Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Why Is Terminal 5 At LAX So Bad?  
User currently offlineJkj777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 397 posts, RR: 0
Posted (6 years 7 months 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 10400 times:

I have lived in Los Angeles now for 3.5 years. I use LAX all the time due to it's proximity to Marina Del Rey (where I live). Of course I could drive to Burbank or Long Beach or Orange County, but this accomplishes very little. I would drive further (or pay an enormous cab fee), have to make a connection thru another airport, and have to do the same on the way back.
I fly into ATL (and fly DL) all the time (over 150,000 skymiles with them) and choose to take the red eye due to my preferred schedule. I have now taken 3 of these flights in the past 4 weeks....all 1566 that leaves at 10:55pm (always arrive before 9 pm). The check in lines are terrible, baggage drop lines are pathetic and slow, and do not even get me started on the security line (that usually wraps thru the terminal and extends quite some distance outside). I have to plan on at least an hour to accomplish check in. I understand Delta's want to expand it's LAX product, but to what expense. There are at least 11 red eye flights that leave after 9:00pm (headed to the east coast of course), plus Aeromexico's flights. There is just no way possible that the SSA(sorry security administration) can push thru this many passengers at this time of night (especially with only 3 security lines open).
Fortunately, I have discovered a way to make my own travel experience easier and more convenient. LAX is a horrible airport in my opinion and Terminal 5 at night may be the worst of all. How can the LAWA continue to keep this crappy system running? How could DL continue to allow this many people struggle thru the airport to catch their flights? Are they even aware of the problems passengers are having? Can we start over with LAX and build a more functional, visually appealing, and passenger friendly airport? I thought that Mayor Villarigosa was supposed to do something to help this airport out. Oh wait, he is dealing with his own problems and forgot about the millions of people that live in LA......I cannot stand LAX!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Anyone share the same feelings?

66 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21472 posts, RR: 60
Reply 1, posted (6 years 7 months 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 10388 times:



Quoting Jkj777 (Thread starter):
The check in lines are terrible, baggage drop lines are pathetic and slow, and do not even get me started on the security line (that usually wraps thru the terminal and extends quite some distance outside). I have to plan on at least an hour to accomplish check in. I understand Delta's want to expand it's LAX product, but to what expense. There are at least 11 red eye flights that leave after 9:00pm (headed to the east coast of course), plus Aeromexico's flights

DL has always understaffed at peak times in T5 in my experience. I find it annoying. Even AA at peak times is faster, and they aren't too great in T4. One solution is to go through security at T6, where it's not as bad, then take the tunnel to T5, but not sure if it's open that late at night...



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineJkj777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 397 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (6 years 7 months 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 10323 times:



Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 1):
One solution is to go through security at T6, where it's not as bad, then take the tunnel to T5, but not sure if it's open that late at night

That is my secret.......I have mentioned it to a few people in the back of the security line a few times and it has been a terrific decision. The tunnel is open that late at night and Terminal 6 security is waaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyy shorter and quicker, even with 2 lines open. That is the way to go in my opinion.


User currently offlineCVG2LGA From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 630 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (6 years 7 months 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 10294 times:



Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 1):
One solution is to go through security at T6, where it's not as bad, then take the tunnel to T5, but not sure if it's open that late at night...

I asked once if I could do that and the staffer told me she didn't know if they would let me through with my DL slip. So does it matter really? I know sometimes the CVG red-eye operates out of there and the JFK one has too. Perhaps if they expand at LAX and with night flights they would utilize T6 more so alleviating the influx at T5 checkpoint?? Do they just use two gates there or more?
T5 looks bare and unappealing. And having only McDonalds as fast food isn't great at all. Get a subway or something LAX!! But hey at least they gate information displays. I've not felt like DL was understaffed (out front) at peak times and it's not taken me over twenty minutes to move through the security line either, but alot of times it looks daunting!
The tunnel can be scary sometimes. Makes me think I'm in a horror flick and that if I look back someones going to be chasing after me with a chainsaw or something. But hey it is LA right.
Tchau
DA-



They don't call em' emergencies anymore. They call em' Patronies.
User currently offlineDL777LAX From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 521 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (6 years 7 months 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 10267 times:



Quoting Jkj777 (Thread starter):
Can we start over with LAX and build a more functional, visually appealing, and passenger friendly airport?

Sure, we could start over, but where do we find the land? PMD? OXR? ONT?

BUR won't expand because of NIMBYS, its runway is also a bit on the short side. Its runways aren't really set up ideally either for a large hub.

Even if LGB didn't have the slot problem, it only has 1 runway suitable for commercial traffic.

LAX, love it or hate it, is always going to be busy. People are going to bitch about it not being one of the HKGs or SINs or MUCs of the world, but LAX is the main gateway to the city. With its role of gateway, there really isn't much of a way that they could renovate the airport without disrupting it for an extended period of time.

Quoting Jkj777 (Thread starter):
I have now taken 3 of these flights in the past 4 weeks....all 1566 that leaves at 10:55pm (always arrive before 9 pm). The check in lines are terrible, baggage drop lines are pathetic and slow, and do not even get me started on the security line (that usually wraps thru the terminal and extends quite some distance outside). I have to plan on at least an hour to accomplish check in.

I'm sorry you've experienced this, however, have you considered taking a flight during the non-peak hours of the day? Thats usually what I do to avoid the lines, earlier flights are often less of a hassle in regards to the lines.



Blindly following anything is bad, unless of course your blind and your following a guide dog.
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21472 posts, RR: 60
Reply 5, posted (6 years 7 months 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 10210 times:



Quoting DL777LAX (Reply 4):
I'm sorry you've experienced this, however, have you considered taking a flight during the non-peak hours of the day? Thats usually what I do to avoid the lines, earlier flights are often less of a hassle in regards to the lines.

He needs to fly the red-eye. He should be able to get through security in a reasonable amount of time.

DL has a problem of understaffing first thing in the morning and for the red-eyes, leading to very long lines. Increasing flights out of T5 really hasn't helped the matter. AA has a problem mid-morning at T4 in my experience. CO has much less of a problem at T6 because they are smaller and most UA pax are checking in in T7 even if they are departing T6. And now that you can get to T6 from T5, many DL customers who used to have to walk to T6 outside security are going in at T5, making T5 even worse.

Even though CO has red-eyes out of T6, they don't have as many. They've also cut back the late night mexico flights, and VX only has 1 red-eye so far, so T6 just isn't very heavy that time of night. And the T6 security area was redesigned to make it move more smoothly.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineDL777LAX From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 521 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (6 years 7 months 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 10196 times:



Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 5):
And the T6 security area was redesigned to make it move more smoothly.

I haven't been through 6 for a while.

Somewhat unrelated, but was this a result of VX starting?



Blindly following anything is bad, unless of course your blind and your following a guide dog.
User currently offlineJetJeanes From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 1430 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (6 years 7 months 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 10128 times:

I too am a Dl ff and found it easier to upgrade and cheaper to f/c while commuteing lax to atl. On those red eyes the movies are blazah after youve seen them.. I just pop the xm headphone on and fly Airtrans and have plenty of room and the 737 is just as comfortable. Ive gotten some ragged 767,s out of dl lately. Plus the old terminal where Airtrans is doesnt seem to be as crowded and a few good places to eat. Its not marble floors but its presentable.


i can see for 80 miles
User currently offlineRemcor From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 358 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (6 years 7 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 10078 times:



Quoting DL777LAX (Reply 4):

LAX, love it or hate it, is always going to be busy. People are going to bitch about it not being one of the HKGs or SINs or MUCs of the world, but LAX is the main gateway to the city. With its role of gateway, there really isn't much of a way that they could renovate the airport without disrupting it for an extended period of time.

I think the key in LAX is that they don't have a consolidated ticketing/terminal area like practically all new airports do. I guess that's kind of obvious.
But, I think they could do a major renovation without major extended disruption if they did it creatively. My first thought is to demolish the short term parking in the center and build a major consolidated ticketing terminal on that land, and build a sterile tramway and luggage tunnels to all the existing terminals. When the new ticking terminal is ready, shut down the existing ticketing & baggage claim areas. The existing terminals would be turned into gate 'concourses', which could be renovated piecemeal.

I dunno, I know I'm simplifying it. It comes down to money (and NIMBYs), if we'd be willing to pay what it takes to have a decent airport we could find a way to build one.


User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 24796 posts, RR: 46
Reply 9, posted (6 years 7 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 10026 times:

As to any general shabbiness in T-5, you can thank DL for that.

The carrier retains its long term lease on the facility which it assumed construction for after the Western merger. As tenant DL is responsible for capital improvements and general facility maintenance.

Considering DL's strained relations with LAWA whom could again try to evict DL at some point, I doubt DL would try to sink much money into a facility whose future still might be in doubt as its LAX schedule continues to be very much fluid.

Quoting DL777LAX (Reply 6):
Somewhat unrelated, but was this a result of VX starting?

No most LAX terminal security check points have been redesigned in the last year or so as the TSA installs new equipment and has tried to reconfigure things. The net effect for most terminals has been additional screening lanes and also additional queuing space.

Quoting Remcor (Reply 8):
consolidated ticketing/terminal area like practically all new airports do

That was one of the potential masterplan concepts which ironically was pushed based on security grounds however fell out of favor quite quickly following 9/11 security reviews on the grounds one would have a single huge target(occupied by 1000's of people) or failure point that could bring the airport to a stand still. With the current legacy set up most terminals operate independent of each other and thus are not effected as much by events that might be taking place in another.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineRemcor From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 358 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (6 years 7 months 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 9832 times:



Quoting LAXintl (Reply 9):
That was one of the potential masterplan concepts which ironically was pushed based on security grounds however fell out of favor quite quickly following 9/11 security reviews on the grounds one would have a single huge target(occupied by 1000's of people) or failure point that could bring the airport to a stand still. With the current legacy set up most terminals operate independent of each other and thus are not effected as much by events that might be taking place in another.

That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard (not you, what you're relaying). So they're telling us a bomb in Terminal 1 would NOT bring the entire airport to a standstill even as it is? Anyway, this reason hasn't stopped SFO or ATL or MCO or any other of the hundreds of major airports around the world in countries with even more of a terrorist threat than the US from operating. What are we going to do, tear all those airports apart, because if that reasoning stands correct, then a terrorist could just bypass LAX and bomb a different airport with a big consolidated ticking terminal.

Then we'll just have to ban large gatherings of people. Man, 9/11 really gave us some strange concepts of what's secure and what's not. I'm hoping that this was just a reflexive argument after 9/11 and after a bit people realize that it doesn't hold much water.


User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 24796 posts, RR: 46
Reply 11, posted (6 years 7 months 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 9794 times:

Think of its this way... Near every day there is somesort of security issue at LAX. Whether an unattended bag(s), security checkpoint lock down, security breach in a sterile area etc..

Having a single massive consolidated facility could shut everything down while the incident is dealt with. With the current independent terminal set up, any of such near routine security issue at T-3 for instance would not effect operations at T-1.
In addition keep in mind clearing an incident which might require a terminal evacuation or search (which happens every few weeks) is much easier (less police, dogs, time) in a single smaller concourse then it would be in a larger massive structure.

In addition it was strongly felt a single consolidated checkin facility was a significantly larger opportunity target by herding together many 1,000 of what basically are near captive employees and passengers in one location.

As to the logic, you'll have to go ask many of the industries security consultants including Israeli experts which were hired by LAWA that conducted on site visits and reviewed the alternative future proposals and helped come up with recommendations.

Basically the current set up compartmentalises the airport into smaller independent facilities and hopefully less opportune targets.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21472 posts, RR: 60
Reply 12, posted (6 years 7 months 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 9793 times:



Quoting DL777LAX (Reply 6):
Somewhat unrelated, but was this a result of VX starting?

Nah. VX is just a blip, and a recent blip at that. The redesign has been going on for 2 years and I think it's finally finished. It's amazing they were able to make such great use of a space that seemed very small, but somehow it seems twice as big.

Of course, you still need staff to man the TSA checkpoints, as you can have 10 of them but if there's only 1 crew, it's gonna be slow. But T6 has been pretty good about that.

It used to be that terminals like 3 and 6 had 2 conveyors, and if one broke down, yikes! I had this happen back when AA was in T3. I was on an MCO flight and one of the xray machines crapped out. The line was insane.

Now that they've upgraded the facilities, even if not all lines are open, it's reassuring to know there are redundant machines so if one craps out, they can move over.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlinePanAm747 From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 4242 posts, RR: 9
Reply 13, posted (6 years 7 months 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 9761 times:

If LAX was a major transfer location, then a consolidated check-in facility would be in order. As it is, the problem really lies with staffing each terminal with sufficient security and check-in personnel as is required by the volume of traffic for the number of departing flights.


Pan Am:The World's Most Experienced Airline - P(oor) S(ailor's) A(irline): San Diego's Hometown Airline-Catch Our Smile!
User currently offlineFlyingcat From United States of America, joined May 2007, 539 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (6 years 7 months 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 9755 times:



Quoting JetJeanes (Reply 7):
the 737 is just as comfortable

31" pitch like US. No thanks, this sardine like the extra space of the widget brand tin.


User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21472 posts, RR: 60
Reply 15, posted (6 years 7 months 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 9754 times:



Quoting LAXintl (Reply 11):
Basically the current set up compartmentalises the airport into smaller independent facilities and hopefully less opportune targets.

I personally think it works well enough. It's not the airport's fault that any one carrier understaffs their counters or doesn't want to pay for enough TSA staff at peak times.

Quoting PanAm747 (Reply 13):
If LAX was a major transfer location, then a consolidated check-in facility would be in order. As it is, the problem really lies with staffing each terminal with sufficient security and check-in personnel as is required by the volume of traffic for the number of departing flights.

ding. now it would be nice if there were some airside shuttles for domestic to international connections leaving from TBIT, but other than that, I think LAX works pretty well. It's really just the access via car that is crammed up due to the close spacing of the terminals.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 24796 posts, RR: 46
Reply 16, posted (6 years 7 months 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 9743 times:



Quoting PanAm747 (Reply 13):
If LAX was a major transfer location, then a consolidated check-in facility would be in order.

And it is not. LAX is the worlds largest O&D airport with a very low rate of flight connectivity.

Carrier with the highest percentage of connections is United at about 30% of its passengers connecting but the majority of that is under one roof to other United flights.

Simply put Los Angeles is the end destination >90% of passengers at the airport, and those that do connect do so most often online in the same terminal.

p.s. - hate to think if LA ever become a major transit airport, really push the passenger numbers up and awake the NIMBY crowd even more!



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlinePlatinumfoota From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 556 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (6 years 7 months 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 9680 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Well most of the time I fly out of LAX i fly UA out of terminal 7, which to me isnt bad at all. If your not flying Y they allow you to check in at T6 and the TSA lines move pretty quickly. I have had WAY worse, for example LAS and MCO, 30+minutes to go through security!!


Never forget United 93
User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26357 posts, RR: 76
Reply 18, posted (6 years 7 months 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 9650 times:



Quoting CVG2LGA (Reply 3):

I asked once if I could do that and the staffer told me she didn't know if they would let me through with my DL slip. So does it matter really?

Theoretically, the should be able to let you in with a DL card at T5, 6 or 7

Quoting CVG2LGA (Reply 3):
Get a subway or something LAX!!

If you are talking about the transit, I agree. As for the sandwich shop, you can blame Delta for not putting a Subway franchise in. The good thing about T5 is that you can just walk through to T7 and the La Salsa or Wolfgang Puck's there.

Quoting DL777LAX (Reply 4):

Even if LGB didn't have the slot problem, it only has 1 runway suitable for commercial traffic.

Actually, 2 can work for commercial takeoffs.

Quoting DL777LAX (Reply 6):

Somewhat unrelated, but was this a result of VX starting?

More as a result of an overall program to make things move more smoothly.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 9):
As to any general shabbiness in T-5, you can thank DL for that.

Yes. The funny thing is, T5 is actually a rather pretty terminal under all of that.

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 15):
now it would be nice if there were some airside shuttles for domestic to international connections leaving from TBIT, but other than that

I think that as long as AC and especially US are in other terminals, there should be shuttles running between their terminals and T7.

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 15):
It's really just the access via car that is crammed up due to the close spacing of the terminals.

In reality, the car access at the airport is fine. The various cut through roads mean the farthest you have to drive is to T4. Further, the better light timing implemented has made the through traffic move much more smoothly. Also, the fact that the CTA is compact means you can just pull into any of the structures. This is especially true of the ones that are connected at roof level.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 16):

Carrier with the highest percentage of connections is United at about 30% of its passengers connecting but the majority of that is under one roof to other United flights.




Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineJkj777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 397 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (6 years 7 months 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 9565 times:

I say use some of that land to the west of LAX (yes I realize it is a 'protected' area but protected for what reason. I run along there all the time and never see any interesting bird or varment running around. That space could be used for something airport related in my opinion.

User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26357 posts, RR: 76
Reply 20, posted (6 years 7 months 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 9516 times:



Quoting Jkj777 (Reply 19):
I say use some of that land to the west of LAX (yes I realize it is a 'protected' area but protected for what reason. I run along there all the time and never see any interesting bird or varment running around. That space could be used for something airport related in my opinion.

Um, to the west of LAX is a road and an ocean. The protected species that must be accounted for in any LAX project is the El Segundo Blue Butterfly.



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offline77411 From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 152 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (6 years 7 months 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 9417 times:



Quoting N1120A (Reply 18):
If you are talking about the transit, I agree. As for the sandwich shop, you can blame Delta for not putting a Subway franchise in. The good thing about T5 is that you can just walk through to T7 and the La Salsa or Wolfgang Puck's there

DL has nothing to do with the concessions at T-5. Talk to LAWA, who with the right amount of cash, grants the rights to open your franchise for a specific term. DL had nothing to do with McDonalds opening up or Burger King who was there prior. DL or Western, who paid the cost to build T-5, have less control over the building then you assume they have. The whole issue is LAWA. They have total control and have no clue as to what direction they want to go with LAX. They spend/waste millions on consultants to come up with ways of improvinging passenger flow through the terminals and when the results come back they decide to go in another direction. So as long as LAWA runs this ship it will remain the same POS that it is today.


User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 24796 posts, RR: 46
Reply 22, posted (6 years 7 months 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 9385 times:

You are right that LAWA is the deciding body on terminal concession rentals including rates, however it still is very much up to tenant airlines to build and plan space for such vendors.

For instance UA with its T-8 rebuild greatly expanded concessionaire space as did AA during its T-4 remodel. If during the T-5 construction (same can be said for T-2) there was a lack of space allotted to stores or restaurants this has much more to do with the terminals tenants (or owner in case of T-2) then LAWA. Nothing is holding DL back from remodeling or refreshing T-5 a bit except money really and possible still worries about position at the airport.

Additionally another thing to consider is a concessionaires desire to be housed in terminal which might not generate much revenue opposed to busier facility. Even with increased DL flying at LAX, its T-5 volumes are still significantly less then other terminals. For instance T-5 sees about 400,000 monthly passengers vs 850,000 at T-1, 950,000 at T-4 and over 1.25mil at T6-8 which are linked and in many ways serve as a single terminal thanks to United operating across all three.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineContinentalEWR From United States of America, joined May 2000, 3762 posts, RR: 13
Reply 23, posted (6 years 7 months 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 9250 times:

Terminal 6 is a dump.

LAX has got to be one of the most aesthetically unappealing airports in the US. Sort of like JFK in the 1980s and early 1990's.


User currently offlineJkj777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 397 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (6 years 7 months 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 9103 times:



Quoting N1120A (Reply 20):
Um, to the west of LAX is a road and an ocean. The protected species that must be accounted for in any LAX project is the El Segundo Blue Butterfly.

There is quite a lot of open space between the protected land and the satellite terminal. Why is there a need for 5 lanes of road that run North/South there? All it does is connected Lincoln to the Imperial Highway.

Evan767...........I see your comment is deleted.
Terminal 5 at LAX only has a few check in kiosks that cannot handle 2,600 passengers at the same time. Even curbside has it's limits since only two people are working at one time. To just rush up to a kiosk in the evening is impossible. When you fly out of LAX on a red eye with DL, you must be prepared for a nightmare experience. There is just so little infrastructure in place to make this a seemless experience.


25 LAXintl : Again goes back to Delta not properly staffing and equipping its terminal. For an eye popping experience I suppose for you, stop by American in T-4.
26 Continental : I'll agree that the terminals are pretty lousy at LAX (nowhere near as lousy as the Delta and old AA terminal at JFK), but I think the outside portio
27 SkyHigh777 : I was in LAX for a connecting flight from ATL-LAS, and it was HORRIBLE. There was nothing open and it was completely deserted (granted my flight arriv
28 Gjsint172 : Jkj777: I'm at about 990,000 medallion qualification miles. I have earned upwards of 2,000,000 Skymiles in the last 9 years. It's not the highest qual
29 Jkj777 : As a silver medallion, I cannot use those short lines you speak of and I see all the time. Think of the majority of people out there that are not gol
30 Dartland : Seriously -- I fly a fair amount each year (15-20 round-trips, including 1-2 int'l long-haul) and am not currently elite on any airline (I have been
31 Gjsint172 : Well I guess that answers my question. As a Platinum I don't even pay attention to lesser levels access. Sorry if you aren't able to use that line. I
32 Jkj777 : WOW, you sound a little superficial if you do not recognize the lesser level lines. I hope I do not sit next to you on my next DL flight. By the way,
33 Koruman : Gee, that explains a lot. Israelis endure the longest, most intrusive airport security in the world with no end to their plight in sight, even though
34 Ikramerica : T6 today they had all 4 security lines open. Things went very quickly, even for non-elites. Probably 10-15 minutes total for them, not bad on a comple
35 Hawaiian717 : First, take the tunnel from T5 to T6. Then, head north (towards the exit) in T6. Just before the security checkpoint, there is a corridor on your rig
36 Post contains images Ikramerica : I told the car driver he could do that, but he said there was no point, as it was just as easy to go his way. And he was right. It was simple. And I
37 Post contains images Dc10s2hnl : Back in the day I recall the tunnel went through to T4 as well. Wasn't there talk about it being open intermittently? How many flights actually do th
38 Rockinflyer : PMD is probably the most suited for development. An abundance of space, long runways (remember the L-1011 was assembled and delivered from there), an
39 DL777LAX : The land itself might be suited for a major airport, but, according to Google Maps, its about 75 miles away from LAX. In good traffic, it will only t
40 Tonystan : My only experience of LAX is from using the Tom Bradley International Terminal and all I can say is....It makes Heathrow look like Airport Heaven!!! I
41 Post contains images N1120A : You work for Delta or something? LAWA is one of the most efficient airport authorities around and turns a profit for the City of Los Angeles, making
42 Koruman : Nice try. Five years ago all flights went to LAX. Now Air New Zealand and Qantas have had massive success to San Francisco (NZ went up in no time fro
43 N1120A : And? It goes to show there is a market there. It hasn't resulted in any service cuts for LAX. "Sloppy management" has meant a self-sufficient airport
44 Koruman : Er, actually it has. Now that passengers flying to other US destinations increasingly route via SFO, Air New Zealand has downgraded AKL-LAX from doub
45 LAXintl : I'm not sure what trend that is, as LAX continues its growth still in passenger volumes. Anyhow at the end of the day, even if a few left I'm not sur
46 Tonystan : Wow....that is not exactly something to be proud of in my opinion!
47 N1120A : In case you haven't noticed, NZ has moved to a different fleet makeup. Their 744 fleet is highly limited while their 777 fleet is growing. How in the
48 Koruman : Air New Zealand has spare 747 capacity (25% of the fleet) which is currently being used on charters all over the place. It was previously on NZ5/6 AK
49 N1120A : And where are the hard numbers to back this claim up? Ever think the price of oil might have a little to do with this? Not to mention that NZ was pot
50 Koruman : N1120A, your replies remind me of the Fat Boy Slim CD, the cover of which featured an obese youth wearing a T-shirt with the slogan "I'm number one so
51 Post contains links Eghansen : I am not defending LAX. It is truly one of the worst airports. However, the lack of improvements are not due to "complacent bean counters". The reaso
52 Koruman : Is it really rocket science to hope (let alone expect) that there could be separate Star Alliance (UA/US/AC/NZ/LH/SQ/TG), One World (AA/BA/CX/QF) and
53 AirlineAddict : SFO does not have this. UA domestic is in Terminal 3 while US is in Terminal 2. When you take airline interests vs. what makes sense for the airport
54 Laxintl : Alliance's are a new phenomena and you cant quite expect airports to magically have three huge terminals to cater to them. Anyhow in the case of LAX,
55 Post contains images Gmcc : Which is when the NIMBY's will want to travel. Maybe they will see the error of their ways. However begin a resident of the OC I doubt it. T-5 is sti
56 N1120A : LAWA and the City have tried for years to improve LAX and have done projects when the time and money has been there. They just don't have the same so
57 Koruman : It's been over six years since 9/11. Other cities have built entire airports, but LAX can't even organise itself to put in retail outlets. Or to make
58 DeltAirlines : Crown Room membership gets you into these lines as well. A decent part of the reason as to why I can justify spending $350 a year to join Crown Room
59 Laxintl : Not just a LAX model, common use facilities are just not the norm in the US. Going back to the 50s, US airlines have owned or had very long exclusive
60 Koruman : In other words, the people who gain zip from this arrangement are the passengers, who "enjoy" inferior facilities and limited choice because of these
61 N1120A : Delta can't even pay its rent on T5. I did none of the sort. T7 is aesthetically pleasing, if not spectacular, and functions very well as a regional
62 Laxintl : US airport ownership and management is a curious mix of semi public - private relationship. While maybe not the most consumer beneficial as some might
63 Koruman : N1120A, your first comment is unneccessarily modest. You've done a superb job in the snippets above of explaining precisely why LAX presents consumer
64 Post contains images Lightsaber : To the west. There are some great Western terminal designs. The major problem with LAX is ~68 million pax year through spaces designed for 45 million
65 Eghansen : As someone who has lived in Southern California my entire life (yes, I was born here), I will be honest with you. If you really have such issues with
66 Post contains links and images Lightsaber : And about every 15 years LA gets too full of itself and we watch home prices drop like a rock. Home prices are down in LA 8.9% from the peak per the
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...
Western Terminal At LAX posted Thu May 17 2007 19:29:34 by 787EWR
Which Runway Is This At LAX? posted Wed Apr 25 2007 02:40:33 by Timz
Why Is The 787-9 Coming So Late In 2010? posted Thu Oct 19 2006 08:54:25 by Baron95
Why Is British Airways Falling So Fast? posted Mon Jul 24 2006 06:09:12 by Kaitak744
What Is This At LAX? posted Thu Jan 26 2006 19:40:52 by COEWR2587
Why Is Fog Still Cause So Many Delays? posted Wed Nov 30 2005 02:48:47 by PanAm747
Why Is The IAE V2500 So Successful On The A320? posted Thu Jul 14 2005 16:45:08 by TheSonntag
Why Is Frank Lorenzo Hated So Much? posted Wed Jun 15 2005 06:31:08 by IslandHopperCO
Why Is NZ's Koru In Such Bad Shape? posted Mon Mar 28 2005 03:39:53 by Aerokiwi
Why Is Air Luxor Called So? posted Sat Mar 19 2005 11:35:39 by RootsAir