Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
City To Buy Back Term 2 & 5 From Carriers At LAX  
User currently offlineLowecur From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 585 posts, RR: 0
Posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 5864 times:

In what looks to be good news for Jetblue and other LCC's, the City of Los Angeles will vote on whether to spend $150M to control Terminals 2 & 5 at LAX. DL looks to be the big loser in this deal, and it's future plans to expand their Pacific and South American routes could take a major hit.

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedi...ry?coll=la-headlines-pe-california

53 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineCongaboy From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 352 posts, RR: 3
Reply 1, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 5820 times:

Interesting and logical that the city goes after the two terminals where bankrupt carriers have agreements. You mention (and the article) that DL is in the crosshairs, but NW has a large presence in T2. It would seem DL and NW have no real recourse other than to buy time. And I am guessing that Virgin is behind the A380 accommodations in T2, since they currently use that facility.


"Joey, you like movies about gladiators?"
User currently offlineLaxintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25069 posts, RR: 46
Reply 2, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 5666 times:

Its certainly a fact that DL usage of T-5 is significantly less than what the facility could handle which is a reason the airport keeps Delta in its cross hairs and remains pretty insistent on terminating the carriers lease of the facility. I know LAWA has actively shopped the facility around to other airlines which definitely could use added room to grow. From what I gather the city is going after DL on several technicalities of having failed to comply with terminal lease requirements, which in turn allows the city to evict DL.

On the other hand, T-2 is a much more active facility that owned and operated by a private consortium whose owners are NWA, Air Canada, and Hawaiian. I suppose those airlines would not refuse entertaining selling the facility back to the airport for a handsome profit after building the facility only about 15 years ago. As far as the A380 comment, T-2 has already committed to getting A380 ready for both Virgin and Air France which have indicated interest in operating the type at LAX, so I'm not sure why the article delves into that.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineTSS From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 3068 posts, RR: 5
Reply 3, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 5586 times:

Just spitballing here...

Perhaps if LA could buy Terminals 2 and 5, they'd be able to temporarily relocate various airlines out of Terminal 3 while they tore it down and built a new, modern Terminal 3?



Able to kill active threads stone dead with a single post!
User currently offlineTravelin man From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 3494 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 5572 times:

Quoting TSS (Reply 3):
Perhaps if LA could buy Terminals 2 and 5, they'd be able to temporarily relocate various airlines out of Terminal 3 while they tore it down and built a new, modern Terminal 3?

They may not tear down T3 right away, but I would wonder if AS would be interested in moving to T5?

AS would get FIS facilities (for the Mexico flights), and connectivity with their largest codeshare partners -- DL, AA, and CO (AA and CO connectivity via the tunnels linking T5 with T4 and T6).

Just a thought....


User currently offlineBigGSFO From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 2920 posts, RR: 6
Reply 5, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 5563 times:

Quoting Travelin man (Reply 4):
AS would get FIS facilities (for the Mexico flights), and connectivity with their largest codeshare partners -- DL, AA, and CO (AA and CO connectivity via the tunnels linking T5 with T4 and T6).

This has been speclated on for awhile on these boards.


User currently offlineTravelin man From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 3494 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 5519 times:

Quoting BigGSFO (Reply 5):
This has been speclated on for awhile on these boards.

That may be, but if the city takes over control of T5 from DL, it may be a LOT closer to becoming reality.


User currently offlineLowecur From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 585 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 5374 times:

Just looking at a map because I have never been thru T-5, it looks as though they have room to park 14 a/c. DL also runs some flts through T-6, so that gives them a large number of gates for just 45-50 flts per day. That is not good utilization, and the City is losing their shirt on landing fees for those gates.

The vote may come down today, so it will be interesting to see if DL gets an injunction if LAX buys the terminal and evicts them.

T-2 looks smaller and I'm not sure what kind of utilization they get there. LAX doesn't seem as hardnosed with NWA as they are with DL, but I know they certainly want to free up LAX to allow more LCC expansion.


User currently offlineBigGSFO From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 2920 posts, RR: 6
Reply 8, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 5346 times:

Quoting Lowecur (Reply 7):
T-2 looks smaller and I'm not sure what kind of utilization they get there. LAX doesn't seem as hardnosed with NWA as they are with DL, but I know they certainly want to free up LAX to allow more LCC expansion.

Well I am sure there is some strong lobbying going on behind the scenes from those airlines who want to move into T5 as well.

And you though the TV drama LAX was cancelled. He we go with a new episode only without Heather Locklear!  Smile


User currently offlineTravelin man From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 3494 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 5292 times:

Quoting BigGSFO (Reply 8):
Well I am sure there is some strong lobbying going on behind the scenes from those airlines who want to move into T5 as well.

And you though the TV drama LAX was cancelled. He we go with a new episode only without Heather Locklear!

Agreed....

Based on the article, it doesn't sound like there is a whole lot that DL (or NW et al) can do if LAWA decides to pay off the bonds.

Of course, DL could threaten to cancel its Latin American expansion from LAX, but I doubt LAWA is quaking at the prospect of losing some CRJ flights to secondary Mexican cities.

And if AS is indeed interested in T5, LAWA gets the added bonus of freeing up some space at TBIT (which AS currently uses for its Mexican arrivals).


User currently offlineDFWEagle From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 1071 posts, RR: 9
Reply 10, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 5279 times:

Quoting BigGSFO (Reply 8):
Well I am sure there is some strong lobbying going on behind the scenes from those airlines who want to move into T5 as well.

If the city were to take control of Terminal 5, I think that AA would definitely be interested in leasing a small number of gates in the terminal.

At present, AA’s current Terminal 4 facility is operating at it’s absolute maximum capacity - especially the FIS gates, of which there are not many at all. This is one of the principal reasons why AA did not apply for LAX-PEK service for the 2007 US-China frequency allocation, opting for DFW instead. It is also the major barrier blocking AA expanding any further at LAX. If AA had more space, I am sure they would continue building up their presence at LAX, as they have been doing consistently for the past few years. I would even venture to suggest that they may even apply for a LAX-China route in the 2008 China frequency allocations.



Ryan / HKG
User currently offlineBigGSFO From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 2920 posts, RR: 6
Reply 11, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 5236 times:

Quoting Travelin man (Reply 9):
And if AS is indeed interested in T5, LAWA gets the added bonus of freeing up some space at TBIT (which AS currently uses for its Mexican arrivals).

Agreed. And AS can be adjacent to AA and CO whom they code-share with. This could make these agreements more beneficial by having less hassle switching between airlines.

Quoting DFWEagle (Reply 10):
If the city were to take control of Terminal 5, I think that AA would definitely be interested in leasing a small number of gates in the terminal.

At present, AA’s current Terminal 4 facility is operating at it’s absolute maximum capacity - especially the FIS gates, of which there are not many at all. This is one of the principal reasons why AA did not apply for LAX-PEK service for the 2007 US-China frequency allocation, opting for DFW instead. It is also the major barrier blocking AA expanding any further at LAX. If AA had more space, I am sure they would continue building up their presence at LAX, as they have been doing consistently for the past few years. I would even venture to suggest that they may even apply for a LAX-China route in the 2008 China frequency allocations.

Also agreed. The Eagle remote terminal is slated to be taken down to make way for the new taxiway and AA will need to find a place to run this operation. Obviously T5 would be perfect. I do agree that AA could (and would once they move into "expansion mode" again) increase their LAX operation. But their current terminal space is maximized.

However if the true intent behind this proposed terminal purchase is to indeed expand LCC, then AS and AA both might not factor into this equation. Most likely though they are probably both lobbying their best interests, as is those carriers who can be displaced or disadvantaged by this, such as NW, DL, etc. I guess it depends on who's agenda coincides with the airport authority's the most. We shall see.


User currently offlineDFWEagle From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 1071 posts, RR: 9
Reply 12, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 5190 times:

Quoting BigGSFO (Reply 11):
The Eagle remote terminal is slated to be taken down to make way for the new taxiway and AA will need to find a place to run this operation. Obviously T5 would be perfect.



Quoting BigGSFO (Reply 11):
However if the true intent behind this proposed terminal purchase is to indeed expand LCC, then AS and AA both might not factor into this equation.

I agree – AA would need far more than just a bit of space to move the entire Eagle operation and I’m practically certain that LAWA would never let them use T5 gates for predominantly tiny turboprop flights. They could be much better used by other carriers with mainline equipment, especially those that increase low cost competition.

However, if AA made a fair and reasonable offer to lease just a few gates for mainline flights, I think the city would agree. AA has an excellent gate utilisation at LAX and genuinely needs more space to expand.



Ryan / HKG
User currently offlineLowecur From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 585 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 5175 times:

Quoting BigGSFO (Reply 11):
However if the true intent behind this proposed terminal purchase is to indeed expand LCC, then AS and AA both might not factor into this equation.

Yeah, I doubt they do. They both already have a significant presence at the airport, and I believe the city wants to open it up for new LCC entrants as well as those that have a small presence at the airport. I think the following statement infers that:

"I do believe it will increase competition at the airport and produce immediate gains in nonstop service and, particularly where new service is by low-cost airlines, produce lower fares for Los Angeles-area consumers," said Samson Mengistu, deputy executive director for administration and finance at the city's airport agency.

Here's the link so you don't have to register:

http://ktla.trb.com/news/la-me-lax8j...8,0,3898294.story?coll=ktla-news-1


User currently offlineWA707atMSP From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 2221 posts, RR: 8
Reply 14, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 5010 times:

If this happens, it'd be nice if there was a gate swap, with US, AC, and NZ moving from T1 and T2 to T6, to be closer to UA, and DL and CO moving from T5 / T6 to T1 / T2 to be closer to NW, AF, and KL.


Seaholm Maples are #1!
User currently offlineBosWashSprStar From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 195 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 4905 times:

Quoting WA707atMSP (Reply 14):
If this happens, it'd be nice if there was a gate swap, with US, AC, and NZ moving from T1 and T2 to T6, to be closer to UA, and DL and CO moving from T5 / T6 to T1 / T2 to be closer to NW, AF, and KL.

It's unlikely that US would move unless absolutely forced to do so, since removing US from T1 would allow WN to grow at LAX (as it wants to do). It's a shame when customer convenience is sacrificed in the name of charging the customer higher prices . . .


User currently offlineIAHFLYER From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 319 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 4847 times:

Isn't at least one of these terminals being torn down anyways w
ith the new LAX Master Plan???



Little airports with the big jets are the best!! Floyd
User currently offlineLaxintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25069 posts, RR: 46
Reply 17, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 4749 times:

Quoting WA707atMSP (Reply 14):
If this happens, it'd be nice if there was a gate swap, with US, AC, and NZ moving from T1 and T2 to T6, to be closer to UA, and DL and CO moving from T5 / T6 to T1 / T2 to be closer to NW, AF, and KL.

I'm aware LAWA has been in talks for atleast two years on a multi-carrier terminal swaps, however could never come to terms based on who would pay whom for the facility moves and required renovations.
City assuming both T-5 and potentially T-2 would certainly help unlock some of the roadblocks.

Quoting IAHFLYER (Reply 16):
Isn't at least one of these terminals being torn down anyways w
ith the new LAX Master Plan???

No. As part of the "greenlighted" projects all terminals remain. There was an option of relocating north side runways, which would entail destroying T1-3 and building a new concourse, however that option was not approved as part of the Master Plan court settlement in 2005.

Quoting BigGSFO (Reply 11):
The Eagle remote terminal is slated to be taken down to make way for the new taxiway and AA will need to find a place to run this operation.

Indeed the AE terminal will go away. So will all of AA's maintenance hangarage at LAX, so the carrier does have some major decisions to make regarding any remaining AE presence at the airport, and if the carrier wishes to exercise an option to build a single replacement hangar.
Tough long term decisions.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21505 posts, RR: 60
Reply 18, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 4631 times:

Quoting Lowecur (Thread starter):
DL looks to be the big loser in this deal, and it's future plans to expand their Pacific and South American routes could take a major hit.

Wow, that is more than I could have hoped for in the DL lease default scenario. I was expecting them to have to give up slots in T6, but turning T5 over to the airport, that means CO or AA could bid for gates and the crown room area in T5, and reopen the T4-T5 tunnel as well. DL would have to bid like anyone else, and if US took on DL, then T5 would be a good place for the combined airline. It'll be interesting to see how it shakes out.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineAaway From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 1521 posts, RR: 14
Reply 19, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 4577 times:

Quoting Lowecur (Reply 7):
Just looking at a map because I have never been thru T-5, it looks as though they have room to park 14 a/c.

In its original, post-WA merger, configuration, T-5 boasted 16 gates. When the nature of DL's LAX operations changed - with the subsequent changes in fleet mix - DL reduced the number of gates in order to accommodate the new fleet mix.

Quoting DFWEagle (Reply 10):
If the city were to take control of Terminal 5, I think that AA would definitely be interested in leasing a small number of gates in the terminal.

Early last year, AA attempted to negotiate with DL in order to lease four gates in T-5. DL rebuffed the overture. AA, like other potential carriers interested in T-5, is awaiting the outcome of the bankruptcy proceedings.

Quoting DFWEagle (Reply 10):
At present, AA's current Terminal 4 facility is operating at it's absolute maximum capacity - especially the FIS gates, of which there are not many at all. This is one of the principal reasons why AA did not apply for LAX-PEK service for the 2007 US-China frequency allocation, opting for DFW instead. It is also the major barrier blocking AA expanding any further at LAX. If AA had more space, I am sure they would continue building up their presence at LAX, as they have been doing consistently for the past few years.

I'm going to disagree here, albeit slightly. There are periods in which AA's 2 FIS gates are well utilized - the 07:00 to 12:00N period with QF and NRT. The early afternoon has the Central America arrivals and LHR. Beyond 16:00, and prior to the 20:00 arrival rush, at least one FIS gate is available.

The limited gate availability certainly narrows the scheduling window of a potential LAX-China-LAX operation. A theoretical PEK arrival during the 17:00 hour would have limited connectivity to AA's domestic system, based upon the current schedule (but a 23:00 hour departure would benefit from great domestic connectivity).

Further, regarding facilities constraints...QF is a major hindrance to AA's potential schedule growth at LAX. Particularly that morning period when three gate positions are occupied. However, this is the tradeoff for having assistance in paying the rent at T-4. Plus, QF received such a lucrative ground handling deal from AA that QF will not be moving anytime soon.

Quoting Congaboy (Reply 1):
Interesting and logical that the city goes after the two terminals where bankrupt carriers have agreements. You mention (and the article) that DL is in the crosshairs, but NW has a large presence in T2. It would seem DL and NW have no real recourse other than to buy time. And I am guessing that Virgin is behind the A380 accommodations in T2, since they currently use that facility.

There were provisions in the bond financing and lease agreements whereby leases could be revocated due to the bankruptcy of the lessee. IMO, LAWA is more interested in imposing new lease terms - a financial windfall and a more efficient gate usage protocol for LAWA - than fostering new LCC competition.

Frankly, I don't see any LCC being establishing a major prescence, or relocating, and absorbing the higher costs of operating in a terminal with FIS facilities. And LAWA isn't going to close FIS facilities in order to lower said costs.

As for DLs and NWs options - litigation.



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 offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26426 posts, RR: 76
Reply 20, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 4455 times:

Quoting Travelin man (Reply 4):
AS would get FIS facilities (for the Mexico flights),

AS needs to pony up the cash, which they have been reluctant to do.



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21505 posts, RR: 60
Reply 21, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 4437 times:

Quoting N1120A (Reply 20):
AS needs to pony up the cash, which they have been reluctant to do.

Because they don't want to throw money into the hole that is T3.

T5 would suit them fine, and they'd pay higher rents for it.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineRolo987 From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 293 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 4357 times:

They voted yesterday to buy back the bonds and take over the two terminals.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/lo...y?coll=la-commun-los_angeles_metro


User currently offlineZkpilot From New Zealand, joined Mar 2006, 4817 posts, RR: 9
Reply 23, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 4265 times:

Quoting IAHFLYER (Reply 16):
Isn't at least one of these terminals being torn down anyways w
ith the new LAX Master Plan???

Last I saw there were plans to demolish terminals 1-3 and clip that side of TBIT to make way for relocated runways and taxiways. The Inner carparks were to all disappear to make way for one large modern terminal with satellite concourses where T1-3 were originally. Not sure if this is still going ahead or not, if not then that really is a shame... in fact all the terminals at LAX need to be demolished and replaced (except perhaps TBIT but even that is due for a renovation). LAX is poorly designed and isn't made to accomodate 777, 747, A340, A380 sized aircraft. Sure it CAN handle them but wasn't designed to. These aircraft need to spend wasteful time being towed onto their gates slowwwwwwwwly and being pushed back slowwwwwwwly whilst waiting for aircraft on the (wrongly located) taxiways. The end result is that it takes a 747 about an extra 30 mins at LAX on average for each flight. Turnarounds are very rarely less than an hour as they are at other airports. Often at LAX they are 2 hours.
Let alone the pax and crew who have to go thru a long arrivals/departures process (not helped by the TSA/Immigration being slow).
Still there are worse out there  Wink



56 types. 38 countries. 24 airlines.
User currently onlineEddieDude From Mexico, joined Nov 2003, 7570 posts, RR: 43
Reply 24, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 4234 times:

At the moment, AM departures are from T6 and its arrivals are at T5. Do you think that this move by the city will result in AM consolidating its operations in one single terminal?


Next flights: MEX-GRU (AM 77E), GRU-GIG (JJ A320), SDU-CGH (G3 73H), GRU-MEX (JJ A332).
25 Jfk777 : AA would gain from T5 since Delta shares an FIS with UAL from Terminal 6 & 7. If it could move its Tokyo and LHR flights to T5 for customs and improve
26 Laxintl : No as previously mentioned this was not one of the "green lighted" projects. There again was some recent rumbles about runway relocation on the North
27 EddieDude : Thanks a lot for the clarification. So if someone gives me a ride to LAX to catch an AM flight, T5 is where I need to be taken to, right? And if for
28 Post contains images Laxintl : Yes.. just stop beyond the DL T-5 counters closer/towards T-6 and that is where AM counters are located. Yup.. Just go thru T-6 security to the left
29 Ikramerica : Or through the T5-T6 tunnel. I saw it closed at 3AM, but i assume it stays open until the last red-eyes take off, right?
30 JetBlueGuy2006 : Interesting, I will be looking out for the results of this, BUT, I think that the title is misleading. The city might buy it back, it doesn't not mean
31 Post contains images Ikramerica : Who's right? Only time will tell...   That sounds like at minimum 20% underuse of those gates. And DL is far worse at T5, not only underusing it, bu
32 Laxintl : Per reply 22 the Airport Commision voted yesterday to go ahead with this plan. Here is a breif quote from the LA Times article; PANEL ACTS TO CONTROL
33 Surfdog75 : Wonder who's pushing them to vote on this now before the US takeover is decided? Sounds pretty fishy. That terminal would be ideal for the combined ca
34 Travelin man : Um, so what? An airport is first and foremost a public need. LAWA is responding to that public need by doing what they are contractually allowed to d
35 AADC10 : The airlines would not profit from the construction in their terminals. They would simply have their bonds that they have been paying interest on pur
36 Lowecur : It's a done deal, it's just a matter of whether DL can get a judge to issue an injunction if LAWA evicts them. My guess is they will give them 90-180
37 Surfdog75 : 90-180 days? You have to be joking. This will drag out until the cows come home. When a long-term lease is signed it needs to be honored. Businesses
38 Ikramerica : If they did that, expect lawsuits all around. There are airlines that already overuse their gates begging for spots to park jets, and if this is all
39 Post contains images JetBlueGuy2006 : Gotcha, thanks for the correction
40 Lowecur : Yeah, the DL attorney knows that they are the targets in this little revamp, but they also represent the owners of T-2. It will be interesting to see
41 Ikramerica : And considering DL is in default on payments, they are on shaky ground anyway. Further, with DL being in BK, don't lessors have also a greater opport
42 Aaway : The FIS that UA built underground between T-6 & T-7 is theirs to use exclusively. AA could get creative in accommodating additional international ope
43 Ikramerica : Then this explains this move, though T2 is getting taken for a ride in the process. LAWA has now cleared a hurdle for relief, by taking over DL's T5
44 Post contains images Aaway : Safe to say that LAWA learned from the UA bankruptcy. LAWA wanted UA to relinquish gates in T-6. And UA continues to flaunt LAWA policy on commuter o
45 N1120A : That has essentially been settled. US has balked at a move from T1 because of the excellent location and status they hold as the successor to PSA No
46 Ikramerica : Were they offered T5? Were they offered T5? Maybe they were, but I don't see how since T5 has been on long term lease to DL. If I were AS or UA, I wo
47 N1120A : US can't fill T5 as it is and they have balked at a move to T6 before. AS has been offered T5 and has balked at the price, which is higher than the s
48 Laxintl : US Airways is not about to move anywhere at LAX. The carrier actually just embarked a expensive 6-month long project related to the US/HP integration
49 Ikramerica : Who says US would need to fill T5? They don't fill T1, they share it. And while I don't hate T6 as a customer, as an airline, I'd balk at T6 too... H
50 Aaway : It's probably more accurate to say that UA and LAWA reached detente on this issue. The resulting quid pro quo illustrates the issue and why LAWA is a
51 AznCSA4QF744ER : I think terminal 5 can easily accommodate its current tenant (DL, AM, and JM) with addition to NW/KL, and AS. Provided they retime the peek hours. Man
52 N1120A : Why would an airline balk at being in a large terminal near their alliance partner? And who would they share T5 with? Because DL is in violation of t
53 Aaway : On Terminal Six Gates 66, 68A, 68B, and 69B, following priorities apply: (1) First priority. Aircraft of United Airlines arriving from international o
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...
Argentina To Buy Back 20% Of AR posted Wed Jun 14 2006 19:58:24 by PPVRA
AMR To Buy Back Biz Jet Corp "Flex Jet"? posted Wed Nov 28 2001 02:10:47 by AA@DFW
SAA To Buy Back Swissair Shares posted Thu Nov 22 2001 08:00:31 by Timmay
Michel Leblanc To Buy Back Royal Airlines posted Wed Nov 7 2001 04:30:40 by Player4keeps
Back To Back TWA At LAX Vid posted Sun Aug 20 2006 06:59:07 by SJC-Alien
Sale To Buy & Lease-Back 3 A320s To Finnair posted Fri Dec 14 2001 17:42:14 by Singapore_Air
South African Govt To Buy Airline Back From Swiss posted Sun Nov 25 2001 21:14:48 by Covert
German Govt. To Buy Into Airbus Via The Back Door? posted Sun Oct 29 2006 15:17:47 by NAV20
United & American At LAX & ORD....which Is Bigger? posted Mon Oct 23 2006 20:12:28 by 8herveg
Hand Luggages Policy To & From UK posted Fri Oct 13 2006 18:11:15 by Icarus75