Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Latest Update On LAX Plans  
User currently offlineaklrno From United States of America, joined Dec 2010, 950 posts, RR: 0
Posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 11828 times:

Yesterday LA World Airports released the draft of the final plan for LAX improvements. The schedule is to have the final plan approved in about 6 months.

Key features: Runway 24L lengthened
24R relocated 260 feet north
Taxiway between 24L and 24R
Terminal 3 reconfigured (replaced?)
New TBIT terminal extended to the north, (the unbuilt TBIT west also extended north)
Terminal 1 shortened
New Terminal 0
New consolidated rental car building with people mover. No more buses!
Several streets realigned to allow for runway changes. Pray for In-n-Out!

Of course this is California. Let the lawsuits begin!

64 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25741 posts, RR: 50
Reply 1, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 11779 times:

What happened was the airport staff presented their recommendations from the SPAS (Specific Plan Amendment Study)

It now goes to the politicians.

Quoting aklrno (Thread starter):
Key features: Runway 24L lengthened
24R relocated 260 feet north
Taxiway between 24L and 24R

This is all to comply with FAA recommended spacing for Group 5 aircraft on the north airfield and provide adequate spacing similar to southside.

Quoting aklrno (Thread starter):
Terminal 3 reconfigured (replaced?)

Potentially. Adding it in the EIR just gives LAWA flexibility.

Quoting aklrno (Thread starter):
New TBIT terminal extended to the north, (the unbuilt TBIT west also extended north)

The dog leg being built on the new TBIT concourse would be straightend.

Quoting aklrno (Thread starter):
Terminal 1 shortened

The end gates shaved off to allow for taxiway spacing

Quoting aklrno (Thread starter):
New Terminal 0

Again it simply give LAWA flexibility. T-0 would really be part of T1 with a L shaped concourse attached to help make up for lost gates.

Quoting aklrno (Thread starter):
New consolidated rental car building with people mover. No more buses!

There still will be buses. The consolidated lot wont house every company.

Also a trains to connect the central terminal area would be up to MTA to build and fund. With loss of measure J in recent elections, who knows if/when that money would be available.

Quoting aklrno (Thread starter):
Several streets realigned to allow for runway changes. Pray for In-n-Out!

Yes the land In-n-Out sits on was always under threat, and with current plans it will become part of the redesigned Westchester Parkway road.

Quoting aklrno (Thread starter):
Of course this is California. Let the lawsuits begin!

Not just lawsuits, this will likely be a topic in upcoming municipal elections. Several council members and mayoral candidates oppose these for the impacts on adjacent communities.

Frankly I think much of it is simply wishful thinking that might be 10-20 years away at best.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineLDVAviation From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 1095 posts, RR: 5
Reply 2, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 11501 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 1):
Also a trains to connect the central terminal area would be up to MTA to build and fund. With loss of measure J in recent elections, who knows if/when that money would be available.

The money is there (from the first Measure J) to build the LAX station on the Crenshaw Light Rail Line.

Metro has been pushing LAWA to amend the MasterPlan to allow for construction of such a station and also a connector/station to the Green Line.


User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25741 posts, RR: 50
Reply 3, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 11458 times:

Quoting LDVAviation (Reply 2):
The money is there (from the first Measure J) to build the LAX station on the Crenshaw Light Rail Line.

Yes that's the station -- to be located at the intermodal and consolidated rental facility outside the airport. Measure R paid for that.

Question is how to get the line into the airport. That is the $$$ issue.

With measure J dead, future funding for all of MTA's shinny ideas is very questionable.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlinePITrules From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 3211 posts, RR: 6
Reply 4, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 11356 times:

Quoting aklrno (Thread starter):
Key features: Runway 24L lengthened
24R relocated 260 feet north
Taxiway between 24L and 24R

Outstanding news, especially from a capacity and safety standpoint. So much for the notion there is not land available to the north for such a large move.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 1):

This is all to comply with FAA recommended spacing for Group 5 aircraft on the north airfield and provide adequate spacing similar to southside.

Are you sure this is not to accommodate Group 6 aircraft (A380/748)? The south side relocation was 50', this move of 260' on the north side should allow for unrestricted movement.



FLYi
User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25741 posts, RR: 50
Reply 5, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 11277 times:

Quoting PITrules (Reply 4):
So much for the notion there is not land available to the north for such a large move.

Well there isn't. You are pushing the airport boundary and roadways north into the local community.

Wait for the fire works.

Quoting PITrules (Reply 4):
Are you sure this is not to accommodate Group 6 aircraft (A380/748)? The south side relocation was 50', this move of 260' on the north side should allow for unrestricted movement.

Its for unfettered Cat-5 ops which are projected to represent about 10% of all airfield operations.

Cat-6 will continue to have some restrictions (as they do on the rebuilt southside)

The move of 260ft north includes building a parallel centerfield taxiway in between the two runways.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21544 posts, RR: 59
Reply 6, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 11237 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 1):
This is all to comply with FAA recommended spacing for Group 5 aircraft on the north airfield and provide adequate spacing similar to southside.

Unnecessary expense. Unless LAX sees over 40% Group 5 and higher movements, it's just ridiculous to go through the expense for this, not to mention the years of congestion getting to and from LAX to implement this at the ground level.

LAX has the luxury of 4 parallel runways and a near consistent wind direction year round (with an occasional 180 degree shift). Many airports around the world the size of LAX operate with fewer runways at all times. It's a matter of want, not need, to have all 4 runways capable of optimized operation of the largest aircraft.

Most LAX traffic is narrowbody. It works fine now. And that won't change. WN will still fly tons of 737s. US and UA and AA and DL will still fly tons of 737/A320/MD. Central American carriers will still fly narrowbodies. Hawaii flights are going more and more narrowbody. AS isn't going to buy Group 5 aircraft any time soon.

Quoting PITrules (Reply 4):
Outstanding news, especially from a capacity and safety standpoint. So much for the notion there is not land available to the north for such a large move.

There is always "room" unless there is water. It's a matter of who has to be moved to use that "room."

This is a stupid plan.

It won't increase capacity, because that is not allowed, and any agreement by the NIMBYs to this kind of plan would likely involved decreasing capacity further. It won't increase gate numbers (not allowed either, and wouldn't be under this plan). It's a huge expense and a decade long inconvenience to accommodate a handful of A380s and 77Xs (which don't even exist) and the occasional 748s on 4 runways rather than the south 2.

It also won't increase safety. Incursions will still happen because they happen now due to PILOT ERROR. More spacing will not prevent pilot error. Pilots who don't listen will still fail to listen.

Spend the money on restructuring the parking, auto loops, etc., not on moving runways and businesses.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlinePITrules From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 3211 posts, RR: 6
Reply 7, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 11031 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 5):

Well there isn't. You are pushing the airport boundary and roadways north into the local community.

Not true, the area known as "LAXnorthside" is owned by LAWA. There may be some need to realign roadways, but again this is on LAWA property.

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 6):

LAX has the luxury of 4 parallel runways and a near consistent wind direction year round (with an occasional 180 degree shift). Many airports around the world the size of LAX operate with fewer runways at all times. It's a matter of want, not need, to have all 4 runways capable of optimized operation of the largest aircraft.

Remember about 10-12 years ago, LAX was handling almost 800,000 operations per year (almost at capacity). Who's to say what direction the industry will make in the decades ahead? It is entirely conceivable LAX can and will reach those levels again in the future.

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 6):

There is always "room" unless there is water.

Even when there is water. Plenty of examples around the world, but that's another topic.

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 6):
It's a matter of who has to be moved to use that "room."

Again, no one needs to move for this. That's not to say LAWA won't offer to acquire and sound proof more homes. But that's part of an airport authorities neighborhood responsibility.

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 6):

It also won't increase safety. Incursions will still happen because they happen now due to PILOT ERROR. More spacing will not prevent pilot error. Pilots who don't listen will still fail to listen.

Simply not true. Putting a parallel taxiway between the runways brings the airport up to expected global standards. Pilot's can listen perfectly fine but that does not make 6R/24L the parallel taxiway that would otherwise be encountered when vacating the outer runway at almost any other airport in the world. Pilot's are human beings.. we make human mistakes. The common goal is to eliminate the threats that lead to human error.

It was done on the south side for good reason.



FLYi
User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25741 posts, RR: 50
Reply 8, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 10885 times:

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 6):
Unnecessary expense.

  

Quoting PITrules (Reply 7):
Not true, the area known as "LAXnorthside" is owned by LAWA. There may be some need to realign roadways, but again this is on LAWA property.

Public roadways such as Westchester Pkwy, Lincoln and Sepulveda are being realigned.

The buffer to the community including homes, school and church on the northside is being decreased.

The runway moves 260 feet to the north and so it unfortunately gets even more cozy with the neighborhood.

There will certainly be community impact, and outcry.

And two city council members are out with their opposition already.

Bonin said while he supports a plan that modernizes LAX, that plan should not include expanding the airport, nor should those plans impact neighbors.

“An irrefutable study has shown the north airfield to be safe, and the Draft Environmental Impact Report says that not moving the runways is the ‘environmentally superior’ alternative,” Bonin said, noting that LAWA’s plan for the runway that would include reconfiguring the north airfield is not justified and would “create more pollution, produce more noise and not do a thing to improve throughput or operational efficiency at LAX.”


and

The issue on the north side is multifold," said Rosendahl. "One is the noise. Second is the pollution. The third is how it impacts homes and businesses themselves." "Airport officials should curb expansion plans and instead pursue a process of regionalization, or spreading air traffic to other underutilized airports, such as LA/Ontario International Airport, which is run by the same authority as LAX."


Fun times - lets see what if anything gets approved by the politicians, and see what survives subsequent court challenges.

Quoting PITrules (Reply 7):
Remember about 10-12 years ago, LAX was handling almost 800,000 operations per year (almost at capacity). Who's to say what direction the industry will make in the decades ahead? It is entirely conceivable LAX can and will reach those levels again in the future.

I think this is unlikely.

Due things like court cap on the number of gates (153), and continue promise to raise operating cost to encourage flights away from LAX, the shift is to make better use of capacity with larger frames.

Unless US industry does a big 180 and RJs become the new rage regardless of cost, I think the shift to larger capacity is here to stay especially with the restrictions being placed on ops at LAX.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineQANTAS747-438 From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 1971 posts, RR: 2
Reply 9, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 10801 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 1):
Quoting aklrno (Thread starter):
Terminal 1 shortened

The end gates shaved off to allow for taxiway spacing

Huh? They're going to get rid of gates 12, 14, 13, and 11???

And where would the "L-shaped" Terminal 0 go? Into Park One?

[Edited 2012-12-04 21:01:54]


My posts/replies are strictly my opinion and not that of any company, organization, or Southwest Airlines.
User currently offlinetimpdx From United States of America, joined Jul 2009, 572 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 10754 times:

I am fine with the realignment. Westchester pkwy is hardly used at all. The is in n out and a hideous squat office building (of course with a banner opposing the runway move). LAX is a huge huge jobs generator, moving a wings length north is not going to make a difference AT ALL in pollution or noise....and this as aircraft across the board are getting cleaner and quieter every day. The opposition to this is nuts and so small minded. (In case you wonder about me...lifelong Democrat and Urban Planning major) just wish people would wake up and see the mother of all assets (along with our huge port) that are sitting right here in our lap that other cities would kill to have the jobs and tax revenues of an LAX.

[Edited 2012-12-04 21:16:06]

User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25741 posts, RR: 50
Reply 11, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 10616 times:

A photo might help..



=



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlinekaitak744 From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 2392 posts, RR: 3
Reply 12, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 10507 times:

Is there a link to this presentation?

How is terminal 0 going to be built if there is the stupid gate cap limit? It is adding gates is it not?

And why on earth is T3 being rebuilt?
Yes, it is old, but Virgin America just remodeled it. They are an LCC, and it does the job. It does not need to be luxurious. That in my opinion is a waste of money.


User currently offlineaklrno From United States of America, joined Dec 2010, 950 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 10429 times:

Quoting kaitak744 (Reply 12):
How is terminal 0 going to be built if there is the stupid gate cap limit? It is adding gates is it not?

Maybe it just to replace gates eliminated in other modifications, like chopping off the end of T1?

Quoting kaitak744 (Reply 12):
And why on earth is T3 being rebuilt?
Yes, it is old, but Virgin America just remodeled it. They are an LCC, and it does the job. It does not need to be luxurious. That in my opinion is a waste of money.

I think the VIrgin changes were just cosmetic. The underlying building is already about 50 years old, and will be about 60 years old by the time of the proposed replacement. It has changed the least of all the LAX terminals since they were built in the early 60's. There may be issues with the age of the building we don't know about. In particular, I'd be surprised if it meets current seismic standards. Newer buildings are also cheaper to operate.


User currently offlineBeardown91737 From United States of America, joined Jun 2011, 558 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 10370 times:

Quoting PITrules (Reply 7):
Even when there is water. Plenty of examples around the world, but that's another topic

the water is over 1000 ft away, but the bigger problem is building a pier, or fill, to meet the 125 ft elevation of the field



135 hrs PIC (mostly PA-28) - not current. Landings at MDW, PIA, JAN.
User currently offlinecschleic From United States of America, joined Feb 2002, 1261 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 9002 times:

Quoting aklrno (Reply 13):
Quoting kaitak744 (Reply 12):
And why on earth is T3 being rebuilt?
Yes, it is old, but Virgin America just remodeled it. They are an LCC, and it does the job. It does not need to be luxurious. That in my opinion is a waste of money.

At some point it has to be updated or replaced. Can't just keep saying "don't spend any money, can't spend any money, it's a waste of money..." What happens when it gets to be 75 years old, 100 years old? Eventually it would fall down. That's how we end up with unsafe or crumbling infrastructure. Short term thinking leads to long term problem. And it only costs more in the future. What if they hadn't spent the money to build them in the first place?


User currently offlinevikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 10099 posts, RR: 26
Reply 16, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 8683 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 1):
This is all to comply with FAA recommended spacing for Group 5 aircraft on the north airfield and provide adequate spacing similar to southside.
Quoting LAXintl (Reply 5):
Its for unfettered Cat-5 ops which are projected to represent about 10% of all airfield operations.

Cat-6 will continue to have some restrictions (as they do on the rebuilt southside)

The move of 260ft north includes building a parallel centerfield taxiway in between the two runways.

Moving 24R by 260 feet actually creates greater spacing than exists on the south side. 25R and L are now 800 feet apart. 24R and L would be about 1000 feet apart after this move.

If they just wanted to make the spacing equal the south side, they'd only need to move 24R by 100 feet, if memory serves.

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 6):
It's a huge expense and a decade long inconvenience to accommodate a handful of A380s and 77Xs (which don't even exist) and the occasional 748s on 4 runways rather than the south 2.

And A380s already use the north side.

Quoting Beardown91737 (Reply 14):
the water is over 1000 ft away, but the bigger problem is building a pier, or fill, to meet the 125 ft elevation of the field

They weren't talking about LAX, just generally. And the water at LAX is over a half mile away.

Of course, my greatest worry is what will happen to the In'n'Out park spotting area. 



"Two and a Half Men" was filmed in front of a live ostrich.
User currently offlinecschleic From United States of America, joined Feb 2002, 1261 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 8658 times:

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 16):
Of course, my greatest worry is what will happen to the In'n'Out park spotting area.

Absolutely. We have to keep our priorities straight here, after all! That little park is a great area.


User currently offlineHighflier92660 From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 687 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 8102 times:

Isn't separation of the north runways the same plan that sent all the Westchester residents running to LAWA with lanterns and pitchforks?

An observation: a lengthened 24L would eliminate taxi time and congestion at 25R for a portion of airlines with the heaviest gross weight wide-body departures.

To posters in-the-loop like LAXintl: Any date when actual runway construction would start?


User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25741 posts, RR: 50
Reply 19, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 7977 times:

Quoting kaitak744 (Reply 12):
How is terminal 0 going to be built if there is the stupid gate cap limit? It is adding gates is it not?

The airport plans no net gate count increases beyond the 153 count.

As an example when new TBIT finally comes into operation, LAWA has plan to decommission existing gates including demolishing 4 of the remote structures.

Its pretty well accepted that "modernization" is OK, but "expansion" is a no-no for both the community, and restricted per court decree anyhow.

So a terminal-0 option will not provide much more then simply replace the lost gates in T-1 and possibly add only 1 or 2 at most to the mix.

Quoting Highflier92660 (Reply 18):
Isn't separation of the north runways the same plan that sent all the Westchester residents running to LAWA with lanterns and pitchforks?

Yes its a rehash of the idea kicked around for the last almost 10-years, albeit a formal recommendation now.

Quoting Highflier92660 (Reply 18):
To posters in-the-loop like LAXintl: Any date when actual runway construction would start?

I would guess assuming no litigation and the project is approved fast by late 2014 maybe.

The airport is giving its board till mid-2013 to review and adopt the staff recommendation. Other parties will certainly weigh in such as the city council and new mayor (we have municipal elections in March).

It can take a long time to draw up plans and put the work out for bid even under the best of circumstances.
However this likely to be quite contentious so it could be drawn out affair.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlinetp1040 From United States of America, joined Apr 2011, 212 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 7754 times:

They need to extend 7L and 7R to 18,000 feet so they can make alternating downwind landings with the ocean approach. While making 24L and 24R alternating departures over the ocean. Everybody in the basin would be happy.


I keed, I keed.


User currently offlinevictrola From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 518 posts, RR: 1
Reply 21, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 7748 times:

To hell with the people in Westchester who oppose this. LAX has been a major international airport since about 1960. How long have these people lived in their houses? There is simply no place close to L.A. that can absorb additional growth. The limit on gates is outrageous. I'm sick of flying into LAX and having to wait in a plane because there are no unavailable gates. LAX is a huge jobs generator and of vital importance to the economy of Los Angeles. We need to put the interests of the city as a whole over the selfish intersts of a few homeowners in Westchester.

User currently offlineBraniff747SP From United States of America, joined Oct 2008, 2997 posts, RR: 1
Reply 22, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 7626 times:

Everything sounds great, with the exception of the In N Out relocation bit. I'm sure it would be build somewhere else.

Quoting victrola (Reply 21):
To hell with the people in Westchester who oppose this. LAX has been a major international airport since about 1960. How long have these people lived in their houses? There is simply no place close to L.A. that can absorb additional growth. The limit on gates is outrageous. I'm sick of flying into LAX and having to wait in a plane because there are no unavailable gates. LAX is a huge jobs generator and of vital importance to the economy of Los Angeles. We need to put the interests of the city as a whole over the selfish intersts of a few homeowners in Westchester.

I fully agree; however, the local politicos are elected thanks to them and they won't budge.



The 747 will always be the TRUE queen of the skies!
User currently offlinen515cr From United States of America, joined Oct 2007, 406 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 7461 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 11):

That for posting the picture. Questions below based purely on it:
1) How about the possibility of moving the proposed new 6L/24R west towards Pershing to avoid tearing up Lincoln? Is that even feasible or would clearing the dune be an issue?

2) I'm guessing that T-0 would force Park N Fly out?


User currently offlinecosyr From United States of America, joined Jul 2012, 401 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 7408 times:

Quoting aklrno (Thread starter):

Speaking of In-n-out, we are flying through LAX with a long wait. Is it possible to walk there or do you have to take a taxi? I was think via Skyway... We have a ton of time, enough that I considered Disneyland. I Don't want to miss In n out if it may go away there.


25 flashmeister : I've walked there on a long layover, but it's a major pain in the butt. Just take a cab.
26 LDVAviation : It failed to pass by a little more than half a percentage point. There is an effort now to have the legislature change the law so that a simple major
27 cschleic : Didn't LAWA purchase that land recently specifically for potential future expansion?
28 PSA727LAX : With all that LAX means to & brings to the table in/for LA those politicos & eco cowards who cry "pollution, noise, congestion/traffic: Whah!
29 LAXintl : LA basin has lots of airport capacity. BUR, ONT and even SNA and LGB operate under capacity. Further afield SAN and SBA are there also. There is plen
30 airbazar : I see a few issues with this: 1) If you're going to bother building an entire new runway, do it right and give it as much spacing as possible. The co
31 kaitak744 : Upon adding it all up: T1 15 T2 10 T3 12 T4 13 T5 13 T6 13 T7 11 T8 9 TBIT (new) 18 Eagle remote gates 10 Remote Gates 9 Total: 133 gates That is 20
32 ADent : Isn't there a parking lot with free shuttle service near the In-n-Out?
33 LAXintl : I have an exact break down but not with me. However the remotes are more like 20 gates at the moment. The gate limit is the count that existed when t
34 flyingcaT : Ironically the unions may be the best way to get this done as heavy construction work is right up their alley and they absolutely need projects like t
35 diverdave : Boy, have you got that right. I used to live in Manhattan Beach and didn't dare to take a taxi from the airport to my home. David
36 LDVAviation : From what I understand, there is no money behind any of these projects. This is just long range planning at this stage, not that construction will st
37 aklrno : We've covered this in other threads,but here it is again: Don't take a taxi. He will probably try to poison your burger, and the jury would let him o
38 kaitak744 : Well, if you count the stands with out the jetways as well, the total is 18 gates. That is a downright stupid settlement. When does it expire? How is
39 Andahuailas : AMEN !!!!!!!
40 LAXintl : Choice was either not to move a single shovel, or reach a broad agreement with the multiple litigants that managed to block virtually every airport p
41 Byrdluvs747 : I don't know all the politics involved, but is it illegal for LAX to use their funds earned from fees to buy homes/properties close to the airport as
42 kaitak744 : I see. Well, I counted everything shy of the stands at cargo hangars and maintenance hangars. I don't get 153.... perhaps you could tell me what I am
43 Post contains images n515cr : Should've been more clear...I was thinking more from the angle of aircraft physically clearing it during take off (probably only affects long-haul/fr
44 Post contains images n515cr : The Parking Spot is next door to In-N-Out True, but that doesn't stop me from taking a cab home after a week-long or longer trip...still cheaper than
45 FlyDeltaJets : As said earlier the Parking Spot SEPLUVEDA LOT Shuttle. The walk is not that bad from terminal 1. Just walk to the beginning of the terminal then mak
46 ontime : Quoting LAXintl (Reply 33): Once the new TBIT opens, the gate count will be exceeded, so LAWA will raze much of the remote gates on the western side o
47 aklrno : They buy stuff all the time. As for businesses they often turn land into parking lots. They may own the land the rental car lots are on too. I wonder
48 LAXintl : Yes LAWA has been doing so for decades. That how they project to have the land to build proposed consolidated rental car facility. Its a very costly
49 Post contains images AwysBSB : Since terminals' concourses cannot be torn down, all LAX check-in and baggage claim areas should be gathered in two buildings, by following the termin
50 anonms : I remember there being a plan that involved doing what you're suggesting.
51 LDVAviation : It is a feature of the current master plan and it is shown in the architect's renderings of the new LAX. Search for Fentress and LAX. In the renderin
52 LAXintl : The concept for a central check-in center with parking was proposed by a former mayor post 9/11. Not only was it a very expensive change (projected $9
53 LDVAviation : There were actually two concepts: Riordan's (the former mayor's) plan was envisioned as an offsite check-in facilty, located if I remember correctly,
54 Post contains links LAXintl : I'm talking about the much deride former Mayor Hahn's (2001-2005) plan. Here is a LA Times article from 2004 explaining the opposition. http://article
55 LDVAviation : Riordan was the first to propose an offsite check-in facility. It was in one of three plans he proposed for dramatically remaking the airport. In tho
56 vikkyvik : Well, they moved 7R-25L by all of 50 feet, so it's not without precedent, but I see what you're saying. Yep. Ain't no way they're digging into those
57 Post contains links LAXintl : Here is a presentation that contains list of current and proposed future wishlist airside and landside capital projects by management. No mention of a
58 N757ST : LGB is NOT terminal constrained, it is slot limited to commercial carriers by the city to appease the locals. The new terminal FYI does not have jet
59 LDVAviation : I never said it was in the works. In fact, in my first post on the subject, which you chose to dispute, I said it was not an item in Capital Budget #
60 r2rho : LAX's problem is not so much in the runways, but in the taxiways. LAX may have 4 rwys but they cannot utilize them as efficiently as other comparable
61 ADent : I think the region likes their current strategy - Don't fly here (SNA/LGB/BUR) - Fly to LAX*. *Feel free to fly to ONT also, though no one does.
62 Post contains links Beardown91737 : don't know where you got that information. If you had looked here http://transtats.bts.gov/airports.asp you would have correctly put BUR behind ONT,
63 N782NC : I think his comment had more to do with the fact that ONT is kind of the bastard step-child in the LAWA group. Add to that a nearly 40% drop in passe
64 ADent : N782NC has it right. Yes people fly to/from ONT, but LAWA had grandiose plans for it. There are no limits on traffic at ONT, but traffic is way down.
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...
Latest Update On EasyJet's A320's? posted Mon Jun 8 2009 11:38:21 by 8herveg
Latest Update On TP Fleet And Other News. posted Sat Dec 1 2007 01:08:29 by CV990
Update On Merger Plans Between AI And IC? posted Fri Sep 8 2006 23:21:43 by The777Man
Latest Update On Air Canada - Four Articles posted Thu Sep 25 2003 21:15:42 by CanadaEH
Update On SLC Terminal Rebuild Plans posted Wed Feb 22 2012 12:04:07 by redzeppelin
An Update On Alaska Air To T-6 @ LAX posted Mon Dec 14 2009 15:29:39 by Aaway
Update/Latest Info On SAN's T2W Expansion posted Mon Mar 30 2009 18:29:25 by SANFan
DL Plans To Switch To RJs On LAX-GDL posted Tue Nov 29 2005 20:19:02 by MAH4546
Update On DL And LAX posted Sat Oct 15 2005 05:09:17 by Planefreak
Latest News On Delta Fleet Plans For 2002 & 2003 posted Fri Jan 18 2002 04:52:42 by Lindy field