadways, but again this is on LAWA property.

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 6):

LAX has the luxury of 4 parallel runways and a near consistent wind direction year round (with an occasional 180 degree shift). Many airports around the world the size of LAX operate with fewer runways at all times. It's a matter of want, not need, to have all 4 runways capable of optimized operation of the largest aircraft.

Remember about 10-12 years ago, LAX was handling almost 800,000 operations per year (almost at capacity). Who's to say what direction the industry will make in the decades ahead? It is entirely conceivable LAX can and will reach those levels again in the future.

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 6):

There is always "room" unless there is water.

Even when there is water. Plenty of examples around the world, but that's another topic.

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 6):
It's a matter of who has to be moved to use that "room."

Again, no one needs to move for this. That's not to say LAWA won't offer to acquire and sound proof more homes. But that's part of an airport authorities neighborhood responsibility.

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 6):

It also won't increase safety. Incursions will still happen because they happen now due to PILOT ERROR. More spacing will not prevent pilot error. Pilots who don't listen will still fail to listen.

Simply not true. Putting a parallel taxiway between the runways brings the airport up to expected global standards. Pilot's can listen perfectly fine but that does not make 6R/24L the parallel taxiway that would otherwise be encountered when vacating the outer runway at almost any other airport in the world. Pilot's are human beings.. we make human mistakes. The common goal is to eliminate the threats that lead to human error.

It was done on the south side for good reason.

Topic: RE: Latest Update On LAX Plans
Username: LAXintl
Posted 2012-12-04 20:26:51 and read 10710 times.

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 6):
Unnecessary expense.

  

Quoting PITrules (Reply 7):
Not true, the area known as "LAXnorthside" is owned by LAWA. There may be some need to realign roadways, but again this is on LAWA property.

Public roadways such as Westchester Pkwy, Lincoln and Sepulveda are being realigned.

The buffer to the community including homes, school and church on the northside is being decreased.

The runway moves 260 feet to the north and so it unfortunately gets even more cozy with the neighborhood.

There will certainly be community impact, and outcry.

And two city council members are out with their opposition already.

Bonin said while he supports a plan that modernizes LAX, that plan should not include expanding the airport, nor should those plans impact neighbors.

“An irrefutable study has shown the north airfield to be safe, and the Draft Environmental Impact Report says that not moving the runways is the ‘environmentally superior’ alternative,” Bonin said, noting that LAWA’s plan for the runway that would include reconfiguring the north airfield is not justified and would “create more pollution, produce more noise and not do a thing to improve throughput or operational efficiency at LAX.”


and

The issue on the north side is multifold," said Rosendahl. "One is the noise. Second is the pollution. The third is how it impacts homes and businesses themselves." "Airport officials should curb expansion plans and instead pursue a process of regionalization, or spreading air traffic to other underutilized airports, such as LA/Ontario International Airport, which is run by the same authority as LAX."


Fun times - lets see what if anything gets approved by the politicians, and see what survives subsequent court challenges.

Quoting PITrules (Reply 7):
Remember about 10-12 years ago, LAX was handling almost 800,000 operations per year (almost at capacity). Who's to say what direction the industry will make in the decades ahead? It is entirely conceivable LAX can and will reach those levels again in the future.

I think this is unlikely.

Due things like court cap on the number of gates (153), and continue promise to raise operating cost to encourage flights away from LAX, the shift is to make better use of capacity with larger frames.

Unless US industry does a big 180 and RJs become the new rage regardless of cost, I think the shift to larger capacity is here to stay especially with the restrictions being placed on ops at LAX.

Topic: RE: Latest Update On LAX Plans
Username: QANTAS747-438
Posted 2012-12-04 20:58:19 and read 10626 times.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 1):
Quoting aklrno (Thread starter):
Terminal 1 shortened

The end gates shaved off to allow for taxiway spacing

Huh? They're going to get rid of gates 12, 14, 13, and 11???

And where would the "L-shaped" Terminal 0 go? Into Park One?

[Edited 2012-12-04 21:01:54]

Topic: RE: Latest Update On LAX Plans
Username: timpdx
Posted 2012-12-04 21:15:16 and read 10579 times.

I am fine with the realignment. Westchester pkwy is hardly used at all. The is in n out and a hideous squat office building (of course with a banner opposing the runway move). LAX is a huge huge jobs generator, moving a wings length north is not going to make a difference AT ALL in pollution or noise....and this as aircraft across the board are getting cleaner and quieter every day. The opposition to this is nuts and so small minded. (In case you wonder about me...lifelong Democrat and Urban Planning major) just wish people would wake up and see the mother of all assets (along with our huge port) that are sitting right here in our lap that other cities would kill to have the jobs and tax revenues of an LAX.

[Edited 2012-12-04 21:16:06]

Topic: RE: Latest Update On LAX Plans
Username: LAXintl
Posted 2012-12-04 22:35:42 and read 10441 times.

A photo might help..



=

Topic: RE: Latest Update On LAX Plans
Username: kaitak744
Posted 2012-12-04 23:22:13 and read 10332 times.

Is there a link to this presentation?

How is terminal 0 going to be built if there is the stupid gate cap limit? It is adding gates is it not?

And why on earth is T3 being rebuilt?
Yes, it is old, but Virgin America just remodeled it. They are an LCC, and it does the job. It does not need to be luxurious. That in my opinion is a waste of money.

Topic: RE: Latest Update On LAX Plans
Username: aklrno
Posted 2012-12-05 00:09:54 and read 10254 times.

Quoting kaitak744 (Reply 12):
How is terminal 0 going to be built if there is the stupid gate cap limit? It is adding gates is it not?

Maybe it just to replace gates eliminated in other modifications, like chopping off the end of T1?

Quoting kaitak744 (Reply 12):
And why on earth is T3 being rebuilt?
Yes, it is old, but Virgin America just remodeled it. They are an LCC, and it does the job. It does not need to be luxurious. That in my opinion is a waste of money.

I think the VIrgin changes were just cosmetic. The underlying building is already about 50 years old, and will be about 60 years old by the time of the proposed replacement. It has changed the least of all the LAX terminals since they were built in the early 60's. There may be issues with the age of the building we don't know about. In particular, I'd be surprised if it meets current seismic standards. Newer buildings are also cheaper to operate.

Topic: RE: Latest Update On LAX Plans
Username: Beardown91737
Posted 2012-12-05 00:44:51 and read 10195 times.

Quoting PITrules (Reply 7):
Even when there is water. Plenty of examples around the world, but that's another topic

the water is over 1000 ft away, but the bigger problem is building a pier, or fill, to meet the 125 ft elevation of the field

Topic: RE: Latest Update On LAX Plans
Username: cschleic
Posted 2012-12-05 07:58:23 and read 8827 times.

Quoting aklrno (Reply 13):
Quoting kaitak744 (Reply 12):
And why on earth is T3 being rebuilt?
Yes, it is old, but Virgin America just remodeled it. They are an LCC, and it does the job. It does not need to be luxurious. That in my opinion is a waste of money.

At some point it has to be updated or replaced. Can't just keep saying "don't spend any money, can't spend any money, it's a waste of money..." What happens when it gets to be 75 years old, 100 years old? Eventually it would fall down. That's how we end up with unsafe or crumbling infrastructure. Short term thinking leads to long term problem. And it only costs more in the future. What if they hadn't spent the money to build them in the first place?

Topic: RE: Latest Update On LAX Plans
Username: vikkyvik
Posted 2012-12-05 08:52:38 and read 8508 times.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 1):
This is all to comply with FAA recommended spacing for Group 5 aircraft on the north airfield and provide adequate spacing similar to southside.
Quoting LAXintl (Reply 5):
Its for unfettered Cat-5 ops which are projected to represent about 10% of all airfield operations.

Cat-6 will continue to have some restrictions (as they do on the rebuilt southside)

The move of 260ft north includes building a parallel centerfield taxiway in between the two runways.

Moving 24R by 260 feet actually creates greater spacing than exists on the south side. 25R and L are now 800 feet apart. 24R and L would be about 1000 feet apart after this move.

If they just wanted to make the spacing equal the south side, they'd only need to move 24R by 100 feet, if memory serves.

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 6):
It's a huge expense and a decade long inconvenience to accommodate a handful of A380s and 77Xs (which don't even exist) and the occasional 748s on 4 runways rather than the south 2.

And A380s already use the north side.

Quoting Beardown91737 (Reply 14):
the water is over 1000 ft away, but the bigger problem is building a pier, or fill, to meet the 125 ft elevation of the field

They weren't talking about LAX, just generally. And the water at LAX is over a half mile away.

Of course, my greatest worry is what will happen to the In'n'Out park spotting area. 

Topic: RE: Latest Update On LAX Plans
Username: cschleic
Posted 2012-12-05 08:54:54 and read 8483 times.

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 16):
Of course, my greatest worry is what will happen to the In'n'Out park spotting area.

Absolutely. We have to keep our priorities straight here, after all! That little park is a great area.

Topic: RE: Latest Update On LAX Plans
Username: Highflier92660
Posted 2012-12-05 10:26:14 and read 7927 times.

Isn't separation of the north runways the same plan that sent all the Westchester residents running to LAWA with lanterns and pitchforks?

An observation: a lengthened 24L would eliminate taxi time and congestion at 25R for a portion of airlines with the heaviest gross weight wide-body departures.

To posters in-the-loop like LAXintl: Any date when actual runway construction would start?

Topic: RE: Latest Update On LAX Plans
Username: LAXintl
Posted 2012-12-05 10:49:23 and read 7802 times.

Quoting kaitak744 (Reply 12):
How is terminal 0 going to be built if there is the stupid gate cap limit? It is adding gates is it not?

The airport plans no net gate count increases beyond the 153 count.

As an example when new TBIT finally comes into operation, LAWA has plan to decommission existing gates including demolishing 4 of the remote structures.

Its pretty well accepted that "modernization" is OK, but "expansion" is a no-no for both the community, and restricted per court decree anyhow.

So a terminal-0 option will not provide much more then simply replace the lost gates in T-1 and possibly add only 1 or 2 at most to the mix.

Quoting Highflier92660 (Reply 18):
Isn't separation of the north runways the same plan that sent all the Westchester residents running to LAWA with lanterns and pitchforks?

Yes its a rehash of the idea kicked around for the last almost 10-years, albeit a formal recommendation now.

Quoting Highflier92660 (Reply 18):
To posters in-the-loop like LAXintl: Any date when actual runway construction would start?

I would guess assuming no litigation and the project is approved fast by late 2014 maybe.

The airport is giving its board till mid-2013 to review and adopt the staff recommendation. Other parties will certainly weigh in such as the city council and new mayor (we have municipal elections in March).

It can take a long time to draw up plans and put the work out for bid even under the best of circumstances.
However this likely to be quite contentious so it could be drawn out affair.

Topic: RE: Latest Update On LAX Plans
Username: tp1040
Posted 2012-12-05 11:19:49 and read 7579 times.

They need to extend 7L and 7R to 18,000 feet so they can make alternating downwind landings with the ocean approach. While making 24L and 24R alternating departures over the ocean. Everybody in the basin would be happy.


I keed, I keed.

Topic: RE: Latest Update On LAX Plans
Username: victrola
Posted 2012-12-05 11:21:14 and read 7573 times.

To hell with the people in Westchester who oppose this. LAX has been a major international airport since about 1960. How long have these people lived in their houses? There is simply no place close to L.A. that can absorb additional growth. The limit on gates is outrageous. I'm sick of flying into LAX and having to wait in a plane because there are no unavailable gates. LAX is a huge jobs generator and of vital importance to the economy of Los Angeles. We need to put the interests of the city as a whole over the selfish intersts of a few homeowners in Westchester.

Topic: RE: Latest Update On LAX Plans
Username: Braniff747SP
Posted 2012-12-05 11:36:30 and read 7451 times.

Everything sounds great, with the exception of the In N Out relocation bit. I'm sure it would be build somewhere else.

Quoting victrola (Reply 21):
To hell with the people in Westchester who oppose this. LAX has been a major international airport since about 1960. How long have these people lived in their houses? There is simply no place close to L.A. that can absorb additional growth. The limit on gates is outrageous. I'm sick of flying into LAX and having to wait in a plane because there are no unavailable gates. LAX is a huge jobs generator and of vital importance to the economy of Los Angeles. We need to put the interests of the city as a whole over the selfish intersts of a few homeowners in Westchester.

I fully agree; however, the local politicos are elected thanks to them and they won't budge.

Topic: RE: Latest Update On LAX Plans
Username: n515cr
Posted 2012-12-05 12:03:06 and read 7286 times.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 11):

That for posting the picture. Questions below based purely on it:
1) How about the possibility of moving the proposed new 6L/24R west towards Pershing to avoid tearing up Lincoln? Is that even feasible or would clearing the dune be an issue?

2) I'm guessing that T-0 would force Park N Fly out?

Topic: RE: Latest Update On LAX Plans
Username: cosyr
Posted 2012-12-05 12:11:32 and read 7233 times.

Quoting aklrno (Thread starter):

Speaking of In-n-out, we are flying through LAX with a long wait. Is it possible to walk there or do you have to take a taxi? I was think via Skyway... We have a ton of time, enough that I considered Disneyland. I Don't want to miss In n out if it may go away there.

Topic: RE: Latest Update On LAX Plans
Username: flashmeister
Posted 2012-12-05 12:21:53 and read 7340 times.

Quoting cosyr (Reply 24):
Speaking of In-n-out, we are flying through LAX with a long wait. Is it possible to walk there or do you have to take a taxi?

I've walked there on a long layover, but it's a major pain in the butt. Just take a cab.

Topic: RE: Latest Update On LAX Plans
Username: LDVAviation
Posted 2012-12-05 12:42:16 and read 7199 times.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 3):
With measure J dead, future funding for all of MTA's shinny ideas is very questionable.

It failed to pass by a little more than half a percentage point.

There is an effort now to have the legislature change the law so that a simple majority will be enough to pass such measures in the future. (Politically, in view of Democratic control of both houses, that would amount to convincing Gov. Brown that it makes sense.)

In the meantime, the 66+% of the vote that it got is enough to encourage its backers to reintroduce it when the time is right.

Topic: RE: Latest Update On LAX Plans
Username: cschleic
Posted 2012-12-05 13:37:46 and read 6970 times.

Quoting n515cr (Reply 23):
2) I'm guessing that T-0 would force Park N Fly out?

Didn't LAWA purchase that land recently specifically for potential future expansion?

Topic: RE: Latest Update On LAX Plans
Username: PSA727LAX
Posted 2012-12-05 13:45:27 and read 6913 times.

With all that LAX means to & brings to the table in/for LA those politicos & eco cowards who cry "pollution, noise, congestion/traffic: Whah! If the politicos want the extra flights to go to the other LAWA airports then make those other airports relevant! These flights/business are at LAX because THAT is where people & business want & need to be.

All this "group hug" business is just that; "Bullfeathers business"!

For those who cry about the noise, I ask; "When did you move into your home that is near LAX"? Since it is almost certain they moved in AFTER LAX was built, they knew the airport was there. They knew airplanes come & go from said airport. Airplanes make noise. Grow up!!!

Topic: RE: Latest Update On LAX Plans
Username: LAXintl
Posted 2012-12-05 13:56:20 and read 6817 times.

Quoting victrola (Reply 21):
There is simply no place close to L.A. that can absorb additional growth.

LA basin has lots of airport capacity. BUR, ONT and even SNA and LGB operate under capacity. Further afield SAN and SBA are there also.

There is plenty of concrete in the region besides LAX.

Quoting victrola (Reply 21):
We need to put the interests of the city as a whole over the selfish intersts of a few homeowners in Westchester.

If you really want to put the interest of the region as a whole first, then you should also not be supporting lumping everything into a little corner at LAX.

A regional approach to utilize other airports reduces the hugely negative impacts that LAX has on the area. You realize LAX is the regions 2nd largest air polluter (Port is #1). There tons of needless traffic from across the region that on a daily basis clogs are streets and arteries.

And its not just Westchester. Other cities such as El Segundo, Inglewood, and much of the Westside and South Bay get stuck dealing with negatives resulting from LAX having to be the regions one stop air transportation solution.

Hopefully with the significant increase in operating cost at LAX in the coming years, airlines and consumers might think twice about utilizing the airport when there are other options.

Quoting n515cr (Reply 23):
Is that even feasible or would clearing the dune be an issue?

I doubt it. I know the sandunes are part of a federal nature habitat so that probably makes things even more complex.

Quoting n515cr (Reply 23):
2) I'm guessing that T-0 would force Park N Fly out?

Yes Park One has known this for years. LAWA even purchase the Radisson hotel across the street a few years back.

Quoting flashmeister (Reply 25):
Just take a cab.

Please dont unless you want a very upest taxi driver on your hands. After waiting for hours in the holding lot they wont be happy to end up with your $10 fare.

Quoting LDVAviation (Reply 26):
It failed to pass by a little more than half a percentage point.

A loss is a loss. What they should have done is waited for the 10-year period of Prop-R to run, not come to the voters with open arms for more money merely 2-3 years later.

Topic: RE: Latest Update On LAX Plans
Username: airbazar
Posted 2012-12-05 14:27:35 and read 6623 times.

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 16):
Moving 24R by 260 feet actually creates greater spacing than exists on the south side. 25R and L are now 800 feet apart. 24R and L would be about 1000 feet apart after this move.

If they just wanted to make the spacing equal the south side, they'd only need to move 24R by 100 feet, if memory serves.

I see a few issues with this: 1) If you're going to bother building an entire new runway, do it right and give it as much spacing as possible. The cost is the same. 2) If they were to move only 100ft they would be rebuilding on top of the existing runway which would take longer than building a new runway on "clear" land. And 3) By moving it 260ft they may be able to keep 6L/24R in operation for part of the construction period.

Topic: RE: Latest Update On LAX Plans
Username: kaitak744
Posted 2012-12-05 14:43:46 and read 6553 times.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 19):
The airport plans no net gate count increases beyond the 153 count.

As an example when new TBIT finally comes into operation, LAWA has plan to decommission existing gates including demolishing 4 of the remote structures.

Its pretty well accepted that "modernization" is OK, but "expansion" is a no-no for both the community, and restricted per court decree anyhow.

So a terminal-0 option will not provide much more then simply replace the lost gates in T-1 and possibly add only 1 or 2 at most to the mix.

Upon adding it all up:

T1 15
T2 10
T3 12
T4 13
T5 13
T6 13
T7 11
T8 9
TBIT (new) 18
Eagle remote gates 10
Remote Gates 9

Total: 133 gates

That is 20 gates shy of the 153 count, even after the new TBIT. So, the airport can technically expand and add 20 more gates can it not?

Topic: RE: Latest Update On LAX Plans
Username: ADent
Posted 2012-12-05 14:50:13 and read 6495 times.

Quoting flashmeister (Reply 25):
Quoting cosyr (Reply 24):
Speaking of In-n-out, we are flying through LAX with a long wait. Is it possible to walk there or do you have to take a taxi?

I've walked there on a long layover, but it's a major pain in the butt. Just take a cab.

Isn't there a parking lot with free shuttle service near the In-n-Out?

Topic: RE: Latest Update On LAX Plans
Username: LAXintl
Posted 2012-12-05 14:56:10 and read 6507 times.

Quoting kaitak744 (Reply 31):
Remote Gates 9

I have an exact break down but not with me.

However the remotes are more like 20 gates at the moment.

The gate limit is the count that existed when the court settlement agreement was approved. Also remember the agreement calls for reduction 10 additional gates if LAX passes the 78.9mil annual enplanements.

Once the new TBIT opens, the gate count will be exceeded, so LAWA will raze much of the remote gates on the western side of the airport.

[Edited 2012-12-05 15:06:35]

Topic: RE: Latest Update On LAX Plans
Username: flyingcaT
Posted 2012-12-05 15:04:03 and read 6479 times.

Ironically the unions may be the best way to get this done as heavy construction work is right up their alley and they absolutely need projects like these for their members.


the flying public needs LAWA to keep moving forward, recent events in L.A. show the rend shifting against NIMBYs. Expo line to Santa Monica, Red Line to beverly hills. Sure local council members hold fast to their constitiuesnts but most of the city has now realized that the needs of the many far outweigh the needs of the few. Even the california supreme court has been flexible. Undoubted the economy has made all parties sensitive to turnig down projects beneficial to the economy.

I think that LAWA should move forward with the rental car center, transit link and terminal projects as a separate project from the runway separation.

Topic: RE: Latest Update On LAX Plans
Username: diverdave
Posted 2012-12-05 15:35:11 and read 6425 times.

Quoting flashmeister (Reply 25):
I've walked there on a long layover, but it's a major pain in the butt. Just take a cab.
Quoting LAXintl (Reply 29):
Please don't unless you want a very upset taxi driver on your hands. After waiting for hours in the holding lot they won't be happy to end up with your $10 fare.

Boy, have you got that right. I used to live in Manhattan Beach and didn't dare to take a taxi from the airport to my home.

David

Topic: RE: Latest Update On LAX Plans
Username: LDVAviation
Posted 2012-12-05 15:47:36 and read 6386 times.

Quoting flyingcaT (Reply 34):
I think that LAWA should move forward with the rental car center, transit link and terminal projects as a separate project from the runway separation.

From what I understand, there is no money behind any of these projects.

This is just long range planning at this stage, not that construction will stop at LAX after the completion of TBIT West. There is a whole list of projects under what LAWA is labeling Capital Budget #2.

The projects under Capital Budget #2 are going to be financed by a new bond issue and are already in various stages of design, request for proposal, and even construction.

Topic: RE: Latest Update On LAX Plans
Username: aklrno
Posted 2012-12-05 15:49:05 and read 6399 times.

Quoting ADent (Reply 32):
Quoting flashmeister (Reply 25):
Quoting cosyr (Reply 24):
Speaking of In-n-out, we are flying through LAX with a long wait. Is it possible to walk there or do you have to take a taxi?

I've walked there on a long layover, but it's a major pain in the butt. Just take a cab.

Isn't there a parking lot with free shuttle service near the In-n-Out?

We've covered this in other threads,but here it is again:

Don't take a taxi. He will probably try to poison your burger, and the jury would let him off.

Go to the parking shuttle boarding area and look for a bus to the Parking Spot, the one that has the "Sepulveda" sign in the window. The bus has big black spots all over it. In-n-Out is practically touching their building. Be sure to give the driver a nice tip. Same in reverse to get back.

Topic: RE: Latest Update On LAX Plans
Username: kaitak744
Posted 2012-12-05 18:10:47 and read 6244 times.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 33):
I have an exact break down but not with me.

However the remotes are more like 20 gates at the moment.

Well, if you count the stands with out the jetways as well, the total is 18 gates.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 33):
The gate limit is the count that existed when the court settlement agreement was approved. Also remember the agreement calls for reduction 10 additional gates if LAX passes the 78.9mil annual enplanements.

That is a downright stupid settlement. When does it expire?

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 33):
Once the new TBIT opens, the gate count will be exceeded, so LAWA will raze much of the remote gates on the western side of the airport.

How is that possible? If there are 18 remote gates (source: google earth), then the overall gate total is 142. Still well below the 155 gate limit.......

Topic: RE: Latest Update On LAX Plans
Username: Andahuailas
Posted 2012-12-05 18:23:35 and read 6198 times.

Quoting PSA727LAX (Reply 28):

AMEN !!!!!!!

Topic: RE: Latest Update On LAX Plans
Username: LAXintl
Posted 2012-12-05 18:43:59 and read 6176 times.

Quoting kaitak744 (Reply 38):
That is a downright stupid settlement. When does it expire?

Choice was either not to move a single shovel, or reach a broad agreement with the multiple litigants that managed to block virtually every airport project LAWA was interested in since 1994.

The 2005 settlement agreement was a huge coup for LAWA as it green lighted for almost half of its wish list of projects without the threat of further litigation from the parties.

Maybe to better understand where LAWA was at the time, it was being sued by everyone including El Segundo, Culver City, Inglewood, the school district, County of Los Angeles plus a host of civic and community groups in several courts on various grounds ranging from the Clean Air Act, EPA standards, to State and Federal regulations, to land use issue and on and on.

The agreement runs through December 31, 2020 or sooner if of all the approved LAX Master Plan Program projects are complete.

Quoting kaitak744 (Reply 38):
How is that possible?

The gate count at LAX at the time of the agreement drafting was 163, hence the magic number.

153 comes in as that is the gate count limit to be achieved by December 2015 dependent on enplanement counts.

You also need to add in hard stands - at remotes, RJ gates etc for your totals.

Topic: RE: Latest Update On LAX Plans
Username: Byrdluvs747
Posted 2012-12-05 19:44:09 and read 6091 times.

I don't know all the politics involved, but is it illegal for LAX to use their funds earned from fees to buy homes/properties close to the airport as they come up for sale?

Maybe even team up with business to eventually create a business park. It would take time, but with this economy more homes should come up for sale.

Topic: RE: Latest Update On LAX Plans
Username: kaitak744
Posted 2012-12-05 19:45:11 and read 6091 times.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 40):
You also need to add in hard stands - at remotes, RJ gates etc for your totals.

I see. Well, I counted everything shy of the stands at cargo hangars and maintenance hangars. I don't get 153.... perhaps you could tell me what I am missing?

Topic: RE: Latest Update On LAX Plans
Username: n515cr
Posted 2012-12-05 20:59:31 and read 6011 times.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 29):
Quoting n515cr (Reply 23):
Is that even feasible or would clearing the dune be an issue?

I doubt it. I know the sandunes are part of a federal nature habitat so that probably makes things even more complex.

Should've been more clear...I was thinking more from the angle of aircraft physically clearing it during take off (probably only affects long-haul/freight flights) rather than dealing with environmentalists/agencies  

[Edited 2012-12-05 21:00:07]

Topic: RE: Latest Update On LAX Plans
Username: n515cr
Posted 2012-12-05 21:02:52 and read 6027 times.

Quoting ADent (Reply 32):
Isn't there a parking lot with free shuttle service near the In-n-Out?

The Parking Spot is next door to In-N-Out

Quoting diverdave (Reply 35):
Boy, have you got that right. I used to live in Manhattan Beach and didn't dare to take a taxi from the airport to my home.

True, but that doesn't stop me from taking a cab home after a week-long or longer trip...still cheaper than parking nearby 

Topic: RE: Latest Update On LAX Plans
Username: FlyDeltaJets
Posted 2012-12-05 22:23:07 and read 5901 times.

Quoting flashmeister (Reply 25):
I've walked there on a long layover, but it's a major pain in the butt. Just take a cab.

As said earlier the Parking Spot SEPLUVEDA LOT Shuttle. The walk is not that bad from terminal 1. Just walk to the beginning of the terminal then make a left up the sidewalk will elevate over Sepluveda and then walk down the stairs. It's a 10 min walk from terminal 1 at tops.

Topic: RE: Latest Update On LAX Plans
Username: ontime
Posted 2012-12-06 00:27:24 and read 5816 times.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 33):
Once the new TBIT opens, the gate count will be exceeded, so LAWA will raze much of the remote gates on the western side of the airport.


I thought that the gate reduction provisions of the settlement did not apply if LAX is serving less than 75 million passengers per year. And I don't believe LAX is on track to serve anywhere near that number any time soon. Why would they demolish gates if not yet required by the settlement agreement?

Topic: RE: Latest Update On LAX Plans
Username: aklrno
Posted 2012-12-06 01:13:02 and read 5767 times.

Quoting Byrdluvs747 (Reply 41):
I don't know all the politics involved, but is it illegal for LAX to use their funds earned from fees to buy homes/properties close to the airport as they come up for sale?

Maybe even team up with business to eventually create a business park. It would take time, but with this economy more homes should come up for sale.

They buy stuff all the time. As for businesses they often turn land into parking lots. They may own the land the rental car lots are on too.

I wonder if there is any restriction on the kinds of uses that are allowed for land just short of the threshold. Parking lots have few people in them at any time. When I was a teenager and worked near BUR an airplane (I think a constellation) crashed into our parking lot during the night while landing. I never felt really safe there afterwards. One of the engines ended up suspended over some guys desk on electrical conduits.

Topic: RE: Latest Update On LAX Plans
Username: LAXintl
Posted 2012-12-06 07:45:41 and read 5636 times.

Quoting Byrdluvs747 (Reply 41):

I don't know all the politics involved, but is it illegal for LAX to use their funds earned from fees to buy homes/properties close to the airport as they come up for sale?

Yes LAWA has been doing so for decades. That how they project to have the land to build proposed consolidated rental car facility. Its a very costly and slow process but it has been done.

Quoting kaitak744 (Reply 42):
I see. Well, I counted everything shy of the stands at cargo hangars and maintenance hangars. I don't get 153.... perhaps you could tell me what I am missing?

I don't have access to all my notes from the settlement, but the gate count number of 163 referenced in the agreement is what was present in 2004/2005, and under no circumstance could the airport exceed that. Hence the need to reduce gates when remodeled TBIT is complete.

Quoting Reply 46):
I thought that the gate reduction provisions of the settlement did not apply if LAX is serving less than 75 million passengers per year. And I don't believe LAX is on track to serve anywhere near that number any time soon. Why would they demolish gates if not yet required by the settlement agreement?

Yes the 153 would not be a restriction unless reaches 75 mil, but the 163 count will be exceeded with expanded TBIT so LAWA plans to raze much of the remote gate facilities to be in compliance. Also over time LAWA has closed other gates. For instance 39 at T-3 was withdrawn from service as well.

Quoting aklrno (Reply 47):
I wonder if there is any restriction on the kinds of uses that are allowed for land just short of the threshold.

Yes there are normal land use restrictions around airports - everything from height to RF signal restrictions, plus need for safety zones.

Topic: RE: Latest Update On LAX Plans
Username: AwysBSB
Posted 2012-12-09 04:51:13 and read 5266 times.

Since terminals' concourses cannot be torn down, all LAX check-in and baggage claim areas should be gathered in two buildings, by following the terminal topology of Guangzhou Baiyun International Airport:

Topic: RE: Latest Update On LAX Plans
Username: anonms
Posted 2012-12-10 09:49:33 and read 4879 times.

Quoting AwysBSB (Reply 49):
Since terminals' concourses cannot be torn down, all LAX check-in and baggage claim areas should be gathered in two buildings, by following the terminal topology of Guangzhou Baiyun International Airport:

I remember there being a plan that involved doing what you're suggesting.

Topic: RE: Latest Update On LAX Plans
Username: LDVAviation
Posted 2012-12-10 10:17:47 and read 4835 times.

Quoting anonms (Reply 50):
I remember there being a plan that involved doing what you're suggesting.

It is a feature of the current master plan and it is shown in the architect's renderings of the new LAX. Search for Fentress and LAX.

In the renderings, it is the new building in front of the old TBIT core and takes the place of the parking structures for T4/T3. The plan was to link up all the terminals to this building with a train that would circle the CTA.

It has been a while since I reviewed the settlement agreement with the local communities, but I think it was on the list of approved projects.

It does not appear, however, on LAWA's list of projects under Capital Budget #2. Capital Budget #2 lists all the improvements LAWA plans to make to the airport after the completion of TBIT West.

Topic: RE: Latest Update On LAX Plans
Username: LAXintl
Posted 2012-12-10 10:22:20 and read 4858 times.

The concept for a central check-in center with parking was proposed by a former mayor post 9/11.

Not only was it a very expensive change (projected $9billion total cost) to how the airport operates, but was universally opposed from the community, to business groups to tenant airlines. The only party that was warm to the idea was security folks as it would centralize their functions, and also remove car traffic from the central terminal loop.

Matter of fact, I think this entire misguided blue print is what galvanized much of the community against LAX projects and led to the eventual formation of the broad coalition that fought and won the 2005 court settlement.

Topic: RE: Latest Update On LAX Plans
Username: LDVAviation
Posted 2012-12-10 10:31:08 and read 4828 times.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 52):
The concept for a central check-in center with parking was proposed by a former mayor post 9/11.

There were actually two concepts:

Riordan's (the former mayor's) plan was envisioned as an offsite check-in facilty, located if I remember correctly, more or less, where LAWA in its latest recommendations to amend the master plan proposes to put the consolidated rental car facility.

The second concept was a central check-in building located where the T3/T4 parking lots are today. This second concept is the one that is shown in Fentress' model of the new LAX.

[Edited 2012-12-10 10:31:42]

Topic: RE: Latest Update On LAX Plans
Username: LAXintl
Posted 2012-12-10 10:54:56 and read 4801 times.

I'm talking about the much deride former Mayor Hahn's (2001-2005) plan.

Here is a LA Times article from 2004 explaining the opposition.
http://articles.latimes.com/2004/jun/11/local/me-lax11

Your second concept was simply a potential version of the TBIT modernization, and never made it into the final 2009 environmental review for the Bradley West project.
The now to be known 150,000sq ft. "great hall" is built to the back of the current TBIT, not across the street where the parking lots are today.

For now all that is happening with the T-3 and T-4 parking structure which will remain is get a $24mil facade update, new signage, elevators etc to help with the airports "curb appeal".

Topic: RE: Latest Update On LAX Plans
Username: LDVAviation
Posted 2012-12-10 11:42:54 and read 4705 times.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 54):
Your second concept was simply a potential version of the TBIT modernization, and never made it into the final 2009 environmental review for the Bradley West project.
The now to be known 150,000sq ft. "great hall" is built to the back of the current TBIT, not across the street where the parking lots are today.

Riordan was the first to propose an offsite check-in facility. It was in one of three plans he proposed for dramatically remaking the airport. In those days, the primary rationale for the centralized check-in facility was to ease the traffic into and out of the CTA.

The second concept is still very much in LAWA's thinking. Early this year, LAWA opened a website to promote all the changes at LAX. See LA-next.com. In the Interactive Visioning Model, the new passenger processing center appears in front of TBIT, right were the T4/T3 parking structures are now.

This is not the only place this concept appears. It also appears in the Final Master Plan, though in the final plan there are actually two such buildings. See ourLAX.org.

As to the changes to the parking structures that you mentioned, the proposal to reface them was never implemented, neither were the changes to the terminal canopies that were proposed. When LAWA reconsidered cosmetic changes to the CTA this year, they downsized their ambitions and agreed only to change the canopy in front of TBIT as part of Capital Budget #1. They differed any cosmetic changes to the CTA to Capital Budget #2. Those cosmetic changes will not include new facades for the parking structures.

Topic: RE: Latest Update On LAX Plans
Username: vikkyvik
Posted 2012-12-10 12:53:45 and read 4619 times.

Quoting airbazar (Reply 30):
I see a few issues with this: 1) If you're going to bother building an entire new runway, do it right and give it as much spacing as possible. The cost is the same. 2) If they were to move only 100ft they would be rebuilding on top of the existing runway which would take longer than building a new runway on "clear" land. And 3) By moving it 260ft they may be able to keep 6L/24R in operation for part of the construction period.

Well, they moved 7R-25L by all of 50 feet, so it's not without precedent, but I see what you're saying.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 29):
I doubt it. I know the sandunes are part of a federal nature habitat so that probably makes things even more complex.

Yep. Ain't no way they're digging into those dunes, far as I know. It's a habitat for the (endangered, I think) El Segundo Blue Butterfly.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 29):
LA basin has lots of airport capacity. BUR, ONT and even SNA and LGB operate under capacity. Further afield SAN and SBA are there also.

LGB is probably the best option, in my relatively-uninformed opinion. Right now, it's probably restricted by its terminal more than anything, but they are building a new one. Personally, I fly out of LGB whenever I can (an added benefit is you get to walk out on the tarmac to your aircraft....but that will sadly go away with the new terminal). I don't know the politics in Long Beach, but LGB isn't too far away, looks like it has room to expand facilities, has a long runway, is very close to major freeways, etc....

Quoting cosyr (Reply 24):
I Don't want to miss In n out if it may go away there.

According to the map that LAXintl posted, looks like they wouldn't have to move the In'n'Out.

Topic: RE: Latest Update On LAX Plans
Username: LAXintl
Posted 2012-12-10 12:55:02 and read 4638 times.

Here is a presentation that contains list of current and proposed future wishlist airside and landside capital projects by management. No mention of any T-3/T4 Parking structure redevelopment:

http://www.lawa.org/uploadedFiles/bo...20Management%20Update%20052112.pdf

Additionally here is the approved TBIT related roadway improvements:
http://www.lawa.org/uploadedFiles/bo...20Management%20Update%20031912.pdf

Concepts for remainder of airport curbside are still being worked out, however some items such as parking structure elevator and signage has already been approved as part of other capital replacement projects and are in work.

Topic: RE: Latest Update On LAX Plans
Username: N757ST
Posted 2012-12-10 13:06:49 and read 4588 times.

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 56):

LGB is NOT terminal constrained, it is slot limited to commercial carriers by the city to appease the locals. The new terminal FYI does not have jet bridges... You will still walk to the aircraft.

Topic: RE: Latest Update On LAX Plans
Username: LDVAviation
Posted 2012-12-10 14:11:36 and read 4509 times.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 57):
Here is a presentation that contains list of current and proposed future wishlist airside and landside capital projects by management. No mention of any T-3/T4 Parking structure redevelopment:

I never said it was in the works. In fact, in my first post on the subject, which you chose to dispute, I said it was not an item in Capital Budget #2.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 57):
Concepts for remainder of airport curbside are still being worked out, however some items such as parking structure elevator and signage has already been approved as part of other capital replacement projects and are in work.

Whatever the case, LAWA dropped the idea for changes to the parking-structure facades after a presentation two years ago on the subject of cosmetic changes to the CTA.

As to the design concepts for the remainder of what is to be done to the curbside, they are not undefined. The final recommendations by staff can be found in Development Program Management Report 03.05.12. All that has happened since is that LAWA has split the cost of improvements between the two budgets, with the TBIT-related improvements (Items #1 and #2 in the Report) going in Budget #1 and Item #3 going in Budget #2. As of the latest report on the two Capital Budgets, this continues to be the case.

Topic: RE: Latest Update On LAX Plans
Username: r2rho
Posted 2012-12-18 07:01:56 and read 4061 times.

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 6):
Many airports around the world the size of LAX operate with fewer runways at all times. It's a matter of want, not need, to have all 4 runways capable of optimized operation of the largest aircraft.

LAX's problem is not so much in the runways, but in the taxiways. LAX may have 4 rwys but they cannot utilize them as efficiently as other comparable airports, like ATL, due to inefficient taxiway layout. The larger separation, new centerfield taxiway and taxiway D&E realignments will improve things a lot on the north side.

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 16):
Moving 24R by 260 feet actually creates greater spacing than exists on the south side. 25R and L are now 800 feet apart. 24R and L would be about 1000 feet apart after this move.

1000ft would be the same as ATL's close parallel's, to give a comparison.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 29):
LA basin has lots of airport capacity. BUR, ONT and even SNA and LGB operate under capacity. Further afield SAN and SBA are there also.

There is plenty of concrete in the region besides LAX.

I agree that other LA region airports are not used to their potential and a regional airport strategy should be promoted. But I do not see it as opposed to these LAX improvements, rather complimentary.

Quoting kaitak744 (Reply 38):
the agreement calls for reduction 10 additional gates if LAX passes the 78.9mil annual enplanements.
Quoting LAXintl (Reply 48):
the gate count number of 163 referenced in the agreement is what was present in 2004/2005, and under no circumstance could the airport exceed that.
Quoting LAXintl (Reply 48):
Yes the 153 would not be a restriction unless reaches 75 mil, but the 163 count will be exceeded with expanded TBIT so LAWA plans to raze much of the remote gate facilities to be in compliance.

The restrictions on operations will inevitably push LAX to larger aircraft - it's the only way to handle more pax with less gates and without increasing the number of ops/hour. A further reason why the runway and taxiway realignments are necessary.

Topic: RE: Latest Update On LAX Plans
Username: ADent
Posted 2012-12-18 17:33:34 and read 3801 times.

Quoting r2rho (Reply 60):
agree that other LA region airports are not used to their potential and a regional airport strategy should be promoted.

I think the region likes their current strategy - Don't fly here (SNA/LGB/BUR) - Fly to LAX*.



*Feel free to fly to ONT also, though no one does.

Topic: RE: Latest Update On LAX Plans
Username: Beardown91737
Posted 2012-12-18 23:25:46 and read 3605 times.

Quoting ADent (Reply 61):
*Feel free to fly to ONT also, though no one does.

don't know where you got that information. If you had looked here http://transtats.bts.gov/airports.asp you would have correctly put BUR behind ONT, where it has been for years and years.

Topic: RE: Latest Update On LAX Plans
Username: N782NC
Posted 2012-12-19 11:28:06 and read 3378 times.

Quoting ADent (Reply 61):
*Feel free to fly to ONT also, though no one does.
Quoting Beardown91737 (Reply 62):
don't know where you got that information. If you had looked here http://transtats.bts.gov/airports.asp you would have correctly put BUR behind ONT, where it has been for years and years.

I think his comment had more to do with the fact that ONT is kind of the bastard step-child in the LAWA group. Add to that a nearly 40% drop in passenger numbers over the last few years doesn't help matters.

Topic: RE: Latest Update On LAX Plans
Username: ADent
Posted 2012-12-19 15:16:02 and read 3254 times.

N782NC has it right.


Yes people fly to/from ONT, but LAWA had grandiose plans for it. There are no limits on traffic at ONT, but traffic is way down. So people are welcome to use ONT, but fewer and fewer do.


The messages in this discussion express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of Airliners.net or any entity associated with Airliners.net.

Copyright © Lundgren Aerospace. All rights reserved.
http://www.airliners.net/