Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
LAX In The Mid 70's  
User currently offline747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3649 posts, RR: 2
Posted (7 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 5874 times:

I was born in the late 70's, so I did not see or remember anything at LAX during the 70's. I would like to know what was a normal day at LAX between 1971 to 1977? I know Delta flew there 747 to LAX during this time, the same goes for NZ with there DC10s and Worlds Airways with there 747s. Also there still passenger turbojet powered 707 and DC8 flying into LAX at this time. I was able to see the 1980's and hung out at LAX in the 90's. So please tell me how a day at LAX was during the mid 70's?

24 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineWesternDC1010 From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 328 posts, RR: 3
Reply 1, posted (7 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 5792 times:

Here is some of what I can recall as a lad:

There was no Terminal 1 and no Tom Bradley International Terminal yet. These terminals came online before the 1984 Los Angeles Olympics

Terminal 2 handled most of the international flights and saw frequent daily service by many carriers such as Aeromexico, Japan Air Lines and British Airways, amongst others. Terminal 2 also had daily ops with domestic carriers like Pan American, Braniff International and National.

Terminal 3 primarily handled TWA and Eastern.

Terminal 4 handled American and Northwest Orient.

Terminal 5 saw Western Airlines, Mexicana and British Caledonian.

Terminal 6 handled Continental, Delta, Hughes Airwest and PSA.

Terminal 7 and 8 had United.

IIRC, the commuter terminal existed where the Bradley terminal sits today, handled Golden West, Swift Aire and various other commuter carriers.

The West Imperial terminal handled various charter as well and some international carriers.

I hope this helps somewhat.

- [r][o][n]
Western DC-10-10



Western Airlines - The Only Way To Fly
User currently offlineLaxintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25518 posts, RR: 50
Reply 2, posted (7 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 5773 times:

Good summary by WesternDC1010, however Braniff was in T-3 by circa 1978 at least, however its international passengers did clear customs in T-2.

Also keep in mind the terminals those days had their original satellite shapes linked via underground tunnels to the ticket counters and baggage claim. Only non tunnel connected terminal at the time was UA's T-8 and what Western called "gate 500" which was a stand alone little international area located street side and mostly used by Mexicana which would today sit somewhat between T-5 and T-6.
Speaking of street side, there was no upper level roadway, so it was all the lower level with near none of the parking structures that we have today.

In addition the Imperial terminal was a busy location being home to airlines such as World, Trans America, Capital and some foreign charter operators.

B707s and DC-8s were certainly a very common site during the 70s with pretty much every domestic carrier having them along with some foreign carriers like JAL, SAS, Air NZ using them to LAX.

For a peak at what schedules looked like at least as early as 1979, one of the contributors here has a neat website with old OAG schedules.
http://www.departedflights.com/



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineWesternDC1010 From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 328 posts, RR: 3
Reply 3, posted (7 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 5759 times:

Excellent summary, Laxintl! Consider yourself highly respected by me.

How could I possibly forget Gate 500 at LAX? I used to board and deplane many a Mexicana flight back in the early 1980's before Western and subsequently Delta initiated the expansion of Terminal 5 to the then billed 'Delta Oasis at LAX.'

Didn't Terminal 6 have a similar gate like Gate 500 in Terminal 5? I recall seeing photos of PSA MD80's parked at this gate (gate 600?). Check out the PSA 727-200 parked at a similar gate behind the RW DC-9 in this photo:


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © George Canciani



I remember the construction of the upper level roadway made traffic in, around the loop and out of LAX a true nightmare. I could go on forever about LAX...

Even though its beginning to be increasing difficult to travel in and out of this airport, it still holds a very special place in my heart.

- [r][o][n]
Western DC-10-10



Western Airlines - The Only Way To Fly
User currently offlineSLCUT2777 From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 4079 posts, RR: 11
Reply 4, posted (7 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 5721 times:

My earliest memory of going into LAX was driving in there from Santa Barbara just after Christmas in 1966 to pick my grandmother up from a Western flight from SLC. She came in on a 707 with the old livery that pre-dated the big red "W" on white, that had the "Indian Chief Head" at the front of the stripes. Western was a big carrier to both LAX and SLC in those days. In fact the LAX-SLC route was one of their first when they got started back in the 1920s as I recall. The 1976 pic' posted by Western DC-10-10 really illustrates the LAX that was once upon a time. The Hughes Air West DC-9 however could be an NW plane of today.  wink 


DELTA Air Lines; The Only Way To Fly from Salt Lake City; Let the Western Heritage always be with Delta!
User currently offlineLaxintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25518 posts, RR: 50
Reply 5, posted (7 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 5683 times:

Quoting WesternDC1010 (Reply 3):
Didn't Terminal 6 have a similar gate like Gate 500 in Terminal 5?

I really cant recall.

I do remember however airlines (particularly WA, PS, MX, UA) parking aircraft randomly away from gates/double parking in the area between the satellite and ticket counters due to a lack of gates - which could be what the PSA plane in your photo is doing.


By the way found this shot taken where TBIT sits today which served as the commuter ramp back then.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Richard Werno




From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineLindy Field From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 3120 posts, RR: 14
Reply 6, posted (7 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 5677 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Here's a set of photos from April 1977 which Frank must have taken from the observation deck on the theme building. They give a decent idea of the activity at various terminals.

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Frank C. Duarte Jr.
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Frank C. Duarte Jr.



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Frank C. Duarte Jr.
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Frank C. Duarte Jr.



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Frank C. Duarte Jr.
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Frank C. Duarte Jr.



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Frank C. Duarte Jr.
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Frank C. Duarte Jr.



User currently offlineWesternDC1010 From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 328 posts, RR: 3
Reply 7, posted (7 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 5642 times:

Here's a shot of a PS 727 using a gate outside of Terminal (Satellite) 6.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © C. A. Gage



Can anyone confirm that this was in fact a gate similar to that of Gate 500 in Satellite 5?

The Mexicana 727-264 is using Gate 500 in this shot:


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Ted Quackenbush



And in this shot, another Mexicana 727-264 is parked next to Gate 500:


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © AirNikon



Anyone remember the distinctive-looking Satellite 2 used for most of the international flights? It was larger than Satellites 3 and 4 through 7 and had 2 domes atop it's roof compared to the one dome on the rest of the satellites. It was demolished for the second phase of the concourse-style Terminal 2 constructed in the mid to late 1980's.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Frank C. Duarte Jr.



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Frank C. Duarte Jr.



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © AirNikon



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Pierre Langlois



-[r][o][n]
Western DC-10-10



Western Airlines - The Only Way To Fly
User currently offlineAaway From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 1524 posts, RR: 14
Reply 8, posted (7 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 5583 times:

Quoting WesternDC1010 (Reply 3):
Didn't Terminal 6 have a similar gate like Gate 500 in Terminal 5? I recall seeing photos of PSA MD80's parked at this gate (gate 600?).

More than happy to confirm. Yes, T-6 had gate 600. There were three gates in its later stages of operation. IIRC, the gates were numbered 600, 601, and 602.

The 500 gates at T-5 were the FIS gates.

Quoting WesternDC1010 (Reply 1):
Terminal 2 handled most of the international flights and saw frequent daily service by many carriers such as Aeromexico, Japan Air Lines and British Airways, amongst others. Terminal 2 also had daily ops with domestic carriers like Pan American, Braniff International and National



Quoting Laxintl (Reply 2):
...however Braniff was in T-3 by circa 1978 at least, however its international passengers did clear customs in T-2.

Good ol' BN moved ticketing, ckeck-in to T-3 in late '78, IIRC, upon commencement of DFW-LAX. Prior to this time schedule was limited to the South American flights (and the SFO continuations), all operating from T-2.

Since the original poster mentioned 1971, let me mention NE operating from T-2 until the merger with DL in '72.

Quoting WesternDC1010 (Reply 1):
Terminal 7 and 8 had United

How could you forget good ol' Texas International
 Big grin



With a choice between changing one's mind & proving there's no need to do so, most everyone gets busy on the proof.
User currently offlineKaitak744 From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 2379 posts, RR: 3
Reply 9, posted (7 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 5472 times:

http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b154/Kaitak744/LAXmap1964.jpg

User currently offlineAADC10 From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 2092 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (7 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 5447 times:

By the 1970s T6 & 7 and maybe 4 had expanded the satellites to add more gates to the original 1960s layout. LAX was built with only surface parking but the three older ones were also completed by the early 70s.

The T2 satellite had two levels, although I read that it was built with only one.

Many transcons were operated with widebody aircraft, 747s, DC-10s and L-1011s. A some flights used 707s or DC-8s. Some 747s had only 9 seats abreast instead of the standard 10 now. There were often empty middle seats and I saw a plane with a fold down section in the center seat to be used as additional tray space or armrest.

There were also the PSA 727s with built in rear stairs.


User currently offlineWesternDC1010 From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 328 posts, RR: 3
Reply 11, posted (7 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 5369 times:

And who could forget the inflatable building space used in Terminal 2 to keep up with capacity? I never had the opportunity to explore these buildings, but I'm sure they were quite strange inside.

Here's a picture recently posted by Frank C. Duarte, Jr.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Frank C. Duarte Jr.



This book about LAX was my bible as a lad: 'Cleared for Takeoff: Behind the Scenes at an Airport' by Charles Coombs. It was always checked out by me at my local library. Did anyone else read this book?

- [r][o][n]
Western DC-10-10



Western Airlines - The Only Way To Fly
User currently offlineLXM83 From Switzerland, joined May 2005, 610 posts, RR: 5
Reply 12, posted (7 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 5358 times:

Just went through the June 1977 international issue of the OAG. There were quite some interesting routings. Here's a list of international operations (excluding Mexico, Canada):

Aerolineas Argentinas (AR):
- AR372, EZE-BOG-MEX-LAX, 2x weekly, 707
- AR370, EZE-LIM-BOG-MEX-LAX, 1x weekly, 707
- AR380, EZE-LIM-LAX, 1x weekly, 707
Aero Peru (PL):
- PL622, LIM-MEX-LAX, 3x weekly, DC8
Air France (AF):
- AF003, CDG-YYZ-LAX, 3x weekly, 747
Air New Zealand (TE):
- TE556, AKL-NAN-HNL-LAX, 2x weekly, D10
- TE556, AKL-HNL-LAX, 4x weekly, D10
- TE556, CHC-AKL-HNL-LAX, 1x weekly, D10
- TE562, AKL-PPT-LAX, 2x weekly, D10
Air Panama Internacional (OP):
- OP602, PTY-MEX-LAX, 3x weekly, 727
Avianca (AV):
- AV080, EZE-SCL-LIM-BOG-MEX-LAX, 1x weekly, 707-BOG-B72
- AV080, EZE-BOG-LAX, 1x weekly, B72
- AV080, SCL-LIM-UIO-BOG-LAX, 1x weekly, 707-BOG-B72
Braniff (BN):
- BN920, SCL-LIM-LAX-SFO, 1x weekly, D8S
- BN920, GIG-VCP-LIM-LAX-SFO, 1x weekly, D8S
- BN920, EZE-SCL-LIM-LAX-SFO, 1x weekly, D8S
- BN922, GYE-UIO-BOG-LAX-SFO, 2x weekly, D8S
British Airways (BA):
- BA599, LHR-LAX, 7x weekly, D10
China Airlines (CI):
- CI006, TPE-LAX, 1x weekly, 74L
- CI008, TPE-HND-HNL-LAX, 3x weekly, 747
Ecuatoriana (EU):
- EU042, UIO-GYE-MEX-LAX, 1x weekly, B72
- EU042, LIM-GYE-UIO-MEX-LAX, 1x weekly, B72
JAL Japan Air Lines (JL):
- JL062, HKG-HND-LAX, 7x weekly, 747
KAL Korean Air Lines (KE):
- KE002, SEL-HND-HNL-LAX, 4x weekly, 747 (3x), D10 (1x)
- KE006, PUS-SEL-HNL-LAX, 5x weekly, 727-SEL-D10 (3x), 727-SEL-747 (2x)
- KE006, SEL-HNL-LAX, 1x weekly, 747
Lufthansa (LH):
- LH450, FRA-AMS-LAX, 5x weekly, 747 (2x), 707 (3x)
- LH452, FRA-LAX, 2x weekly, 747
Northwest Orient (NW):
- NW10, TPE-OSA-HND-HNL-SFO-LAX, 3x weekly, 707-HND-747
- NW10, TPE-OKA-OSA-HND-HNL-SFO-LAX, 1x weekly, 707-HND-747
- NW10, TPE-HND-HNL-SFO-LAX, 3x weekly, 747
- NW22, HKG-TPE-HND-HNL-LAX-MSP, 1x weekly, 747
- NW22, TPE-OSA-HND-HNL-LAX-MSP, 1x weekly, 707-HND-747
- NW22, SEL-HND-HNL-LAX-MSP, 5x weekly, 747
Pan Am (PA):
- PA8, OSA-HND-LAX, 7x weekly, 707-HND-74L
- PA516, VCP-GIG-CCS-GUA-LAX-SFO, 2x weekly, 747
- PA516, VCP-GIG-PTY-GUA-LAX-SFO, 1x weekly, 747
- PA516, MVD-EZE-PTY-SJO-GUA-LAX-SFO, 1x weekly, 707-PTY-747
- PA516, MVD-EZE-CCS-GUA-LAX-SFO, 1x weekly, 707-CCS-747
- PA516, GUA-LAX-SFO, 2x weekly, 747
- PA518, CGH-GIG-CCS-LAX-SFO, 1x weekly, 73S-GIG-747
- PA816, AKL-PPT-LAX-SFO, 2x weekly, 747
- PA812, SYD-AKL-HNL-LAX, 1x weekly, 747
- PA812, MEL-SYD-PPG-HNL-LAX, 2x weekly, 747
- PA812, MEL-SYD-NAN-HNL-LAX, 2x weekly, 747
- PA812, MEL-SYD-PPG-HNL-LAX-SFO, 1x weekly, 747
SAS Scandinavian Airlines (SK):
- SK931, CPH-LAX, 4x weekly, D10 (2x), D8S (2x)
- SK933, CPH-SEA-LAX, 3x weekly, D10
TWA (TW):
- TW761, CDG-LHR-LAX, 7x weekly, 747
- TW811, CDG-BOS-ORD-MCI-LAX, 7x weekly, 707
UTA (UT):
- UT522, PPT-LAX, 1x weekly, DC8
- UT562A, NOU-NAN-PPT-LAX, 1x weekly, D10
- UT564A, NOU-AKL-PPT-LAX, 1x weekly, D10
- UT586, PPT-LAX, 1x weekly, D10
- UT588, PPT-LAX, 1x weekly, D10
Varig (RG):
- RG830, CGH-GIG-LIM-LAX-ANC*-HND, 2x weekly, 727-GIG-707
- RG832, CGH-GIG-LIM-LAX-ANC*-HND, 1x weekly, 727-GIG-707
- RG842, CGH-GIG-LIM-LAX, 1x weekly, 727-GIG-707
*ANC eliminated on return flights

Enroute equipment changes (change of gauge) are shown 747-XXX-707 (e.g. 747 operates to XXX and 707 continues from there).

Surprisingly, the BA flights were published with D10. Were they using leased equipment at that time? The BCAL merger that got BA a couple of D10 only came years later.


User currently offlineSeptember11 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 3623 posts, RR: 21
Reply 13, posted (7 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 5353 times:

Great thread

Here is a 1979 airport overview photo of LAX -- five American Airlines DC-10s at same time!



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © C. A. Gage




Airliners.net of the Future
User currently offlineTimz From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 6838 posts, RR: 7
Reply 14, posted (7 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 5277 times:

Quoting 747400sp (Thread starter):
still passenger turbojet powered 707 and DC8 flying into LAX at this time.

Probably no JT3Cs after 1970 (except maybe an occasional 720?), but JT4As were probably still not rare, in 1970-71 anyway. Airport Activity Stats would tell us-- I'll see if the library still has it.


User currently offline747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3649 posts, RR: 2
Reply 15, posted (7 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 5250 times:

Quoting Timz (Reply 14):
Probably no JT3Cs after 1970 (except maybe an occasional 720?), but JT4As were probably still not rare, in 1970-71 anyway. Airport Activity Stats would tell us-- I'll see if the library still has it.

I seen a photo of a TWA 707 331 powered by JT4's, getting ready to take off on runway 24 in ether 1977 or 1976. There is also a photos of an United DC8 30's taken in the late 1970's on runway 25, and those JT4 powered also.


User currently offlineWA707atMSP From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 2231 posts, RR: 8
Reply 16, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 5052 times:

Quoting LXM83 (Reply 12):
Surprisingly, the BA flights were published with D10. Were they using leased equipment at that time? The BCAL merger that got BA a couple of D10 only came years later.

For a couple of years in the mid 1970s, BA leased in DC-10s from Air New Zealand. They were primarily used on LHR-LAX, but I've seen a picture of one in BOS as an equipment substitution for a BA 747.

Another "quirk" about LAX in the 1970s was that widebody jets could only take off on the 24s, because the Sepulveda Boulevard tunnel under the 25s was not strong enough to handle the additional weight of fully fuelled widebodies. This caused serious operational problems, especially for UA, because UA DC-10 and 747 departures from T7 had to taxi all the way around the terminal complex to take off on the 24s. I think DC-10s and L-1011s were allowed to land on the 25s, but 747 landings were only allowed on the 24s, too.

The restriction on widebody takeoffs was blamed, in part, for the CO DC-10 accident at LAX on 1 March 1978; the aircraft was taking off (to the east) on one of the 6s, and overran after blowing several tires and aborting the takeoff. The NTSB report said that if the CO DC-10 had been taking off on one of the 7s, it would have had 2,000 more feet of runway to come to a stop on, and probably would not have overrun the runway.

The Sepulveda Boulevard tunnel under the 25s was strengthened as part of the early 1980s upgrade of LAX, to allow 747 takeoffs and landings on the 25s.



Seaholm Maples are #1!
User currently offlineLincoln From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 3887 posts, RR: 8
Reply 17, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 5030 times:

Two of the questions I've "always" wondered about are

1) Why were the satellites in T-2 / T-3 (and proposed T-1 as shown above) perpendicular to theose of T-4 / T-5 / T-6 / T-7 / T-8?

2) What was the original gate numbering before the satellites were connected to the ticketing buildigns?



CO Is My Airline of Choice || Baggage Claim is an airline's last chance to disappoint a customer || Next flts in profile
User currently offlineLaxintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25518 posts, RR: 50
Reply 18, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 4957 times:

Quoting Aaway (Reply 8):
More than happy to confirm. Yes, T-6 had gate 600. There were three gates in its later stages of operation. IIRC, the gates were numbered 600, 601, and 602.

Thanks for clearing that up. I'm sure I saw them, just dont recall.

Quoting WesternDC1010 (Reply 11):
And who could forget the inflatable building space used in Terminal 2 to keep up with capacity? I never had the opportunity to explore these buildings, but I'm sure they were quite strange inside.

Actually eventually there were two "bubble's". One served as overflow T-2 ticket counter and domestic baggage claim, while the 2nd one was international customs facility. While almost 3rd world in design, I've gotta say the facilities worked and helped greatly until TBITs opening.

Quoting WA707atMSP (Reply 16):
Sepulveda Boulevard tunnel under the 25s was not strong enough to handle the additional weight of fully fuelled widebodies

Indeed there was a weight restriction on ops for the 07/25 runways due to tunnel strength. If I remember correctly the weight limit was mid 300,000lbs which did allow some limited DC-10/L1011 ops.
Like everything surrounding expansion and growth at LAX, the tunnel strenghting was also controversial as neighbors felt that air traffic would increase significantly as a result using bigger and what viewed as potentially "nosier" aircraft.

Quoting Lincoln (Reply 17):
Why were the satellites in T-2 / T-3 (and proposed T-1 as shown above) perpendicular to theose of T-4 / T-5 / T-6 / T-7 / T-8?

Distance between terminals, taxiways and runways. The central terminal area was not built exactly in between the runways, but instead slightly to its north.

Quoting Lincoln (Reply 17):
What was the original gate numbering before the satellites were connected to the ticketing buildigns?

Same as today.. for instance T-2 has 20-29 with some numbered gates in between as required and so on.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineMakeMinesLAX From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 566 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 4848 times:

Quoting Aaway (Reply 8):
More than happy to confirm. Yes, T-6 had gate 600. There were three gates in its later stages of operation. IIRC, the gates were numbered 600, 601, and 602.

By my recollection, it was 600A/B/C. It was quite a sight to see three PSA 727-200s (later MD-80s) crammed in nose-to-nose-to-nose. Amazingly enough, there was still room for additional aircraft at the satellite adjacent to these gates.

United had three gates "down low" as well, but they were spread out as opposed to the PSA ones which were clustered. UA used them for its West Coast commuter flights, the majority of which went to SFO. Traditionally, they had LAX-SFO departures every hour on the hour, but I believe they increased it to semi-hourly for a while.

As noted, gate 500 was used by Mexicana, although Western started parking its MEX-LAX DC-10s there later on. Now that was a sight!

Quoting September11 (Reply 13):
five American Airlines DC-10s at same time

I remember more than that - 7 or 8 perhaps - was typical around lunchtime. IIRC, they had early afternoon DC-10 service to/from JFK, IAD, BOS, PHL, ORD, DTW, YYZ and CLE.

Quoting Laxintl (Reply 18):
Quoting Lincoln (Reply 17):
What was the original gate numbering before the satellites were connected to the ticketing buildigns?

Same as today.. for instance T-2 has 20-29 with some numbered gates in between as required and so on.

For T4 through T7, gate numbering started on the west side just north of the center rectangle and increased clockwise. For T2 and T3, they ran clockwise from the southwest corner.

There was a steady change of gate assignments from the early days until 1984. Originally, aircraft parked parallel to the satellite, sometimes employing dual jetways. As more spots were needed, the switch to nose-in parking was made. Eventually, some A/B gates were added, originally for smaller aircraft. The introduction of widebodies led to the extensions built on the south sides of T4, T6 and T7.


User currently offlineMakeMinesLAX From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 566 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 4836 times:

Quoting WA707atMSP (Reply 16):
The restriction on widebody takeoffs was blamed, in part, for the CO DC-10 accident at LAX on 1 March 1978; the aircraft was taking off (to the east) on one of the 6s, and overran after blowing several tires and aborting the takeoff. The NTSB report said that if the CO DC-10 had been taking off on one of the 7s, it would have had 2,000 more feet of runway to come to a stop on, and probably would not have overrun the runway.

These details didn't seem right to me, so I checked on airdisaster.com - it indicates the DC-10 was departing on 25R (i.e. to the west), which is one of the longer pair.

I recall seeing the burnt-out hull shortly afterward sitting outside the CO hangar, which is on the southwest corner near the accident site.


User currently offlineAaway From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 1524 posts, RR: 14
Reply 21, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 4784 times:

Quoting WA707atMSP (Reply 16):
The restriction on widebody takeoffs was blamed, in part, for the CO DC-10 accident at LAX on 1 March 1978; the aircraft was taking off (to the east) on one of the 6s, and overran after blowing several tires and aborting the takeoff. The NTSB report said that if the CO DC-10 had been taking off on one of the 7s, it would have had 2,000 more feet of runway to come to a stop on, and probably would not have overrun the runway.



Quoting MakeMinesLAX (Reply 20):
These details didn't seem right to me, so I checked on airdisaster.com - it indicates the DC-10 was departing on 25R (i.e. to the west), which is one of the longer pair.

That website is wrong. I can recall tthe coverage and details of that accident fairly vividly. Definitely occurred while departing 6R.



With a choice between changing one's mind & proving there's no need to do so, most everyone gets busy on the proof.
User currently offlineWA707atMSP From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 2231 posts, RR: 8
Reply 22, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 4737 times:

Quoting MakeMinesLAX (Reply 20):
Quoting WA707atMSP (Reply 16):
The restriction on widebody takeoffs was blamed, in part, for the CO DC-10 accident at LAX on 1 March 1978; the aircraft was taking off (to the east) on one of the 6s, and overran after blowing several tires and aborting the takeoff. The NTSB report said that if the CO DC-10 had been taking off on one of the 7s, it would have had 2,000 more feet of runway to come to a stop on, and probably would not have overrun the runway.

These details didn't seem right to me, so I checked on airdisaster.com - it indicates the DC-10 was departing on 25R (i.e. to the west), which is one of the longer pair.

I recall seeing the burnt-out hull shortly afterward sitting outside the CO hangar, which is on the southwest corner near the accident site.

I downloaded the NTSB report on the crash from aviation-safety.net, and it clearly states the aircraft was taking off to the east, on one of the 6s. And, as mentioned above, the DC-10 wouldn't have been allowed to take off on 25R, because it weighed more than 25R's allowable weight (it was bound for HNL).

The NTSB report is definitely worth reading, because it gives high praise to the crew of the CO DC-10 for the way they maneuvered the DC-10 once it was apparent it wasn't going to stop in time. The LAX fire department is also praised for how they focused on keeping the fire away from the exits being used to evacuate the passengers, enabling all but two of the DC-10's passengers and crew to survive the crash.

The DC-10's pilot was on his last flight before retirement - his experience sure came in handy!



Seaholm Maples are #1!
User currently offlineMakeMinesLAX From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 566 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 4626 times:

Quoting WA707atMSP (Reply 22):
I downloaded the NTSB report on the crash from aviation-safety.net, and it clearly states the aircraft was taking off to the east, on one of the 6s. And, as mentioned above, the DC-10 wouldn't have been allowed to take off on 25R, because it weighed more than 25R's allowable weight (it was bound for HNL).

Apologies - my (and airdisaster.com's) mistake.


User currently offlineWesternDC1010 From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 328 posts, RR: 3
Reply 24, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 4506 times:

Quoting Aaway (Reply 21):
That website is wrong. I can recall tthe coverage and details of that accident fairly vividly. Definitely occurred while departing 6R.

So, when the CO DC-10 came to rest at the end, or towards the end of runway 6R, was it nearer to satellites 2 and 3 (and the site where Terminal 1 is today) or runway 6L? That's always been a mystery to me.

Quoting Laxintl (Reply 18):
Actually eventually there were two "bubble's". One served as overflow T-2 ticket counter and domestic baggage claim, while the 2nd one was international customs facility. While almost 3rd world in design, I've gotta say the facilities worked and helped greatly until TBITs opening.

My dad used to jokingly refer these inflatable 'bubble' buildings as 'igloos' and often would speculate if Alaska Airlines used these gates. We all know that AS originally utilized Terminal 5, then Terminal 3, sometimes Terminal 2 and TBIT (for international arrivals). But I don't think AS started serving LAX until later on. Maybe after these inflatables we already dismantled.


- [r][o][n]
Western DC-10-10



Western Airlines - The Only Way To Fly
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...
American Airlines 737-200s In The Mid 70's? posted Wed Apr 11 2007 00:25:02 by Flyinround731
JAL Flew DC-8-62 To LAX In The Mid 80's? posted Fri May 26 2006 23:42:37 by 747400sp
EA: ATL-LAX In The Late 80's posted Sun Jun 3 2007 04:51:52 by CitrusCritter
Egyptair Domestic Flights In The Mid 90's posted Sun May 20 2007 13:29:22 by BRUspotter
Did Hawaiian Air Have Spit Ops @ LAX In The 80's? posted Thu Jan 4 2007 23:30:38 by 747400sp
BA TriStar Question In The Mid-80's. posted Tue Apr 26 2005 11:48:46 by Timetable
DC-8's At MZT In The Mid-80's? posted Sat Aug 28 2004 22:48:48 by Whiskeyhotel
B O A C in the mid-60's posted Sat Aug 7 2004 03:54:30 by Stirling
South East Asian Airlines In The Mid East posted Mon Jul 12 2004 16:28:50 by Asianguy767
PTV's On CO's 757's In The Mid 90's? posted Sat Jun 26 2004 16:17:49 by COEWRNJ