Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Ontario Wants To Take Control Of ONT  
User currently offlineSurfandSnow From United States of America, joined Jan 2009, 2862 posts, RR: 30
Posted (3 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 6880 times:

ONT is currently the only Los Angeles area airport (the others being LAX, BUR, SNA, and LGB) not running at or near full terminal, slot, and/or airfield capacity. Although ONT has a distinctly unique catchment area and superior facilities (30+ miles from nearest competing commercial airport, pair of long parallel runways, two beautiful spacious terminals, easy freeway access, lack of curfew restrictions, international capabilities, plenty of room for future expansion) it continues to lag far behind its peers. ONT recently lost all of its nonstop flights to New York, Hawaii, and Mexico and does not look like it will get them back anytime soon, if ever. As airlines have slashed services or pulled out completely, ONT has found it hard to justify the continued use of its two large terminals. This year, WN just added new n/s service to DEN and MDW, but that is the only new service (aside from some obscure EAS routes that may be shifting over to LAX) the airport has seen in a very long time.

As some of its benefits won't last forever (SNA will become fully int'l capable very soon - meaning that ONT will no longer be the sole LAX alternate for int'l services, LGB will probably have the area's best terminal in a few years) ONT needs to act fast to get back on the map. Locals have placed the blame on Los Angeles World Airport (LAWA) operators, saying that Ontario can run the airport better on its own. What do you guys think?

http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/lo...Run-Ontario-Airport-102924489.html


Flying in the middle seat of coach is much better than not flying at all!
69 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25062 posts, RR: 46
Reply 1, posted (3 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 6835 times:

This little discussion has been going on for a while.
Sure Ontario now wants some control over the airport, but in the past they were happy to let LAWA modernize and manage it.

And that 25-page report which the NBC story mentions which I have a copy has some large inaccuracies, with quite a anti-LAWA bias. (the consultant wrote it for the ONT audience)

At the end of the day its simply local politics.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineFWAERJ From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 3734 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (3 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 6645 times:

If ONT's exorbitant per-passenger and terminal usage feesl go down to lure new and more airlines as part of an ownership change, I'd be all for it.

ONT's problem is not location. It's usage fees.



Primary Airport: FWA/Alternate Airport: DTW/Not employed by the FWACAA or their partners
User currently offlineMaverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 5592 posts, RR: 6
Reply 3, posted (3 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 6561 times:

Quoting SurfandSnow (Thread starter):
Locals have placed the blame on Los Angeles World Airport (LAWA) operators, saying that Ontario can run the airport better on its own. What do you guys think?

And when Ontario can't get those flights back, "the people" will blame them too.


A clear cut case of journalistic bias. One that should be used in schools.



"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
User currently offlineSurfandSnow From United States of America, joined Jan 2009, 2862 posts, RR: 30
Reply 4, posted (3 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 6554 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 1):
ONT's problem is not location.

Now that's not entirely true. ONT is extremely far from LA's tourist attractions that are typically scattered along (or relatively near) the coast. In a practical sense, it really only serves the Inland Empire. Nobody in Beverly Hills or Sherman Oaks is going to drive for an hour (and with traffic, that figure could easily double) to catch a flight out of ONT. I live in downtown LA right off the 10 freeway, and only used ONT one time for late night flights (1:30 AM departure, 10:30 PM arrival) when I was sure there wouldn't be traffic to complicate the journey. It still took me over 45 minutes to get out there - I won't be doing that again!



Flying in the middle seat of coach is much better than not flying at all!
User currently offlineGoldenshield From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 6003 posts, RR: 14
Reply 5, posted (3 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 6361 times:

Quoting FWAERJ (Reply 2):
If ONT's exorbitant per-passenger and terminal usage feesl go down to lure new and more airlines as part of an ownership change, I'd be all for it.

ONT's problem is not location. It's usage fees.

It's done that way for a reason.

"Hey, Flights to Ontario cost more, and their rental cars cost more, and have more fees as well. Let's fly to LAX instead."



Two all beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions on a sesame seed bun.
User currently offlineFX1816 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 1400 posts, RR: 4
Reply 6, posted (3 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 6283 times:

Quoting SurfandSnow (Reply 4):
In a practical sense, it really only serves the Inland Empire.

Inaccurate, it also serves the High Desert.

Quoting SurfandSnow (Reply 4):
Nobody in Beverly Hills or Sherman Oaks is going to drive for an hour (and with traffic, that figure could easily double) to catch a flight out of ONT.

That was never the intention of ONT, it was meant to make it so that those of us in the High Desert, IE or even the Lake Elsinore/Temecula area would have an airport that was much easier to access than LAX. I personally despise flying out of LAX but due to the prices and flight availability it's sometimes the easiest airport to use.

Quoting SurfandSnow (Reply 4):
I live in downtown LA right off the 10 freeway, and only used ONT one time for late night flights (1:30 AM departure, 10:30 PM arrival) when I was sure there wouldn't be traffic to complicate the journey. It still took me over 45 minutes to get out there - I won't be doing that again!

Guessing from where you may live, LAX isn't exactly a hop, skip and a jump away either. It may not always take 45 minutes but boy the 405 Fwy can really suck, even late at night.

Quoting FWAERJ (Reply 2):
ONT's problem is not location. It's usage fees.

Bingo!!!!


FX1816


User currently offlineAADC10 From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 2088 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (3 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 6247 times:

Quoting FWAERJ (Reply 2):
If ONT's exorbitant per-passenger and terminal usage feesl go down to lure new and more airlines as part of an ownership change, I'd be all for it.

ONT's problem is not location. It's usage fees.

There is not much that can be done about the fees, unless LAWA subsidizes them, and they cannot use funds from other LAWA airports to do it and it is not likely the City of Los Angeles would kick in any funds and I doubt the City of Ontario would want to inject a cash subsidy either.


As LAX reached capacity and the other regional airports had caps and other restriction, the only place for flights to go was ONT and new facilities were built to accommodate the anticipated demand. The City of Ontario even whined about not being able to handle the traffic that would be sent its way. Instead, demand dropped off after 2000 and LAX still has capacity remaining.

The real problem is the few remaining flights must now pay for all of the new facilities. Its passenger base was weakened because the housing collapse was greatest in the Inland Empire exburbs.ONT's location is a problem but there is obviously little that can be done about that. Most business in the LA area is concentrated on the west side, near LAX so it is very difficult to attract business travelers to ONT, particularly since it is less convenient and more expensive. They renamed it LA/Ontario so maybe Ryanair will fly there like Frankfurt/Hahn. ONT is definitely a low end WN Ma and Pa Kettle kind of place and the Kettles still might drive to LAX to get better fares.

ONT just needs to wait it out. LAX has a consent decree to prevent passenger traffic growth and nothing will be done to increase capacity. Capacity is constrained at all of the other airports in Southern California except for the even more remote PMD. The housing collapse and the rest of the economy will bottom out eventually and lack of capacity elsewhere will drive flights back to ONT but it may take another decade.


User currently offlineapodino From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 4257 posts, RR: 6
Reply 8, posted (3 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 6233 times:

Quoting SurfandSnow (Reply 4):
It still took me over 45 minutes to get out there - I won't be doing that again!

Many, many people in this country would be very happy with a 45 minute drive to the airport.


User currently offlineGordomatic From United States of America, joined Mar 2009, 93 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (3 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 6067 times:

Quoting FX1816 (Reply 6):
IE or even the Lake Elsinore/Temecula area would have an airport that was much easier to access

Living in Temecula, I always prefer flying out of SAN. Just getting to ONT isn't worth the hassle - especially when dealing w/ the I-10. Besides - ticket prices are (generally) better when flying out of SAN.

-Gordon



We have clearance, Clarence. Roger, Roger. What's our vector, Victor?
User currently offlinelaca773 From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 4006 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (3 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 6038 times:

Quoting FWAERJ (Reply 2):
ONT's problem is not location. It's usage fees.

This is a huge problem for the airlines using ONT. Even AS' schedule has been cut back drastically and their flights do rather well.

I bet if we see the fees @ ONT go down, we might see B6 bring back their very first route they flew to the west coast from JFK as well as DL adding an additional flight to ATL, MSP, UA-CO to ORD, and perhaps EWR. I think TA hasn't started service to ONT because of the fees and this was one of the main reasons AM pulled out which was just another factor to the struggles in Mexico.


User currently offlineGoldenshield From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 6003 posts, RR: 14
Reply 11, posted (3 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 5814 times:

Quoting apodino (Reply 8):
Quoting SurfandSnow (Reply 4):
It still took me over 45 minutes to get out there - I won't be doing that again!

Many, many people in this country would be very happy with a 45 minute drive to the airport.

Me, being one of them. Especially since I live to the north of ONT, and going to LAX, SNA, or BUR, would mean adding an additional hour to the drive.



Two all beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions on a sesame seed bun.
User currently offlineramprat74 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 1530 posts, RR: 2
Reply 12, posted (3 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 5760 times:

They should just shut down Terminal 2, and relocate everyone into Terminal 4. Terminal 4 has 14 gates. They could add a 15th jetway to the west concourse if needed.

Southwest 6 gates
United/Continental 2 gates
Alaska/Horizon 2 gates
Delta 2 gates
American 1 gate
US Airways 1 gate


User currently offlineapodino From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 4257 posts, RR: 6
Reply 13, posted (3 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 5740 times:

Quoting ramprat74 (Reply 12):
They should just shut down Terminal 2, and relocate everyone into Terminal 4. Terminal 4 has 14 gates. They could add a 15th jetway to the west concourse if needed.

Why would they shut down a terminal that they just built a few years ago? This makes no sense at all. I know people might compare this to PIT, but PIT is one central terminal with lots of unused gates, not two separate terminals.

I also thought the long term plan for ONT was for one terminal to be just WN and UA, and for everyone else in the other terminal, or so I read somewhere.

One more thing, back in the 80s, ONT had nonstop ORD service from both AA and UA. Now neither carrier is on the route. What happened?


User currently offlineFWAERJ From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 3734 posts, RR: 2
Reply 14, posted (3 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 5725 times:

Quoting apodino (Reply 13):
One more thing, back in the 80s, ONT had nonstop ORD service from both AA and UA. Now neither carrier is on the route. What happened?

I'm not sure when it ended, but I remember flying UA from ORD-ONT nonstop in 1995. It was a 733 in the Saul Bass livery.



Primary Airport: FWA/Alternate Airport: DTW/Not employed by the FWACAA or their partners
User currently offlineGoldenshield From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 6003 posts, RR: 14
Reply 15, posted (3 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 5705 times:

UA flew ONT-ORD until early 2002. It pretty much aligned with the retirement of the 727s.


Two all beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions on a sesame seed bun.
User currently offlineramprat74 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 1530 posts, RR: 2
Reply 16, posted (3 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 5658 times:

Quoting FWAERJ (Reply 14):
Why would they shut down a terminal that they just built a few years ago?

Because it would be cheaper to operate. Even LAWA was thinking about doing this. The new terminals opened in 1998. Back then all the gates were being used, and they were needed. Not so much these day. When the demand comes back. They can reopen Terminal 2.


User currently offlineBoeing1970 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (3 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 5563 times:

Quoting AADC10 (Reply 7):
There is not much that can be done about the fees, unless LAWA subsidizes them, and they cannot use funds from other LAWA airports to do it and it is not likely the City of Los Angeles would kick in any funds and I doubt the City of Ontario would want to inject a cash subsidy either.

Within an multi-airport agency you can use funds from one airport to fund another airport within the system if the intent is to relieve congestion at another airport within the system. They all have to be owned by a single agency. I'm not sure if LAWA actually owns ONT or if they just have a lease/operating agreement. It sounds like they don't own the airport.


User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12981 posts, RR: 100
Reply 18, posted (3 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 5482 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 1):
Sure Ontario now wants some control over the airport, but in the past they were happy to let LAWA modernize and manage it.

   My opinion too.

Quoting FWAERJ (Reply 2):
ONT's problem is not location. It's usage fees.

The fees are high due to loans to build the new terminal and declining passenger demand. That is a big oops, but the debt will be there no matter who runs the airport.

Quoting ramprat74 (Reply 12):
They should just shut down Terminal 2, and relocate everyone into Terminal 4. Terminal 4 has 14 gates. They could add a 15th jetway to the west concourse if needed.

I do not know enough about ONT to suggest which terminal should be shut down, but one should. Unfortunately, this means layoffs.   But the reality is costs must be cut. If nothing else, reduce the number of TSA agents required.   

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineFX1816 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 1400 posts, RR: 4
Reply 19, posted (3 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 5469 times:

Quoting Boeing1970 (Reply 17):
Within an multi-airport agency you can use funds from one airport to fund another airport within the system if the intent is to relieve congestion at another airport within the system. They all have to be owned by a single agency. I'm not sure if LAWA actually owns ONT or if they just have a lease/operating agreement. It sounds like they don't own the airport.

I'm pretty sure that LAWA is the agency that operates ONT but it is actually owned by the City of Los Angeles.

FX1816


User currently offlineSurfandSnow From United States of America, joined Jan 2009, 2862 posts, RR: 30
Reply 20, posted (3 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 5329 times:

Quoting laca773 (Reply 10):
Even AS' schedule has been cut back drastically and their flights do rather well.

Supposedly AS made "drastic" cutbacks at ONT, SNA, etc. What were the peak schedules like? If anything, their current ONT offering - 3x daily mainline to SEA and 3x daily QX (CR7) to PDX - seems to be very good to me.

Quoting laca773 (Reply 10):
we might see B6 bring back their very first route they flew to the west coast from JFK

Doubtful. B6 has shifted its network focus away from transcons to increased Northeast-Florida and Latin America/Caribbean flying. Plus, B6 has its major West Coast "hub" at nearby LGB and has indicated its desire to direct future SoCal growth to LAX, not outlying secondary airports...

Quoting laca773 (Reply 10):
DL adding an additional flight to ATL, MSP,

I don't ever recall an MSP-ONT service. When was the last time NW flew that one, if ever? I believe DL just cut ATL-ONT to a single daily flight, so perhaps that 2nd frequency could return as demand rebounds.

Quoting laca773 (Reply 10):
UA-CO to ORD, and perhaps EWR.

ORD is quite a stretch (UA only serves the primary CA markets of SFO/LAX/SAN/SMF/SNA out of there now) and EWR a pipedream at best. ONT is fortunate to still have UA mainline to DEN and the 4x daily UAX to SFO (before UA started that one up in 2005, there was no service from ONT to SFO at all).

Quoting laca773 (Reply 10):
I think TA hasn't started service to ONT because of the fees

TA's OAK service didn't last long, so I doubt they would want to try an even weaker secondary airport! As it is they seem to be trying to develop secondary markets like SJO out of LAX...

Quoting laca773 (Reply 10):
this was one of the main reasons AM pulled out which was just another factor to the struggles in Mexico.

Actually AM is a lot like TA in that only the major American markets (JFK, ORD, LAX, IAH, MIA, etc.) work for them. If they couldn't make SAN work, is it any surprise they pulled out of ONT?

Quoting ramprat74 (Reply 12):
They should just shut down Terminal 2, and relocate everyone into Terminal 4. Terminal 4 has 14 gates. They could add a 15th jetway to the west concourse if needed.

Southwest 6 gates
United/Continental 2 gates
Alaska/Horizon 2 gates
Delta 2 gates
American 1 gate
US Airways 1 gate

Don't forget about RON aircraft, though! Plus, moving everyone around costs a lot of money and could lead to further cutbacks. Then you lose the spacious uncrowded feel when the one terminal is suffering from long lines and congestion in the gate areas..

Quoting apodino (Reply 13):
I also thought the long term plan for ONT was for one terminal to be just WN and UA, and for everyone else in the other terminal, or so I read somewhere.

There is no foreseeable reason for WN and UA to need a terminal all to themselves. Both probably welcome the idea of having other airlines help pay for the terminal they use.

Quoting apodino (Reply 13):
ONT had nonstop ORD service from both AA and UA. Now neither carrier is on the route. What happened?

The Inland Empire was always a more "industrial" center than LA. The end of the Cold War meant a drastic drop in defense-related jobs that had fueled the California economy for decades, and the advent of NAFTA meant most of the manufacturing left in the area was moved a few hundred miles south. The Inland Empire then tried to become an affordable bedroom community for folks working in LA, but this came back to haunt them during the latest recession, when their economy tanked with the housing market. It is no coincidence that cuts to ONT were far more severe than at other LA area airports, which serve communities with far more diversified economies..



Flying in the middle seat of coach is much better than not flying at all!
User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25062 posts, RR: 46
Reply 21, posted (3 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 5276 times:

Quoting ramprat74 (Reply 12):
They should just shut down Terminal 2, and relocate everyone into Terminal 4. Terminal 4 has 14 gates.


This was looked at, and the airlines actually came out opposed to it as it would cost more in the short term with relocation's cost then the minimal savings of turning lights off in one facility.

The cost base is driven by things like facility bond payments that go on with or without the terminal being used.

Quoting AADC10 (Reply 7):
The real problem is the few remaining flights must now pay for all of the new facilities. Its passenger base was weakened because the housing collapse was greatest in the Inland Empire exburbs.ONT's location is a problem but there is obviously little that can be done about that.


   The Inland Empire has taken a very hard since the recessions. Its the foreclosure capital in Southern California.

In the long term however things will bounce back, as LA's economic and population center continues to shift East, but the airport basically seen its traffic slide go back 10-years.

Quoting Boeing1970 (Reply 17):
I'm not sure if LAWA actually owns ONT or if they just have a lease/operating agreement. It sounds like they don't own the airport


Here is the story.

In mid-1960s the cities of Ontario and Los Angeles entered a Joint Power Authority for the management of the airport. Much of the driving force for this was the need to upgrade the facilities from their 1940 design to better accommodate the big jets of the day (707 & DC-8). At the time Ontario was virtually about to close as its runway was in bad shape and the City of Ontario did not have funds for the repair work. For much of the 1960s and 1970s things went well at ONT as the Civil Aeronautics Board considered both ONT and LAX as on for route authorities so many airlines that have authorizations for LAX also flew a few flights to ONT. By 1971 the airport was serving 1 million passengers.

By 1985, it was determined that the airport required further upgrades and a new terminal facility was in order. At the time again the City of Ontario was unable to contribute funding for improvements. The City of Los Angeles offered to fund (and bond) all monies if the JPA was renegotiated and an existing takeover clause was exercised giving Los Angles full control of the airport. At the time this was deemed a good idea for Ontario as it would reduce its cost, while still garnering the economic advantages of having an airport in its back yard.

Subsequently LAWA by the 1990s proceeded with the building of the two new terminals and other airfield improvements.

So fast forward today, and Ontario is up in arms seeing continued decline in traffic and the economic benefits generated.

While LAWA certainly is not perfect, I'm not sure any of these events are anything more then being caught up in bad economic circumstances. Once ONT got a new facility and instead of the mid-late 1990s rosy economic picture continuing the nation and airline industry has experienced traumatic events. Unfortunately today the airport is in a bit of a catch-22 that sees traffic declines only further rise operating cost as it must be spread amongst even fewer enplanements.

At the end of the day, I am not sure City of Ontario can do much better. I know they paint pictures at LAWA for having bloated staffing and inefficiencies, but trading one government entity for another will not eek out huge savings in my view. The airport does not run itself and Ontario will need to fund the several hundred positions itself, plus have unseen City support infrastructure behind the scenes.

That's why in post first reply, I said this was local politics, and for whatever reason the Ontario City Council seems to have taken this issue up with gusto recently.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineont2cgi From United States of America, joined Sep 2010, 123 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (3 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 5245 times:

here are some articles from the Ontario paper about the situation:
Inland Valley Daily Bulletin
a little history on the ownership situation:
Inland Valley Daily Bulletin
I was going to make this first post here but SurfandSnow beat me to it!  


User currently offlineGordomatic From United States of America, joined Mar 2009, 93 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (3 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 5203 times:

Quoting Reply 22):
here are some articles from the Ontario paper about the situation:
Inland Valley Daily Bulletin

Excerpt from the top linked article:
"ONT's operating costs are at $29 per passenger, compared with $16 for Long Beach, $14 for Orange County's John Wayne Airport or $12 for San Diego"

Wow. $29 per passenger?



We have clearance, Clarence. Roger, Roger. What's our vector, Victor?
User currently offlineapodino From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 4257 posts, RR: 6
Reply 24, posted (3 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 4989 times:

About the high landing fees. What they can do is lower landing fees per aircraft to attract new flights. What happens when you do that is with more planes paying landing fees, even though the landing fee per flight goes down, the airport actually collects more in landing fees, and it will help them pay off the terminals quicker.

To bring up PIT again, PIT made exactly the same mistake that ONT made with Landing fees. We all know what PIT has become nowadays.


25 FWAERJ : That makes IND, with their "uncompetitive with other Midwestern airports" $10+/pax operating costs (up 200+% after the new terminal opened), look che
26 LAXintl : Another piece of journalistic excellece. If they they would have properly read the the full report that was prepared by the consultants for City of O
27 WA707atMSP : Some passengers who are flying to / from the PSP area also use ONT, because fares out of ONT are usually at least $100 cheaper than out of PSP. My lat
28 2travel2know2 : The Centralamerican demographics of the Bay Area can't be compared to that one of Los Angeles / Ontario region. TA OAK service was doomed from the st
29 FX1816 : Even though it's sad since ONT is the airport I grew up with they do have gates 209-212 blocked off in Terminal 2 and they shut off everything over t
30 SurfandSnow : This is ONT's saving grace, if I do say so myself. Flights to PSP are not only few and far between but also quite expensive - especially out of seaso
31 FX1816 : I don't know, I was just out there a few months back and compared to how it used to be, it was pretty busy. Couldn't agree more, whenever my wife and
32 BN747 : Oh they want to wrest control of it now do they? Alright, here's the tab. $20 Billion...pay that ONT City Council... and it's yours. BN747
33 laca773 : Saving grace? Give me a break, surfandsnow. If it was anything of the sort you would see a lot more seasonal increases @ ONT during PSPs busy winter
34 mrskyguy : Personally I think that ONT's glass ceiling is the lack of an efficient & quick connection to LAX. Meaning, if a high-speed rail was developed to
35 Post contains links Gordomatic : Actually, the proposed high speed rail system for California has stations at LA Union Station & and Ontario Airport, estimated time to travel abo
36 mrskyguy : But that doesn't do anything for reliability of booking between the airports if it's not A) high-frequency and B) on a closed loop. Having mere stati
37 Gordomatic : I couldn't agree more. But Metrolink (rail authority having jurisdiction - they are already operating routes on both sides) is IMHO more screwed up t
38 mrskyguy : So LAWA builds it. Any way you slice it, connecting ONT to LAX makes the best use of assets vs. eminent domain for land in the LAX area (which is sim
39 AADC10 : LAWA owns ONT but no, agencies cannot send funds from one airport to another for any reason. Airports that have taken FAA subsidies, which includes a
40 junction : Another continuous problem with ONT is the "passenger ignorance" equation. Many, many people traveling to anywhere in Southern California still view
41 mrskyguy : I completely disagree. The rail could be monetized, and either raised or lowered.. and it's something that would exist for decades bleeding pressure
42 ADent : It is 56.6 mi from LAX to ONT. One website has urban monorail at $140 million per mile in 2002. That puts the line at 8.4 Billion - in 2002 dollars. T
43 MDW22L31C : Here is my high speed rail: put back the ONT-LAX 8X UAX E120’s
44 mrskyguy : It would seem to me that while that appears to be a large number (which I would actually estimate to be closer to $13B USD for a project between ONT
45 LAXintl : No need for a train boondogle from the IE to LAX. If anything this would hurt ONT, and it would draw people from the region to LAX. No one on the West
46 ScottB : And the most recent unemployment numbers for the Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario MSA stood at 15.1%, with Bakersfield even higher at 16.0%. PIT was
47 mrskyguy : I don't see it that way.. we're talking about spreading capacity, not the convenience factor of one airport location over another. If there's a 15 mi
48 LAXintl : Not at all. ONT is a community airport and will always be a community airport no different then BUR, LGB, SNA. People only minutes away from LAX are
49 mrskyguy : You're missing the point of my argument. People wouldn't have to if what I'm suggesting via a high-speed rail was in place. Why? The Los Angeles basi
50 ScottB : That "15 minute time difference" doesn't take into account time between trains. It would be economically unfeasible to run trains every 5 minutes or
51 apodino : With the combined NWA-DL operation....how in the heck is T5 operating well below capacity?
52 mrskyguy : And that's true.. it'd take some creative scheduling and a train of appreciable size. Trains would likely run at 35 minute intervals or thereabouts.
53 LAXintl : No I think you are missing the point. People are not going to drive to LAX, park and catch a train to ONT when they have thousands of flights at LAX
54 Post contains images mrskyguy : I would, and a handful of frequent travelers I work with would as well. Why? Because the traffic getting to and from LAX is simply the worst around,
55 LAXintl : So you would drive and park at LAX to catch to train to ONT? You keep saying getting to LAX and parking are the mess, so why would you do it to only
56 Post contains links pgtravel : I realize that I'm jumping into this kind of late, but I have a couple points of clarification. 1) I don't believe I saw it linked here, but you can s
57 ScottB : T-5 handles about half of similarly-sized T-4's traffic (although I will agree that T-4 can be crowded) and about 70% of T-7's traffic. NWA wasn't a
58 2travel2know2 : What ONT needs is an airline to do what CO did with EWR. However, getting from a lot of places in the L.A. area to ONT isn't as easy as getting from
59 Post contains images Aviacsa737 : But its very close to the Inland Empire, which has a large population. I cant believe New York service has ben lost; i didnt think that was possible.
60 fjnovak1 : I agree. I lived in the IE for a year (November 2006-October 2007) and found ONT to be a pleasure to use. I thought it was under-utilized at the time,
61 KingAir200 : It lasted until early January of 2006. ONT was cut at the same time as RNO during bankruptcy.
62 Goldenshield : Part of the problem with the ONT station was that a majority of the workers there were VERY high on the seniority list, which meant that labor was ex
63 SANMAN66 : Yes there was! The DL 767 originated in SAN, did a short 20 minute flight to ONT,and then on to ATL.(I took that flight in 1985.) Eastern Airlines fl
64 FX1816 : That is true that it used to originate out of SAN in the morning but that was back in the day with the 762. Back in 2005 I used to fly DL pretty regu
65 SANMAN66 : The Eastern Airlines flight arrived every morning just before the DL 767 did. Other than SAN,LAX,and SFO, Ontario was the 4th California airport to b
66 Goldenshield : They used the 767-300 more recent flight from 2002-2004. Not a fun flight for cargo since they were so restrictive on how many positions could be tak
67 Post contains images Aviacsa737 : Yeah, im gonna bet that NEVER happens. Making it unlikely
68 LAXintl : The economy is truly the key for ONT. Regardless of what facility cost might be, if people want to get to ONT, airlines will fly there. But due to the
69 FX1816 : This is absolutely absurd, the IE economy will never recover, sure. So do you have the numbers of all the people traveling from the IE and HATING LAX
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...
Lawa To Relinquish Control Of PMD posted Wed Nov 12 2008 13:46:14 by LAXintl
SAA Wants To Retrench 225 Of Its 783 Pilots posted Sun Nov 4 2007 03:40:46 by Umfolozi
Senegal Will Take Control Of Air Senegal From At posted Wed Oct 31 2007 08:28:46 by MaverickM11
FR Wants To Take MLA-BLQ Over From IG posted Thu Sep 6 2007 21:25:37 by BBADXB
AI To Take Delivery Of 777's In Late June posted Thu May 17 2007 15:00:28 by Cricket
Vienna Airport Wants To Take Over Antalya.. posted Wed Apr 4 2007 20:47:41 by Beaucaire
State Seeks To Take Ownership Of BDR posted Tue Feb 20 2007 04:18:33 by Spinkid
NWA Wants To Eliminate Half Of Their Mechanics! posted Tue May 24 2005 16:36:25 by StevenUhl777
Continental To Take Delivery Of Additional Boeing posted Thu Mar 31 2005 17:52:35 by STT757