Despite its renowned aviation tradition and fast-growing Pacific traffic, Los Angeles International faces increasingly tough challenges in revamping its cramped, 1960s-vintage facilities to get ready to become the busiest U.S. gateway for the A380. City officials have ambitious plans to build a spacious new terminal with expanded gates, along with plans to redesign the flow of aircraft around the field.
But for many months, controversy and inertia impeded even short-term fixes. Some of those logjams finally are easing, but worried airlines continue to hedge their bets by considering alternative U.S. destinations for the double-decker aircraft.
But as Airbus, which is 80%-owned by European Aeronautic Defence & Space Co. and 20% by Britain's BAE Systems PLC, surveys the extensive work still ahead, one of its biggest frustrations continues to be slow progress at LAX. While it isn't scheduled to receive its first A380 until the spring of 2007, LAX faces daunting political, legal and logistical hurdles.
LAX already has received a black eye from Virgin Atlantic Airways, which blamed lack of progress on upgrades for its decision to delay the start of A380 service to the city. After meeting last month with Los Angeles airport and city officials, Airbus managers stressed the need to rev up the pace of improvements. "If Los Angeles is not ready in time, a carrier can easily switch to San Francisco" to serve the West Coast, warned Willy-Pierre Dupont, who is spearheading the plane-maker's dealings with airports.
And while they're at it, Build the Wilshire cooridor subway to LAX, the exposition blvd light rail, and damn the Taxi union, get the green line there too!
Not to mention the nice plan for the bus terminal.
Ok, if large aircraft were the only concern, Alternate C would be a better runway layout (see above link). However, LAX is only ~20% widebodies, so a runway layout optimized for the single isle jets makes more sense to me.
Man, who would think politicians would be against jobs, increased tax base, and city wide economic growth!
ps spell checker didn't launch.
"They did not know it was impossible, so they did it!" - Mark Twain
Kappel From Suriname, joined Jul 2005, 3533 posts, RR: 16
Reply 3, posted (10 years 5 months 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 2953 times:
Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 1): 1. London
2. Tokyo (Narita)
3. Hong Kong
9. Los Angeles
13. Tokyo (Haneida)
16. New York
Curious that Dubai is at 6, while EK already has such a big a380 order. And Tokyo at 2 and 13? IMHO unlikely unless ANA and JAL order some, wich right now seems unlikely.
Trvlr From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 4430 posts, RR: 19
Reply 6, posted (10 years 5 months 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 2887 times:
Quoting RedFlyer (Thread starter): "If Los Angeles is not ready in time, a carrier can easily switch to San Francisco" to serve the West Coast, warned Willy-Pierre Dupont, who is spearheading the plane-maker's dealings with airports.
It's not that easy. If airlines want to deploy the A380 to Los Angeles, it's because they want to serve the LA market, not SFO's. I'm not too sure they'd be so happy to fly this plane to other markets where it would perhaps be oversized.
That's not to say that LAX shouldn't step up the pace in accommodating the A380, or that SFO doesn't merit it either, but simply that airlines often make their fleet utilization decisions based on a more complex set of objectives. If LAX isn't ready in time, the A380s will go elsewhere, but it's certainly not the preferred option for airlines.
Incitatus From Brazil, joined Feb 2005, 4413 posts, RR: 13
Reply 7, posted (10 years 5 months 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 2880 times:
Whether an airline will fly a 747 or A380 into LAX makes a tiny difference into the overall supply of travel at the airport - even on the seat availability in specific routes such as LAX-SYD. This is insignificant news, except that it is an opportunity to put airport officials and local government on the spot.