747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3301 posts, RR: 2 Posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 6457 times:
Back in 2000, there was plan to en large LAX. Parts of Inglewood was supposed to be bought, guess to stretch runway 24, and plans to build larger terminals at LAX. LAX is the nations third busiest airport, ( yes they one up, the giant DFW) so I would think LAWA would want to en large LAX, so what happened to those plans?
QANTAS747-438 From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 1800 posts, RR: 2 Reply 1, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 6451 times:
LAWA would love to enlarge LAX. But there's nowhere to go. It's surrounded by neighborhoods and the ocean. People threw a fit when they suggested getting rid of houses and the plan never materialized.
My posts/replies are strictly my opinion and not that of any company, organization, or Southwest Airlines.
kaitak744 From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 2208 posts, RR: 3 Reply 2, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 6421 times:
Right now, TBIT is being expanded / rebuilt and the north runway complex is likely to be expanded and shifted north. But, there are no plans to purchase additional land.
LAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 22021 posts, RR: 51 Reply 3, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 6408 times:
In 2006, the City of Los Angeles settled all the lawsuits against it with a court approved "LAX Master Plan Stipulated Settlement" agreement.
Basically the agreement provides the framework for any current and future LAX related modernization projects including passenger and gate count restrictions to limit future traffic growth and their negative impacts on surrounding cities.
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
SonomaFlyer From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1171 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 6300 times:
Given LAX's footprint is unlikely to ever change, the airport will have to deal with slot restrictions, noise restrictions and efficiency gains. I'd hope the international passengers will be pleased by the TBIT work and it will improve LAX's ability to handle multiple 380's.
The flip side is ONT is there offering additional capacity if you look at it from a regional point of view. That airport is also operated by LAWA and could be part of a master plan for expansion. It has two runways (12,107ft/3,718m and 10,200ft/3,109m) and ample room for traffic growth. The down side is its 50 miles from LAX.
I think those folks are sharp enough to figure out the balance to keep things moving.
TCASAlert From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 5, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 6266 times:
Could they not expand to the west to that abandoned neighbourhood? It has been sitting empty for decades, and would surely give room to expand the runways and possible apron space?
SonomaFlyer From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1171 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 6172 times:
Immediately to the West is a street (Pershing Dr.) followed by a short stretch of scrub, Vista Del Mar Road then the beach. To the Southwest is a chemical plant type parcel and El Segundo just to the south. Playa del Rey is just to the north.
B-787 From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 272 posts, RR: 1 Reply 7, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 6040 times:
Well, the bluff to the West is also a preserve for the El Segundo butterfly.
flyingcaT From United States of America, joined May 2007, 510 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 5890 times:
There is some land north of the airport that is owned by LAWA and was purchased to accommodate another runway.
It is beyond the fence but is south of Manchester parkway. Thy should use this instead of wrecking terminals 1-3.
There is also plenty of room west of TBIT if they start to bulldoze hangars, which is what Riordan advocated as it would also create a west gate connected to the end of the 105 freeway.
Byrdluvs747 From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 2140 posts, RR: 1 Reply 9, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 5763 times:
As there is no law preventing the airport authority from purchasing properties, LAX (and other airports) should take a long term approach and just buy homes/properties as they come up for sale. While waiting for more homes to become available, they can lease the homes that are currently owned.
The 747: The hands who designed it were guided by god.
Braniff747SP From United States of America, joined Oct 2008, 2602 posts, RR: 1 Reply 10, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 5630 times:
Quoting flyingcaT (Reply 8): room west of TBIT if they start to bulldoze hangars,
That's what they are doing now. AA is going to be (already?) bulldozed, along with some other buildings.
The 747 will always be the TRUE queen of the skies!
LAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 22021 posts, RR: 51 Reply 11, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 5613 times:
Quoting TCASAlert (Reply 5): Could they not expand to the west to that abandoned neighbourhood? It has been sitting empty for decades, and would surely give room to expand the runways and possible apron space?
Its a protected habitat for Federally designated endangered species.
Quoting flyingcaT (Reply 8): There is some land north of the airport that is owned by LAWA and was purchased to accommodate another runway.
Another runway?
There are some concepts of relocating the current north runway complex slightly Northward due to ground movement safety issues, however it would be all insider the current fence line, and that is already openly opposed by the Mayor, City Council and community. A decision is due following NASA study due in early 2012.
Quoting flyingcaT (Reply 8): There is also plenty of room west of TBIT if they start to bulldoze hangars, which is what Riordan advocated as it would also create a west gate connected to the end of the 105 freeway.
Some of the hangars will get demolished as part of the Bradley-West project, however any notion of a terminal at the far Westend of the airport off Pershing ended with the 2006 court ordered agreement.
Quoting Byrdluvs747 (Reply 9):
As there is no law preventing the airport authority from purchasing properties, LAX (and other airports) should take a long term approach and just buy homes/properties as they come up for sale. While waiting for more homes to become available, they can lease the homes that are currently owned.
Actually LAWA is required to buy up a few hundred designated airport adjacent properties due to noise issues, however there will never be any airport expansion beyond the current fence line. These purchased homes are being demolished and replaced with open green space.
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
jfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 7340 posts, RR: 7 Reply 12, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 5468 times:
AS part of a TBIT construction LAWA should tear down terminal 3, TWA. That terminal, in its new building, should be the international terminal for OneWorld airlines at LAX. Why that old asbestos filled building hasn't been torn down is only a thing a political official in LA government would know. Put it out of its mystery and place a new terminal there.
aklrno From United States of America, joined Dec 2010, 682 posts, RR: 0 Reply 13, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 5413 times:
Quoting LAXintl (Reply 3):
In 2006, the City of Los Angeles settled all the lawsuits against it with a court approved "LAX Master Plan Stipulated Settlement" agreement.
Basically the agreement provides the framework for any current and future LAX related modernization projects including passenger and gate count restrictions to limit future traffic growth and their negative impacts on surrounding cities.
Does this agreement prohibit LAX from building the remote check-in/unified car rental/transit terminal that was proposed for the Westchester area where all the parking lots are now? That plan also called for removing some of the central garages and building a large central terminal and train station for the trains connecting to that remote area. For me the single biggest improvement to arriving in LA would be to get rid of the hundreds (thousands?) of buses orbiting the roads for people going to hotels, parking, and car rental agencies. THat would also eliminate the crowded sidewalks that make it so hard to walk from one terminal to another.
A few weeks ago there was a thread in which people were moaning about how hard it was to get around at LAX. I think the distances are reasonable; its the crowds that make walking difficult.
After to walking to gate 31 at LHR a couple of weeks ago I think going from TBIT to terminal 8 is nothing.
ghifty From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 751 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 5413 times:
Would an off-the-mainland solution ever be considered? Like Hong Kong Intl.?
Quoting 747400sp (Thread starter): LAX is the nations third busiest airport, ( yes they one up, the giant DFW) so I would think LAWA would want to en large LAX, so what happened to those plans?
LAX is pretty impressive in that it's footprint is much smaller than DFW's, yet still has that ranking! DFW is nearly 6 times larger, in terms of acreage (18,000 v. 3,500).
Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 4): The flip side is ONT is there offering additional capacity if you look at it from a regional point of view. That airport is also operated by LAWA and could be part of a master plan for expansion. It has two runways (12,107ft/3,718m and 10,200ft/3,109m) and ample room for traffic growth. The down side is its 50 miles from LAX.
Wouldn't it be a plausible solution to build an HSR-system connecting LAX-ONT? 47 miles away.. 20 minute train ride @ Shinkansen speeds (low end).
SonomaFlyer From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1171 posts, RR: 0 Reply 15, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 5357 times:
Quoting ghifty (Reply 14): Wouldn't it be a plausible solution to build an HSR-system connecting LAX-ONT? 47 miles away.. 20 minute train ride @ Shinkansen speeds (low end).
It makes logical sense but getting right-of-way between LAX and ONT would be a eminent domain nightmare. Someone could research the existing rail right-of-ways in the region to see if it could be stitched together but this would be a massive PITA to attempt in the LA Basin.
More likely would be dedicated bus service between the two places with a 90 minute connect time.
LAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 22021 posts, RR: 51 Reply 16, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 5345 times:
Quoting jfk777 (Reply 12): AS part of a TBIT construction LAWA should tear down terminal 3, TWA. That terminal, in its new building, should be the international terminal for OneWorld airlines at LAX. Why that old asbestos filled building hasn't been torn down is only a thing a political official in LA government would know. Put it out of its mystery and place a new terminal there.
If someone wants to build a new terminal there, I don't believe LAWA would object.
Quoting aklrno (Reply 13): Does this agreement prohibit LAX from building the remote check-in/unified car rental/transit terminal that was proposed for the Westchester area where all the parking lots are now? That plan also called for removing some of the central garages and building a large central terminal and train station for the trains connecting to that remote area. For me the single biggest improvement to arriving in LA would be to get rid of the hundreds (thousands?) of buses orbiting the roads for people going to hotels, parking, and car rental agencies.
Idea for a grand off airport check-in facility to be built in Manchester Square is way dead. Community did not want it, airlines did not want it, and the replacement Mayor and City Council did not want it. Frankly it was a very costly post 9/11 knejerk reaction over airport security. And per the 2006 agreement is not one of the approved green light, nor even potential yellow light projects.
For consolidated rental facility, yes there likely eventually be a consolidated facility as there is already plenty of parking lots to work from. However they have not been able to pencil out the cost numbers and funding with all the rental companies that make it work. Essentially need something that could house up to 33,000 cars with cost estimate of about $800mil.
A transit center - technically there is one already. All the buses park at a facility adjacent to Lot-C.
But one day if the MTA rail Crenshaw Line ever makes it near to the airport (2017 or later), there might be a more formal transit facility.
Quoting ghifty (Reply 14): Would an off-the-mainland solution ever be considered? Like Hong Kong Intl.?
I doubt it. Besides cost, there are tons of environmental concerns you'd need to get through the CA Coastal Commission.
Whats going to happen to the dolphins and seals??
Quoting ghifty (Reply 14): LAX is pretty impressive in that it's footprint is much smaller than DFW's, yet still has that ranking! DFW is nearly 6 times larger, in terms of acreage (18,000 v. 3,500).
Yes LAX is an extremely efficient airport operationally. It regularly ranks in the top group of on-time performance nationally.
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
kaitak744 From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 2208 posts, RR: 3 Reply 17, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 5258 times:
Quoting LAXintl (Reply 16): I doubt it. Besides cost, there are tons of environmental concerns you'd need to get through the CA Coastal Commission.
Whats going to happen to the dolphins and seals??
That is not why you cannot have an off-the-mainland solution. LA has no bay, and no shielding from the ocean. You cannot simply build a man-made island in an ocean. The currents and waves would just tear it apart.
commavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 10188 posts, RR: 63 Reply 18, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 5225 times:
Quoting ghifty (Reply 14): Would an off-the-mainland solution ever be considered? Like Hong Kong Intl.?
Doubtful. Not only would be held up in environmental litigation for probably decades, but the cost would just be astronomical.
Quoting ghifty (Reply 14): Wouldn't it be a plausible solution to build an HSR-system connecting LAX-ONT?
No. High speed rail is not economically viable in virtually any contexts, especially in the U.S. It is astoundingly expensive and takes years to get past the environmental and NIMBY, land acquisition, and noise challenges. Just look at the disastrous "train wreck" that is California's current HSR adventure.
They would be better off just investing in the highways between Ontario and Los Angeles, or of course just making what ever changes were possible and necessary to make Ontario a viable, standalone airport on a sustainable growth path in its own right.
Sevensixtyseven From United States of America, joined May 2011, 135 posts, RR: 0 Reply 19, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 5108 times:
I am not too familiar with the LA area, but why not create a two extra lane, one per way, segment for buses only on the freeways for a connecting service that's barricaded off to normal traffic?
Or better yet, a light rail system on said extra lanes (Off in 2020-ish)? I know enough that it would be very expensive, but one could...say...check in for any airline out of LAX or ONT, clear security/customs, then catch a light rail/tram to the other terminal?
Or maybe an option is to expand ONT, and then have airlines fly a LAX-ONT shuttle service? For those who say it's "too short" of a segment, let me point you to US Airways' 15 some daily flights on PHL-LGA, only 95 miles, or PHL-ABE, a total of 55 miles, only 8 more miles than LAX-ONT, which is 47 miles.
klkla From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 803 posts, RR: 0 Reply 20, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 5082 times:
Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 15): It makes logical sense but getting right-of-way between LAX and ONT would be a eminent domain nightmare.
Unless they just build it above the 10 Freeway which connects both airports.
But alas,
Quoting commavia (Reply 18): High speed rail is not economically viable in virtually any contexts, especially in the U.S.
LAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 22021 posts, RR: 51 Reply 21, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 4805 times:
Quoting commavia (Reply 18): Just look at the disastrous "train wreck" that is California's current HSR adventure.
Speaking of which, you hear the latest out this week??
Drum roll please.............
The cost estimate for the project just more than doubled. A paltry $98BILLION, and the completion date slipped 13-years till 2033.
Boy were voters scammed -- in 2008 voting to approve the project which was originally to cost $33Bil and complete by 2020.
Quoting Sevensixtyseven (Reply 19): I am not too familiar with the LA area, but why not create a two extra lane, one per way, segment for buses only on the freeways for a connecting service that's barricaded off to normal traffic?
We such HOV lanes on many freeways already, and as I tend to recall most if not all the way to ONT.
Its till going to be a good 1+ hour in a bus.
Sevensixtyseven From United States of America, joined May 2011, 135 posts, RR: 0 Reply 22, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 4756 times:
WA707atMSP From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 2037 posts, RR: 13 Reply 23, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 4269 times:
Quoting LAXintl (Reply 16): Quoting ghifty (Reply 14):
Would an off-the-mainland solution ever be considered? Like Hong Kong Intl.?
I doubt it. Besides cost, there are tons of environmental concerns you'd need to get through the CA Coastal Commission.
Whats going to happen to the dolphins and seals??
In the early 1970s, an offshore airport was proposed for the south bay. This airport would have been located 3 or 4 miles south of Long Beach. It would have kept the noise of SST takeoffs away from populated areas. This airport, and a planned major expansion of PMD, would have replaced LGB, LAX, and BUR. When the airport was proposed, the area around SNA was still largely farms and ranches, but it would have served the needs of Orange County, too.
Concerns about how the airport would function in fog / marine layer weather, and its very high cost, meant the airport never advanced past the proposal stage before the demise of the US SST program eliminated a major justification for its construction.
boilerla From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 261 posts, RR: 0 Reply 24, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 2504 times:
I dunno if LAX needs enlarging. Not sure which terminals are at capacity, and which have room to spare. Especially with all the construction at T6 and Bradley. Either way, the way things are done in CA, I doubt LAX will ever grow beyond its current size, at least in terms of gates.
What LAX does need is a makeover. The food options in several terminals are downright dismal, and a couple of the terminals look like they're rocking straight out of the 1960s. Compared to SFO or the new JFK terminal, I always feel like I'm in a regional airport, not one of the busiest airports in the nation.
But I imagine LAWA is waiting for the airlines to pony up the money, and none have been forthcoming. It's a shame that UA is investing another $550 million in redoing IAH which looks fairly new anyway, but they're content to let their T7 look like…well like it did 30 years ago.
One business colleague from Japan put it, "Airport here has very bad food. And very bad traffic. But, no delays."
25 DCA-ROCguy: Despite being cramped, LAX works amazingly well. I never have problems there. Easy check-in, short walks to the gate, bags come quickly. When I've be
26 bjorn14: When is LAX supposed to be at capacity?
27 LAXintl: In fairness, companies bid on franchise rights, so it pretty typical you will get folks like national chains as McDonald's end up on top. Suppose in
28 WA707atMSP: This was not always the case. In the 1960s and 1970s, LAX ATC was much more congested than it is now, in part because LAX had far more commuter / sho
29 beardown91737: Pushing traffic to a nearby airport and providing a bus or rail ground link would need expensive infrastructure which California can't afford. It woul
30 BlueJuice: Here is a link from earlier in the year on plans for new concessions. As someone who flies in and out of T4 this can't come soon enough. I have been
31 Byrdluvs747: Please explain why OW airlines should be moved over to the T3 area and out of TBIT. OW will have the largest lounge in TBIT as well as improved conne
32 kgaiflyer: Huh? What endangered species? Other than termites, black flies, and those weird yellow cockroaches, what's out there?
33 LAXintl: The dunes directly West of the airport are home to the El Segundo Blue Butterfly http://www.butterflyrecovery.org/species_profiles/el_segundo_blue/ Ad
34 kgaiflyer: Okay, I get it. I remember being on the Delaware Bay car ferry once when a pride of porpoises surrounded the boat -- no doubt hoping for tasty handou
35 Newark727: At one point when the Observation Deck was having some sort of event I got an El Segundo Blue Butterfly luggage tag...
36 LAXintl: The LAX Control tower has a lit up blue butterfly on it. LAX Control Tower (by Sfomb67 Oct 4 2009 in Civil Aviation)
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3301 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
Another runway? 
Printer friendly format 
