Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
$225-Million Upgrade Of LAX International Terminal  
User currently offlineAlexchao From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 688 posts, RR: 0
Posted (10 years 9 months 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 6950 times:

Mayor Jim Hahn Announces $225-Million Upgrade of Tom Bradley International Terminal at LAX

Largest construction project at airport since 1984 Olympics; Renovation will improve operational efficiency and enhance customer satisfaction at major U.S. air gateway

LOS ANGELES, Dec. 8, 2003 (PRIMEZONE) -- Los Angeles Mayor Jim Hahn today announced a $225-million project to renovate the interior of the Tom Bradley International Terminal (TBIT) at Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) for improved operational efficiency and enhanced customer satisfaction. Nearly 40 percent of the estimated cost is allocated to security and safety upgrades. The terminal overhaul will be the most extensive capital improvement project undertaken by Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA) since the 1984 Summer Olympics.

"Los Angeles International Airport is a global gateway for millions of travelers every year, which is why we are determined to ensure that LAX maintains the highest levels of safety, security and efficiency in the years ahead,'' said Mayor Hahn. "We must make the necessary investments to ensure that LAX maintains its prominence as an international hub and a major economic engine for our region.''

The $225-million project will be financed with a combination of airport revenues, Passenger Facility Charges (PFCs), and LAWA's commercial paper program. The U.S. Transportation Security Administration is expected to reimburse LAWA for up to 90 percent of the cost of installing the outbound baggage security screening system. At an estimated cost of $72 million, the screening system complies with a federal mandate to screen 100 percent of all checked luggage and will replace an interim solution in place since December 31, 2002, that has resulted in increased passenger congestion and circulation challenges.

"Since Tom Bradley International Terminal opened in 1984, it has welcomed millions of passengers to Los Angeles from all over the world,'' said Los Angeles City Councilmember Cindy Miscikowski (11th District). "But over the years, wear and tear has begun to show and it is time to remake the terminal in the image of Los Angeles as the Gateway to the Pacific Rim and the world.''

"Preserving and enhancing international gateway service at LAX is a critical component of the regional air transportation solution for Southern California envisioned and promoted by Mayor Hahn,'' said Los Angeles Board of Airport Commissioners President Ted Stein. "Even as we look to the other airports in the region to do their part to meet the growing demand for air service, we recognize the unique role of international service at LAX.''

Other major elements of the TBIT renovation project on both the Upper/Departures and Lower/Arrivals Levels include:


-- Dynamic overhead signage and plasma displays for flight information and other public communication;

-- Improved acoustics and lighting of all public areas, including new back-lit walls and more exterior windows for natural light;

-- New canopy over ticketing counters and back walls;

-- New terrazzo and carpet flooring;

-- Improved ramps and stairs for easier passenger access to bus-gate holdrooms and exits from federal inspection areas;

-- New food/beverage and retail concessions with outdoor seating, a children's play area, and a second-level walkway connecting the mezzanine seating area to new concessions;

-- More "intimate" and relaxing in-transit waiting lounges;

-- Replacing existing airline clubs with new combined airline lounges;

-- Faster-throughput baggage claim carousels;

-- Upgrading all elevators, escalators and moving walkways.

The Los Angeles Board of Airport Commissioners is expected to consider authorization to request proposals for construction management in the near future and will begin soliciting construction bids in May 2004.

Thirty-two international air carriers currently operate at TBIT, serving more than nine million passengers annually. LAX serves almost one-third of all air travelers between the United States and Asia-Pacific, the fast growing international market in the world.

Source: http://biz.yahoo.com/pz/031208/49400.html


58 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineEK413 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 4929 posts, RR: 4
Reply 1, posted (10 years 9 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 6814 times:

All I can say is what a waste of money!
$225 million to upgrade the wear & tear in the Tom Bradley International Terminal.
Wouldn't it be a good idea to re-configure the bays so that it can accommodate the A380. Let's see Qantas, Air France, Singapore Airlines, Virgin Atlantic, Korean Airlines are just some of the carriers which will be flying the A380 into LAX. So where would the passengers be disembark???



Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We are tonight’s entertainment!
User currently offlineLehpron From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 7028 posts, RR: 21
Reply 2, posted (10 years 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 6699 times:

That was I was about to say too, how come they are not interested in investing for an A380? Do they assume bigger planes that 747/777 cannot exist, let alone be built, just can't work?

What is this "can't" crap?



The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.
User currently offlineSllevin From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 3376 posts, RR: 6
Reply 3, posted (10 years 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 6617 times:

Wouldn't it be a good idea to re-configure the bays so that it can accommodate the A380.

So we shouldn't update the terminal so a few airlines can run a handful of flights a day? As a passenger, I'd much rather see a nice updated terminal. And the A380 mods will cost a ton more money.

If airlines want to take flights out of LAX because the city won't waste a billion dollars so they can have new oversized toys, let them. The airport is overcrowded as it is, a few less flights a day would be a good thing.

Steve


User currently offlineAlexchao From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 688 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (10 years 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 6552 times:

As a person constantly going through the International Terminal, I will appreciate the updates. The terminal is old and is in need of major renovation.

I have a feeling this is only the first wave of updates. I think LAX will be A380-ready when the A380 is launched.

-alexchao


User currently offlineAussie747 From Australia, joined Aug 2003, 1163 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (10 years 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 6432 times:

Isn't Terminal 4 at LAX the AA Terminal equipped for the A380 (end piers)? Although the taxiways need to be enlarged especailly around corners. That was the conensus I have in Australia any thoughts from those in LA.

User currently offlineEK413 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 4929 posts, RR: 4
Reply 6, posted (10 years 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 6422 times:

Sllevin
So we shouldn't update the terminal so a few airlines can run a handful of flights a day? As a passenger, I'd much rather see a nice updated terminal. And the A380 mods will cost a ton more money.

If airlines want to take flights out of LAX because the city won't waste a billion dollars so they can have new oversized toys, let them. The airport is overcrowded as it is, a few less flights a day would be a good thing.

I understand maybe the terminal has wear & tear & is due for a update. I personally think that re-configuration of the bays should be on the drawing board too!
Think of it this way, wasn't the A380 designed to reduce congestion at major hubs?
Example;Qantas has 5 aircraft at the same time in LAX, the A380 might cut it down to 2-3 aircraft depending on the configuration.



Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We are tonight’s entertainment!
User currently offlineMizzou65201 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 196 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (10 years 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 6393 times:

From the LA Times article, Monday 12/8, on the TBIT renovations

Airlines that use the Bradley terminal say they are pleased that it will be updated, but concerned that the building still will not be ready for the arrival of the world's largest passenger jet in 2006. Seven carriers plan to fly the 555-seat Airbus A380 to LAX.

The upgrade planned next year will work in part to get the Bradley terminal ready for the A380, Deputy Mayor Troy Edwards said, by making it "far easier" for the facility to handle the increased number of passengers coming off the large jet at the same time.

But airlines that have ordered the A380, including Air France, Lufthansa, Singapore Airlines and Virgin Atlantic, are particularly concerned that gates at the Bradley terminal are not designed to handle the large, two-story plane. They would have to load and unload passengers at remote gates near the sand dunes, from where they would be bused to and from waiting rooms in the Bradley terminal, which are designed to hold 35 passengers each.

This is an "unacceptable alternative," executives representing Air France, Lufthansa, Singapore Airlines and Virgin Atlantic, wrote to Kim Day, interim executive director for the city's airport agency.

The mayor's office agrees. "The remote gates provide a second-tier level of service for our international passengers," Edwards said.

He said the city has included plans to build gates onto the Bradley terminal that can accommodate the A380 in Hahn's $9-billion modernization proposal for LAX. Construction on larger gates, however, is not slated to start until 2009, three years after the A380 is scheduled to arrive in Los Angeles.


User currently offlineGigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 8, posted (10 years 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 6366 times:

All the airlines mentioned will only be incidental compared to the massive displeasure of Qantas if they can't have 3 of their new birds on the ground at the same time there.

N


User currently offlineScottb From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 6780 posts, RR: 32
Reply 9, posted (10 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 6290 times:

Well, boo-freaking-hoo! If the above-mentioned airlines like QF, AF, SQ, LH, and VS want to operate their A380's to LAX, they ought to be willing to put up their fair share of the cost of the upgrades to the airfield/terminal. Have LAWA issue a set of bonds to pay for the A380-specific upgrades and service the bonds with a special fee on A380 landings. It is certainly NOT fair to force the vast majority of the other airlines at LAX which will NEVER operate the A380 to shoulder the cost of the upgrades, especially given that 10 A380's would only represent the number of seats in 12-13 747-400's. If congestion at LAX is such a huge problem, then reduce the number of prop/RJ flights -- the number of flights between SAN and LAX on UA/AA is simply ridiculous given that it is virtually all connecting traffic. If you reconfigure the gates at the TBIT to accomodate the A380, that reduces the number of gates available -- and that begs the point of the A380's ability to offer increased capacity.

WN had more than two-and-a-half times the number of LAX passengers than QF, SQ, AF, LH, AND VS *COMBINED* in 2002. They get nothing out of A380-specific upgrades aside from operational disruptions at the airport related to construction. Why should Southwest, United, and American pay for an upgrade which solely benefits their competitors?

If A380 operators choose to end service to LAX because they won't be able to fly the A380 into the airport, someone else will be more than happy to take advantage of that market opportunity. I'm sure that United would LOVE to have the LAX-Australia market to itself! If the A380 operators choose to increase service to, say, SFO with A380's, LAX loses some connecting passengers -- but it could be argued that the LA metro area gains very little net benefit from connecting passengers, and the freed-up capacity from shifting those passengers to other airports could easily be applied to O&D traffic. The availability of A380 gates won't fix SFO's operational problems/airfield when the fog rolls in, either.

LAX *is* in the enviable position of being able to call the shots given its status as the primary international gateway for Southern California. SAN doesn't have terminal space, and ONT is too far away from L.A. to be desirable as an alternative (not to mention that LAWA runs ONT, anyway). Sure, displeased A380 operators could choose to fly somewhere else, but they'd essentially be cutting off their noses to spite their faces. Someone else would step in to fulfill demand from LAX. And I think that Qantas' "massive displeasure" would pale in comparison to the "massive displeasure" from United, American, Southwest, Delta, Alaska, Skywest, Northwest, Continental, America West, and US Airways, which are (in order) the top ten airlines at LAX if they were told that they were going to be paying the cost of A380 upgrades for a half dozen foreign airlines.

[Edited 2003-12-10 22:18:04]

User currently offlineRayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 8018 posts, RR: 5
Reply 10, posted (10 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 6256 times:

What LAX really needs to do is to completely build an all-new remote terminal away from the Bradley International Terminal with most of the gates sporting 80 x 80 meter spacing AND dual-level jetwalks to accommodate the A380-800's from AF, KE, LH, QF and VS.

At the rate things are going SFO will end up getting QF A388 service first.  Insane


User currently offlineMariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 25327 posts, RR: 85
Reply 11, posted (10 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 6245 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Scottb:

Is it really "either/or"?

If QF or SQ or VS decide that they'll put an A380 into SFO, that doesn't mean they'll pull out of LAX altogether.

They can easily continue some 747 service into LAX. They all have other routes - in the case of QF, SYD/LHR - where the A380 can be deployed while LAX sorts itself out.

Even if they did pull out completely in favor of SFO, I'm not sure who would - or could - "step in" to fulfill demand from LAX on at least some of those international routes. Who has the rights?

UAL would be pleased to have LAX/SYD to itself? Sure. Would QF let that happen? Doubt it.

Isn't it all a bit of a storm in a teacup? Somehow or other, if the airlines want to do it, a few A380's will land at LAX and somehow or other, arrangements will be made.

Those arrangements may not be ideal in the first instance, but there's a lot of airports where the "arrangements" for the 747 were very far from ideal in the first instance.

cheers

mariner



aeternum nauta
User currently onlineSydscott From Australia, joined Oct 2003, 3094 posts, RR: 20
Reply 12, posted (10 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 6248 times:


Well you get the award for shortsightedness Scottb. If the other major airports around the world are going to be equiped for the A380 when its introduced for service I can't see any reason why LAX shouldn't be. Other airport authorities have made the decision to re build terminals etc without increasing their landing charges on all the carriers. I'm sure LAX is a profitable operation and in typical drama queen fashion they will come to the party whinging and whining the whole way in typical Californian fashion.

I agree with spending $225 million upgrading it, the place needs a paint job and some new carpet.

Meanwhile you forget the QF feeds AA flights at LAX whilst LH, UAL and SQ are members of Star, plus US Airways aill be soon, and AF has teamed up with Delta. So its not as if the major carriers at LAX aren't going to get some benefit of the increased passengers coming in on the A380.

And Boo hoo to WN not being able to take advantage of International Connecting traffic. Under that reasoning LAX shouldn't have upgraded for the 747 either because AA, WN, Delta, Alaska, Skywest, Continental, America West and US Airways dont operate them. What sort of logic is that???


User currently offlineTom in NO From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 7194 posts, RR: 33
Reply 13, posted (10 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 6220 times:

The problem with just redesigning or expanding areas at LAX in order to immediately accomodate the 380 is the effect it would have on existing operations there, and on the existing infrastructure. It may a simple problem of having to get everything required designed, then prioriting it, then funding and constructing it. If I'm LAX, I'm going to have all my ducks lined up before I begin such a project, and not just start throwing bricks and concrete up in a disorganized manner.

Sometimes I laugh at how airports are perceived that we won't accomodate airlines, or build facilities, or the like. RDU, BNA, and PIT are examples are airports that did, and are now screwed, or about to be.

At the same time, I would be almost positive that LAX will be in a position to accomodate the 380. Remember that while the airport may front the construction funds (through bonds or PFC's), the airlines will end up paying it back.

I'm also positive that while the 380-operating are probably losing sleep over this, they won't be pulling LAX service because of it.

Tom at MSY



"The criminal ineptitude makes you furious"-Bruce Springsteen, after seeing firsthand the damage from Hurricane Katrina
User currently offlineScottb From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 6780 posts, RR: 32
Reply 14, posted (10 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 6172 times:

My point isn't that I think A380 operators will pull service from LAX absent upgrades; rather, I think it's very unlikely because of the size of the market. My point is that they really have little leverage to try to force LAWA into spending a lot of money for facilities which will be used by perhaps 10 daily flights.

The other major airports can do what they wish with regard to upgrades supporting the A380. And at airports where an A380 operator is the dominant hub carrier (i.e. FRA, MUC, CDG, SIN, SYD, DXB, etc.) that airline will indeed pay the lion's share of the upgrade costs -- as it should be. But, in truth, it is unfair to expect a large number of airlines to subsidize the operations of a few, especially when the public benefit (reduced congestion) is so minimal!

At the time when the 747-100 was introduced, many of the large U.S. airlines *were* operating or had ordered the type -- the likes of Pan Am, TWA, Continental, American, Delta, Braniff, Eastern, and Northwest Orient. The DC-10 and L1011 were also being introduced and required upgrades to facilities. These upgrades were needed by most airlines, not a handful. Even PSA ordered the L1011!

I don't have a problem with LAX spending money on upgrades for the A380. I just think the A380 operators should bear the full cost of the upgrades. As far as the domestic carriers code-sharing with A380 operators goes, it matters little to DL, AA, UA, US, CO, or NW whether their code share partner operates a 747-400 or A380, or whether the code share flight departs LAX or SFO. Actually, I'm sure United would be happy to have LH and SQ operating larger equipment from SFO, given that UA has a larger presence there.

Sometimes practicality needs to win out over grandiose so-called "vision." Those airlines reaping the greatest benefit from the A380 should be willing to pay the associated infrastructure costs.


User currently offlineGigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 15, posted (10 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 6155 times:

I don't have a problem with LAX spending money on upgrades for the A380. I just think the A380 operators should bear the full cost of the upgrades

That's a great way to hand future operators free facilities.

N


User currently offlineElwood64151 From United States of America, joined Feb 2002, 2477 posts, RR: 6
Reply 16, posted (10 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 6154 times:

When the 777 was launched, a lot of airports chose to expand gate areas. But the 777 was originally supposed to have foling wing-tips. There's nothing wrong with that (thousands of military jets fly much more rigorous flights than any commercial airliner, and they have folding tips).

Maybe Airbus needs to adjust its design so that the aircraft fits into the gates.

Of course, one could have said the same thing about the 747 back in '69.

A lot of people seem to be forgetting that a lot of these airlines will still be flying 747s, 777s, A340s and A330s. If the airport isn't ready for the A380, don't fly it there! LAX misses out of the landing fees of the largest passenger jet in the world, unless the airline wishes to inconvenience its passengers.

It's all about choices. As they say, one size does not fit all. LAX has said, "Too big."



Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it in summer school.
User currently offlinePhxinterrupted From United States of America, joined Apr 2002, 474 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (10 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 6140 times:

Let the operators of the A380 pay for the upgrades they want, or better yet, let Airbus pay for it!


Keepin' it real.
User currently offlineBrons2 From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3015 posts, RR: 4
Reply 18, posted (10 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 6126 times:

I for one hope to never see an A380 at LAX, because I'll be the one paying for it in higher fares when I travel to Southern California.


Firings, if well done, are good for employee morale.
User currently offlineGigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 19, posted (10 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 6122 times:

Let the operators of the A380 pay for the upgrades they want, or better yet, let Airbus pay for it!

You people are confused. LAX provides a service, not only to the passengers but to the airlines. They make money both ways.

Businesses usually try to accomodate their customers requests, and then they pass along the cost of that accommodation to all their customers.

Suggestions that Airbus pay for it are bullshit. Boeing didn't pay for 747 upgrades.

You can't ask the initial group of A380 customers to pay for it. If you do, then everyone that buys the A380 after the upgrades are complete will get a free ride.

N


User currently offlineBN747 From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 5618 posts, RR: 51
Reply 20, posted (10 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 6071 times:

There's no way any of the top A380 cxrs are gonna pull outta LAX because LAX isn't or won't be ready. QF everyday has between 3-5 744s on the ground simultaneously that = buckets of cash in this market. That also equals QF-LAX traffic is generating the cash to pay for the new aircraft. That scene is duplicated nowhere outside Australia. So they ain't going anywhere! Neither is SQ or MH. Therefore (since they are making buckets of cash) if the wanna bring it here....the need to spend some of that cash to accomodate it. That applies to all the carriers wishing to do so.The park two 744s at AA's T-4. Since AA tweaked their gates to do do this..well a little more tweaking can squeeze in an A380 or two.

Hypothetically, if AA had A380s on order..they'd have to foot the bill to upgrade T-4 to service it. LAWA would have to implement taxiway/runway improvements.

Aussie747 I'm not certain about the end gates at T4 at this time. Only the very end (outer and centered gate) currently takes a 777. The gates that take QF744s are 41 &43 (I think the) and these deep are closest to the curbside deep into the alley. AA must feeling the heat that QF is putting on them to join their side in the tung-of-war to get the A380 in here.

But I've mentioned in seperate thread what RayChuang said here...that the remore area is the best place for the A380s. The only problem is they'd berestricted to the north complex runways only. I'm not sure if the bridge taxiway 'AA' and the Sepulveda Tunnels (for taxiway B and C are up to the task...nor the 25 runways as far that goes. But 2-3 remote stands with dual jetways is the only true solution (and temporary) to this problem.


BN747



"Home of the Brave, made by the Slaves..Land of the Free, if you look like me.." T. Jefferson
User currently offlineTom in NO From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 7194 posts, RR: 33
Reply 21, posted (10 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 6052 times:

"My point is that they really have little leverage to try to force LAWA into spending a lot of money for facilities which will be used by perhaps 10 daily flights."

That statement I totally agree with. As airport operators, we have often felt that airlines too often try to ram stuff down our throats. Yes perhaps, a certain project might benefit more than one entity, but if I don't have money for it, or can't obtain the funding for it, I ain't building it. Especially in these post 9/11 days where airports have also seen a big-time drop in revenues, with no compensating drop in expenses. Let the airlines fund their own projects. They've done so in the past, and it's turned out well. If the airlines want to begin 380 service into a new brand new facility (as an example), let them accept the financial risk and fund it up front themselves.

Tom at MSY



"The criminal ineptitude makes you furious"-Bruce Springsteen, after seeing firsthand the damage from Hurricane Katrina
User currently onlineSydscott From Australia, joined Oct 2003, 3094 posts, RR: 20
Reply 22, posted (10 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 6015 times:


Some of you are so shortsighted and thats the last I'm saying. Major airports around the world are footing the bill for upgrades associated with the A380. Besides which the airlines that operate the A380 into LAX will be paying higher landing charges anyway so in effect they will be paying for the upgrade. So dont give me all this crap about "they should be forced to pay for it." THEY ARE!!!! How long have designs been around from both Airbus and Boeing for larger size aircraft?? A decade?? They've had plenty of time to plan for the introduction of larger planes and have chosen to ignore the problem until its almost too late. It's a typical lack of planning and forward thinking by LAX and nothing more. The airlines will be bringing more passengers and more flights, after all thats what they do. LAX should provide the facilities to let them do it, like all the other airports around the world are, and enjoy the extra revenue and pax that will come through.


User currently offlineEmiratesA345 From Canada, joined Jun 2003, 2123 posts, RR: 9
Reply 23, posted (10 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 5999 times:

I was thinking the same thing as EK413 and others.

EmiratesA345 Smile/happy/getting dizzy



You and I were meant to fly, Air Canada!
User currently onlineSydscott From Australia, joined Oct 2003, 3094 posts, RR: 20
Reply 24, posted (10 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 5966 times:

As Tom in NO points out, in these post September 11 days Americans aren't travelling as much, but yet there are International Carriers adding new frequencies and larger planes into LAX. SQ & Emirates come to immediately to mind. This presents an opportunity for LAX to make up any revenue shortfall from International Carriers. They should be welcoming this, figuring out the IRR of a project to handle the capacity and investing money to bring their facilities up to scratch. Somehow I dont think New Orleans International will have to worry about the A380 anytime soon however Tom!!!!

Sydney will have to deal with all of QF's A380 fleet, plus probably some of them from Emirates, SQ and Virign Atlantic. Do you hear them whinging about it??? But then they are public company listed on the Stock Exchange so of course they welcome it as an opportunity to make more money for their shareholders.


25 Post contains images Tom in NO : "Somehow I dont think New Orleans International will have to worry about the A380 anytime soon however Tom!!!!" Thanks for confirming something I've k
26 Sllevin : Here's some interesting numbers. Assuming that a billion dollars could be borrowed at 3%, the interest alone would be 2.5 million dollars every month.
27 Sydscott : Tom, This is where I've worked for the past 5 years. Just so you know where I'm coming from. http://www.macquarie.com.au/au/map/ Incidentally I stand
28 RayChuang : My worry about trying to park the A380-800 at the remote gates at LAX is the fact it is going to take an inordinately long time ground service the pla
29 Skip7966 : I don't know how the length part would come into play, but with the size of a 380, wouldn't it make sense to park it between two gates and hook up a j
30 ScottB : Gigneil: "You can't ask the initial group of A380 customers to pay for it. If you do, then everyone that buys the A380 after the upgrades are complete
31 Post contains images RayChuang : ScottB, What's interesting is that SIN, DXB, FRA and CDG already have gates that can support the A380-800 (or will very soon have them), primarily thr
32 Tom in NO : "That's why you finance the project with bonded indebtedness. Anyone who wants to operate an A380 into the airport has to share equally in the cost of
33 Elwood64151 : Not that I agree with those that say Airbus or the airlines should pay for it, but a thought occurs: We do not have the same route systems now that we
34 Sllevin : Just as a data point, DC-10 Series 10 and L-1011's use much smaller, non-jumbo gates. That's why CO and DL went to the 764, which also fits in those g
35 Sydscott : Actually Scottb I am asking you to swallow the argument. Sydney, for example, has reconfigured its fees to charge the airlines by the number of passe
36 ScottB : Sydscott- Your "example" doesn't even prove your point! Let's say that A380-related improvements cost only $250 million and the airport issues 30-year
37 Bkkair : The attitudes of some people here about the airport spending money for the A380 are amazing! These A380 passengers will get off and alot of them will
38 Tom in NO : "I wonder if the arguments here would be different if it was a Boeing that the improvements were being made for and it was being operated by US airlin
39 EK413 : Would we have this problem if the A380 was built by BOEING?
40 Mizzou65201 : Question (not necessarily my actual opinion): Anyone wonder if the city (mayor's office) is holding the A380 improvements out as leverage in its quest
41 Sydscott : Scottb; It doesn't take a large number of dollars to widen taxiways and install gates that can accomodate the A380, all this talk of billions of doll
42 RayChuang : Folks, Let's consider the major issues that LAX is going to need to properly accommodate the A380-800: 1. The extreme inadequecy of the Bradley Intern
43 BigB : Would we have this problem if the A380 was built by BOEING? One answer yes, the aircraft that large will have problems at LAX. LAX have to find a effi
44 BigB : It doesn't take a large number of dollars to widen taxiways and install gates that can accomodate the A380, all this talk of billions of dollars is ru
45 ScottB : I agree, I doubt it would matter if the A380 were built by Boeing. I think it *would* matter if the largest airlines at the airport intended to operat
46 WesternDC1010 : I love ScottB's response: "If you buy a car which is too large for your garage, it's not your neighbors' responsibility to help you pay for a new gara
47 Dionysus : It's amazing to see some people attitude toward this topic is so bias and they are not admitting it.
48 Aviasian : I am all for spending most of the money on upgrading existing terminal buildings to make them more pleasant for the millions of passengers using them
49 VirginFlyer : Side issue here - are all the terminals owned by the airport, or are some owned by individual airlines? V/F
50 Tom in NO : "Side issue here - are all the terminals owned by the airport, or are some owned by individual airlines?" Terminals are usually owned by the airport,
51 Aaway : 1. The extreme inadequecy of the Bradley International Terminal. As it currently stands, the Bradley Terminal is already bursting at the seems trying
52 Flyinghighboy : Just a question, can LAX expand anymore eg buy land around it? I've been there a few times, and even walked from LAX to the hotel I was staying in, (q
53 EK413 : Okay, let me say that again. "Would we have this problem if the A380 was built by BOEING"? Why am I asking this question? Well, considering a lot of p
54 Ka : EK413, Good question. And my answer: Definitely wouldn´t be a problem. KA.
55 Post contains links Aaway : Flyinghighboy, Theoretically LAX can expand to the north. That land is mostly (I estimate 90%) zoned residential - single family homes, multifamily (a
56 BN747 : To take it a step farther, Aaway, LAX currently owns a lot of the property north of the 24s (northern runways) and property directly east of the 24s a
57 Aaway : BN747, Right On! That land that LAX owns north of the 24s was purchased as a result of the FAA rule that states that homes could not be within 750 fee
58 Flyinghighboy : How long would it take to board an A380 with just one jetway as well? Will LAX ever see dual jetways?
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
What Terminal Did PA Operate Out Of LAX posted Sun Jul 16 2006 03:40:26 by STT757
AKL Announces Expansion Of International Terminal posted Thu Feb 23 2006 06:17:50 by 777ER
NWA/UAL/Delta/AA International Services Out Of LAX posted Mon Mar 8 2004 23:56:25 by Trijetfan1
Nice Terminal Map Of Beirut International Airport posted Wed Oct 1 2003 03:31:56 by BA
Eastern Opration Out Of LAX posted Thu Nov 9 2006 01:47:08 by 747400sp
Prolific 15 Minutes Of LAX Spotting Today posted Sun Oct 15 2006 03:06:17 by Ikramerica
Video Of Proposed New Terminal At Heathrow posted Fri Aug 11 2006 11:38:19 by Concorde001
A History Of Newark International Airport 1927-Now posted Tue Jul 11 2006 00:14:31 by Airplanenut
DFW International Terminal (D) posted Sat Jun 24 2006 20:49:57 by Garri767
CX Equipment Out Of LAX posted Wed Jun 14 2006 16:41:06 by Cx889