Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
LA Approves $5Bil LAX Airport Modernization  
User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25416 posts, RR: 49
Posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 16735 times:

Surely pending the arrival of multiple lawsuits, the Los Angeles City Council on Tuesday approved a politically divisive modernization plan for Los Angeles International Airport that is expected to cost nearly $5 billion.

The vote caps almost a decade of discussion about what to do with the northside airfield for which the FAA has sought to relocate the northernmost runway as a safety enhancement.

As part of the approved plan the 06L/24R runway would be shifted 260-feet to the north and a centerway taxiway running between the runways will be constructed similar to the southside configuration.

In addition the runway relocation the council also approved the airport to proceed with other improvements, including further phases of work at the TBIT international terminal, development of consolidated car rental facility, an elevated people mover and a transportation center with that will eventually link to local bus and light rail service.

Construction isn't expected to start for roughly five years, with the approved proposals still subject to local, state and federal environmental analysis, and mayoral approval. Its interesting as both candidates for the mayoral election next month, oppose the proposed plan.

Story:
Los Angeles Approves $5 Billion Airport Modernization
http://goo.gl/FYRoX

=

[Edited 2013-04-30 18:39:17]


From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
92 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineLDVAviation From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 1069 posts, RR: 4
Reply 1, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 16475 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Thread starter):
Surely pending the arrival of multiple lawsuits, the Los Angeles City Council on Tuesday approved a politically divisive modernization plan for Los Angeles International Airport that is expected to cost nearly $5 billion.

One can only hope that the commercial interests that stand to make millions of dollars from the contracts to build the various elements of the modernization plan, from runways to terminal, overwhelm the NIMBY groups with their money and political influence.

In the process, I hope the commercial interests and their lobbyists can debunk once and for all the idea to "regionalize air traffic." Traffic at Ontario Airport has not fallen 40% because of some LAWA conspiracy to thwart efforts at regionalization. It has fallen because no one wants to fly out of Ontario, not the airlines or the passengers.


User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25416 posts, RR: 49
Reply 2, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 16410 times:

And here comes the first grenade

Angry Coalition of Airport Communities to Challenge Leadership over Lack of Accountability at LAX
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/angry-...mmunities-challenge-000300226.html

Community activist, mayoral candidates, city council members, CA state legislator, SEIU United Service Workers, LA Airport Police union, all united against the airport plans.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineoc2dc From United States of America, joined Feb 2013, 369 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 16051 times:

The moving of the runway is a massive waste of money. LAX has a good safety record and doesn't suffer from delays. There is no need to spend this ridiculous amount of money on something so unnecessary.

Quoting LAXintl (Thread starter):
In addition the runway relocation the council also approved the airport to proceed with other improvements, including further phases of work at the TBIT international terminal, development of consolidated car rental facility, an elevated people mover and a transportation center with that will eventually link to local bus and light rail service.

This portion of the project is desperately needed. I recently visited MIA and was incredibly impressed by the tram and the consolidated car rental facility. I imagine LAX's facility will be similar.

Also, I feel like the way LAX is now, its like 8 different airports on one lot. Barely any of the terminals are actually connected and it's cumbersome to transfer from terminal to terminal, especially when going from the north side terminals to the south side terminals. The new people mover will help greatly improve the transfer experience and unify the airport. Hopefully it will be a secured people mover. Do we know if it will be outside or inside security?

Exciting times for LAX...minus the runway project and the loss of our beloved in-n-out.



I'm not complaining, I'm critiquing...
User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25416 posts, RR: 49
Reply 4, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 15779 times:

Quoting oc2dc (Reply 3):
The moving of the runway is a massive waste of money. LAX has a good safety record and doesn't suffer from delays.

While I generally also agree its a huge financial pit, In fairness LAX does have its share of runway incursions, and also the current configuration on the north side does cause the FAA operational issues when VLAs are around.

Quoting oc2dc (Reply 3):
I feel like the way LAX is now, its like 8 different airports on one lot. Barely any of the terminals are actually connected

Its like that by design.

The central terminal area was built as individual satellite terminals with the major carriers of the times each calling one home. There was very little need to connect, as they were essentially self sufficient exclusive islands.

The design focus was to get people from the curb to their flights and back with minimal hassle or distance.

Fast forward, the airport today still works that way. Being the worlds biggest O&D airport, only a small percentage of passengers transfer, and most do so on the same carrier under the same roof, so the primary focus is still to get people from their cars to flights and back as easily as possible.

Quoting oc2dc (Reply 3):
Hopefully it will be a secured people mover. Do we know if it will be outside or inside security?

It will be outside - to connect to the proposed transit center off the airport.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlinetimpdx From United States of America, joined Jul 2009, 557 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 15698 times:

Is this the plan that includes the big arched bridge over the connecting taxiway?

User currently offlineLDVAviation From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 1069 posts, RR: 4
Reply 6, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 15644 times:

Quoting timpdx (Reply 5):
Is this the plan that includes the big arched bridge over the connecting taxiway?

The bridge is more or less dead. The idea gaining favor now is a tunnel (with an APM) between TBIT and the Midfield concourse.


User currently offlineHNL From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 339 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 15582 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 2):
Community activist, mayoral candidates, city council members, CA state legislator, SEIU United Service Workers, LA Airport Police union, all united against the airport plans.

Why would the LA Police Union object to this plan? Let alone the unions. Makes no sense.



HNL - There's no place like it!
User currently offlineLDVAviation From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 1069 posts, RR: 4
Reply 8, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 15517 times:

Quoting HNL (Reply 7):
Why would the LA Police Union object to this plan? Let alone the unions. Makes no sense.

Let's speculate.

First of all, it is the Airport Police Union. They are a distinct entity from the LA Police Dept. Union. If I remember correctly, there was some proposal a while back to turn their jobs over to the LA Police Department. Perhaps, they think by joining this coalition that they will gain some leverage.

Same with the other union. If I remember correctly again, the SEIU has been involved in some dispute with one of the contractors at LAX. So far, LAWA has not intervened.

[Edited 2013-04-30 22:24:05]

User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5471 posts, RR: 30
Reply 9, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 15431 times:

I did my first flying to and from LAX last week...and I was completely underwhelmed. I have a new least favourite airport. I can only guess that LA hates fat people because I have never had to walk so far in my life to make a connection.

An airport that spread out with no tram or moving walkways boggles the mind. The tunnels had a lovely third world patina...the missing ceiling panels and dust bunnies the size of rottweilers were especially rustic.

My guess an earthquake would cause billions of dollars of improvements.

LAS was such a treat in comparison.



What the...?
User currently offlineByrdluvs747 From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 2361 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 15204 times:

So does this plan mean that T1-T3 will remain in addition to the midfield concourse?

Quoting LDVAviation (Reply 1):
One can only hope that the commercial interests that stand to make millions of dollars from the contracts to build the various elements of the modernization plan, from runways to terminal, overwhelm the NIMBY groups with their money and political influence.

I normally don't like the idea of corporate cronyism, but these activists are purely obstructionist at this point. Their constant lawsuits are simply to protect the stupidity of those who bought property near an airport in one of the nation's largest cities.

Quoting oc2dc (Reply 3):
The moving of the runway is a massive waste of money. LAX has a good safety record and doesn't suffer from delays. There is no need to spend this ridiculous amount of money on something so unnecessary.

Its always a waste until that one tragic incursion happens, and then every blowhard politician who objects to the runway expansion then will be calling for increased safety at LAX. I'd rather spend a couple billion on runway safety improvements than see (or be one of) charred bodies strewn across LAX's runway.

Quoting oc2dc (Reply 3):
The new people mover will help greatly improve the transfer experience and unify the airport. Hopefully it will be a secured people mover.

You are totally misunderstanding the purpose of the people mover. Its purpose isn't to facilitate inter-terminal transfers, but to transport pax to/from rental, and parking/hotel transfers.

Quoting LDVAviation (Reply 6):
The bridge is more or less dead. The idea gaining favor now is a tunnel (with an APM) between TBIT and the Midfield concourse.

The question then becomes will the tunnel station be on the north or south of TBIT. Hopefully, AA will really lobby hard to build it on their side.

Quoting HNL (Reply 7):
Why would the LA Police Union object to this plan? Let alone the unions. Makes no sense.

I don't understand either. The airport workers should only benefit from the job security of additional infrastructure. The only thing I can think of is they want the money to be spent on wage increases.



The 747: The hands who designed it were guided by god.
User currently offlineboilerla From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 365 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 15022 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 4):
Fast forward, the airport today still works that way. Being the worlds biggest O&D airport, only a small percentage of passengers transfer, and most do so on the same carrier under the same roof, so the primary focus is still to get people from their cars to flights and back as easily as possible.

Although it's a stab in the dark, based on my experience I'd wager many of the transfers that do occur are: United (T7) to the Star Alliance partners in T2, and United to the Bradley. It's not that often, but it's a big pain.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 9):
An airport that spread out with no tram or moving walkways boggles the mind. The tunnels had a lovely third world patina...the missing ceiling panels and dust bunnies the size of rottweilers were especially rustic.

  

I'd vote that the money used for the runway move be put to use in modernizing the terminal interiors. Heck, the money that will invariably be spent fighting the barrage of lawsuits from Inglewood and Westchester on the runway move alone could be put to good use. Take it, and for the love of mercy do something about T2, T3 and T6 in that order. I realize T1 will be changing soon, otherwise I'd put it on my list, and I haven't been inside T4 since American got on the wrong side of a lost luggage dispute argument. But really, compared to the bradley terminal which is quite nice inside, everything else is a dump compared to SFO, ORD....well most airports really.


User currently offlinegoosebayguy From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2009, 401 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 14884 times:

Meanwhile DXB has the worlds largest baggage hall a train to whisk you away and an entire terminal catering for the A380. LAX is falling behined massively here.

User currently offlineEK413 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 4921 posts, RR: 4
Reply 13, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 14804 times:

Great to see vast amount of investment in LAX by modernising the facilities but what about providing some relief during peak times? We stayed at the Sheraton & the trip had taken us about 25-30 minutes!

EK413



Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We are tonight’s entertainment!
User currently offlineBHMNONREV From Australia, joined Aug 2003, 1374 posts, RR: 4
Reply 14, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 14671 times:

Quoting EK413 (Reply 13):
Great to see vast amount of investment in LAX by modernising the facilities but what about providing some relief during peak times? We stayed at the Sheraton & the trip had taken us about 25-30 minutes!

I have been thru LAX several times in the last few months, and the road gridlock is absolutely horrible. Half of the traffic seems to be rental car buses and shuttles of all kinds, getting these off the roads and into a proposed consolidated facility with a people mover seems to be a good first step.

Quoting boilerla (Reply 11):
and I haven't been inside T4 since American got on the wrong side of a lost luggage dispute argument.

T4 is actually not too bad from an aesthetics standpoint, I was in there a couple days ago on the way to Brisbane but the place is an absolute madhouse at 10pm. It is in much better shape than T7 IMHO.

As far as the runway I agree with the consensus here, it is just not necessary and certainly not worth the fight which will occur. Keep all the VLA's on the 7/25's and just make LAX a more efficient facility.


User currently offlineEK413 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 4921 posts, RR: 4
Reply 15, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 14556 times:

Quoting BHMNONREV (Reply 14):
I have been thru LAX several times in the last few months, and the road gridlock is absolutely horrible. Half of the traffic seems to be rental car buses and shuttles of all kinds, getting these off the roads and into a proposed consolidated facility with a people mover seems to be a good first step.

Agreed & agreed! The gridlock was mind blowing & as you quoted one of the main contributors are the car rental shuttles.

EK413



Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We are tonight’s entertainment!
User currently offlinemodesto2 From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 2801 posts, RR: 5
Reply 16, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 13489 times:

I hope they put more thought into the north side's taxiways that separate the two runways. The configuration at the intersection of taxiways M and H6 on the south side creates confusion and was poorly designed as pilots often attempt to cut the corner. They should've eliminated H6, and just installed H8 and H4 for simple and easy-to-follow taxiway design.

User currently onlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13135 posts, RR: 100
Reply 17, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 13327 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Finally! Past due! I still hold hopes of some more ground transportation expansion.

Quoting LAXintl (Thread starter):
As part of the approved plan the 06L/24R runway would be shifted 260-feet to the north and a centerway taxiway running between the runways will be constructed similar to the southside configuration.

Excellent. This will smooth out VLA operations from the new T6.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 4):
In fairness LAX does have its share of runway incursions

About half of the US total IIRC, so a wee bit more than 'its share.'

Quoting EK413 (Reply 15):
The gridlock was mind blowing & as you quoted one of the main contributors are the car rental shuttles.

  

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 4):
It will be outside - to connect to the proposed transit center off the airport.

I bet the airport grows enough within 3 years after the expansion the difference isn't noticeable. While I approve of the expansion, more is needed for the time frame we're discussing.

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlinetwincessna340a From United States of America, joined Mar 2012, 83 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 12892 times:

Quoting goosebayguy (Reply 12):

Meanwhile DXB has the worlds largest baggage hall a train to whisk you away and an entire terminal catering for the A380. LAX is falling behined massively here.

Yes LAX is falling behind....it is arguably the US equivalent of LHR. Comparing it to DXB, really? Not only is Dubai a massive desert, they have infinite money and people get relocated at the will of the government.


User currently onlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13135 posts, RR: 100
Reply 19, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 12332 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting twincessna340a (Reply 18):
Comparing it to DXB, really?

How about SIN, HKG, PEK, PVG, or ICN? I wouldn't compare LAX to LHR. My experiences at LHR have been superior to LAX.

I swear, my beloved Los Angeles is becoming the next Detroit, unable to build and only explain why things cannot be done.

LAX is past due for expansion. I'm glad *something* is being done.


Now to see a new or massively expanded SAN...

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently onlinecosyr From United States of America, joined Jul 2012, 395 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 12332 times:

The article I just read on USAtoday, it said that terminals 1, 2, and 3 are being demolished as part of the project. I thought the just announced an expansion of terminal 1. Are they changing those plans now?

User currently offlineByrdluvs747 From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 2361 posts, RR: 1
Reply 21, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 12099 times:

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 19):
I wouldn't compare LAX to LHR. My experiences at LHR

We're not talking about personal experiences. Comparing LAX to LHR is fairly valid as both airports suffer from political barriers to expansion.



The 747: The hands who designed it were guided by god.
User currently offlinerangercarp From United States of America, joined Nov 2009, 144 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 12046 times:

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 19):
I swear, my beloved Los Angeles is becoming the next Detroit, unable to build and only explain why things cannot be done.

I assume you are making a comparison of the two cities in general, but considering we are talking about airport upgrades, comparing to Detroit is not a good idea. Unlike LAX, both terminals at DTW are late model and top-notch.



iwgbtp!
User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25416 posts, RR: 49
Reply 23, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 12056 times:

Quoting cosyr (Reply 20):
The article I just read on USAtoday, it said that terminals 1, 2, and 3 are being demolished as part of the project. I thought the just announced an expansion of terminal 1. Are they changing those plans now?

USA Today got the story mixed up.

What was approved was the following below.






For Terminals - what was blessed was
1) TBIT northside concourse build out (current planned dog leg eliminated)
2) Northside portion of Midfield Satellite Concourse
3) T-3 is reconfigured
4) Option to build a T-0 connected to T-1

=



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21532 posts, RR: 59
Reply 24, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 11869 times:

Quoting oc2dc (Reply 3):
The moving of the runway is a massive waste of money. LAX has a good safety record and doesn't suffer from delays. There is no need to spend this ridiculous amount of money on something so unnecessary.

As I've stated before, I agree completely.

Many major airports in the world make do with 2 parallel runways. LAX has the luxury of 4. Having all 4 spaced to A380 standards is a huge waste of money. No matter how popular LAX becomes, more than 70% of all departures and arrivals will be narrowbodies. And just as now, the only major danger those narrowbodies pose to the runways comes from pilots not listening to or understanding the instructions of the controllers. That won't change.

If it were just a matter of expanding into unoccupied land, that would be one thing. But the taxiway will require the moving/sinking of major roadways, the destruction of part of a neighborhood, and will take years to achieve, with a major disruption to the landside of LAX operations for years as well. This boondoggle also involves demolition of airport parking and off-site parking, the removal of a popular city park, encroach on 2 high schools and a golf course, and will absolutely cost 2 to 3 times what they claim once it's all said and done. Remember, the roadway portion will be paid for with state and federal funds, not just LAX funds, and the MO for these kinds of projects is to run out of money and go begging for more.

If LAX is worried about A380s and 748s (all 20 of them) and 77Xs transiting the midfield and not having enough room to maneuver to reach gates at T2, the simplest answer is to designate T1-T3 as 200 foot wingspan or less. It's cheaper to pay carriers like AF to move out of T2 into the modern TBIT than it is to move the runways. T-2 could become a nice home for AS and LATAM carriers who fly international on NBs. Not sure where this leaves HA if the A350-800 ever delivers, but that would only matter if they choose to fly it to LAX over the A330, and I'm not sure why they would...



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineLDVAviation From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 1069 posts, RR: 4
Reply 25, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 12067 times:

Quoting boilerla (Reply 11):
Although it's a stab in the dark, based on my experience I'd wager many of the transfers that do occur are: United (T7) to the Star Alliance partners in T2, and United to the Bradley. It's not that often, but it's a big pain.

Your wager might be wrong. When we last discussed the topic, particularly with respect to the T4 connector, we learned that most of the passengers transiting between international flights and domestic flights go to/from TBIT to T4.

Quoting boilerla (Reply 11):
But really, compared to the bradley terminal which is quite nice inside, everything else is a dump compared to SFO, ORD....well most airports really.

Everything else is not a dump. T4 is quite nice, with its two-story, vaulted ceiling lobby. The gate areas need a little sprucing up, but it has good bones. T3 is also a good space with its contemporary glass atrium, which from the second floor has an impressive view of the theme building. It's entrance lobby was recently renovated and the gate areas will probably be addressed after it is clear what the final shape and form of the terminal will be as a result of the north side runway realignment. T6 was recently renovated, nothing architecturally significant, but it is a stylish remodel. The improvement program at T5 is ongoing. It is also getting a contemporary update, similar to T6. The $400 million improvement program at T1 is in the planning stages. It already has the approval of the board. United is in negotiations with LAWA to carry out improvements at T7 and T8, similar to those at T5 and T6. When it is all said and done Terminals 1,7,8, and 5 will be as contemporary as T2 in SFO, minus the public art.

That just leaves T3, whose gates areas will be completely rebuilt after the runway alignment project.

Construction on the Midfield Concourse (north side) could begin in the 4th quarter of 2014.

The goal of the current board and director is to make LAX world class. There will be a people mover circling the CTA. There will more than enough A380-capable gates with bi-level boarding/deboarding. There will be links to mass transit. There will be a consolidated rental car facility accessible via people mover. The board is even trying to make the ring road more appealing by adding an LED light band and new light poles that reinforce the architectural language of the CTA as a whole.

Quoting Byrdluvs747 (Reply 10):
The question then becomes will the tunnel station be on the north or south of TBIT. Hopefully, AA will really lobby hard to build it on their side.

The bridge was suppposed to go on AA's side. If it is a tunnel, I suspect the location of underground utility lines will determine its placement.


User currently offlinecschleic From United States of America, joined Feb 2002, 1249 posts, RR: 0
Reply 26, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 12010 times:

Quoting Byrdluvs747 (Reply 10):
Quoting oc2dc (Reply 3):
The moving of the runway is a massive waste of money. LAX has a good safety record and doesn't suffer from delays. There is no need to spend this ridiculous amount of money on something so unnecessary.

Its always a waste until that one tragic incursion happens, and then every blowhard politician who objects to the runway expansion then will be calling for increased safety at LAX. I'd rather spend a couple billion on runway safety improvements than see (or be one of) charred bodies strewn across LAX's runway.

Exactly, this isn't one of those things where everyone waits for a car crash before installing a traffic light.

Now, my real beef with it is it'll mean losing the In 'N Out and the viewing park there. THAT's a real problem!   


User currently offlineoc2dc From United States of America, joined Feb 2013, 369 posts, RR: 0
Reply 27, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 11449 times:

Quoting Byrdluvs747 (Reply 10):
You are totally misunderstanding the purpose of the people mover. Its purpose isn't to facilitate inter-terminal transfers, but to transport pax to/from rental, and parking/hotel transfers.

Well that is slightly disappointing. But after looking at the plans, I can see that the people mover may not just be for transporting people to the inter-modal station/car rental facility. The way the people mover is set up, passengers can still use it to get around from terminal to terminal, although it will be outside of security. None the less, it's better than waiting on one of the transfer buses.

Quoting boilerla (Reply 11):
Quoting LAXintl (Reply 4):
Fast forward, the airport today still works that way. Being the worlds biggest O&D airport, only a small percentage of passengers transfer, and most do so on the same carrier under the same roof, so the primary focus is still to get people from their cars to flights and back as easily as possible.

AA has stated many times that their oneworld partners bring in a lot of transfer passengers. Although, there is less of a need for AA to have people movers b/c all of their partners are at TBIT and they already have the connector planned. But what about transfers from AA to AS. Clearly a people mover would be more efficient than a crummy old bus that stops every minute b/c of aircraft traffic. And it mustn't be easy for UA passengers to transfer to STAR partners. That's for sure.



I'm not complaining, I'm critiquing...
User currently offlineFlyingGoat From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 156 posts, RR: 0
Reply 28, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 11370 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 23):

Nice to see the In-N-Out location will not be effected! The aircraft should fly right over In-N-Out.   


User currently offlineHNL From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 339 posts, RR: 1
Reply 29, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 11125 times:

Quoting cschleic (Reply 26):
Now, my real beef with it is it'll mean losing the In 'N Out and the viewing park there. THAT's a real problem!   
Quoting FlyingGoat (Reply 28):
Nice to see the In-N-Out location will not be effected! The aircraft should fly right over In-N-Out.   

So which is it? Is the In-N-Out safe or at risk?



HNL - There's no place like it!
User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25416 posts, RR: 49
Reply 30, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 11078 times:

Quoting oc2dc (Reply 27):
AA has stated many times that their oneworld partners bring in a lot of transfer passengers.

Sure there are some transfers at LAX, but something like 90% of enplanement are O&D. And of that remaining 10%, the bulk is clearly ones under the same roof connections at major operators like AA and UA.

The airports primary focus will always be on local demand. Transfers are secondary by the nature of the market.

Frankly, the airport authority would probably be happy to shed any transfer flow to other airports, as it helps keep LAX traffic down and under its court stipulated counts.

And for those that have to transfer at LAX, there are a few additional things here in the masterplan that might help them. Ultimately, I think LAX transfers will be like JFK. If you don't want to walk in the sun, or take the bus, you can use the AirTrain.

Quoting FlyingGoat (Reply 28):
Nice to see the In-N-Out location will not be effected! The aircraft should fly right over In-N-Out.

Actually the FAA has yet to sign off on the plan, and will come up with its own runway clear areas.
Its highly likely the restaurant will not survive imo.

Quoting oc2dc (Reply 27):
But what about transfers from AA to AS. Clearly a people mover would be more efficient than a crummy old bus that stops every minute b/c of aircraft traffic.

You likely can probably walk quicker imo.
Trains like buses would run with intervals of several minutes, so by the time you walk outside to the station and wait, you can be at AS T-6 already.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineFlyingGoat From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 156 posts, RR: 0
Reply 31, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 10209 times:

Perhaps my enthusiasm was a bit premature, but it's nice to see at least one map that suggests the In-N-Out will remain.

If I were a betting man, I'd bet on In-N-Out remaining. There doesn't seem much point in removing the restaurant unless the parking garage next to it is removed as well. All that may very well happen, but I just don't see it. But what do I know, I'm not a planner...

I'd love to see them demolish all of the terminals and start over, but that isn't happening.   


User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25356 posts, RR: 22
Reply 32, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 10008 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 30):
Quoting oc2dc (Reply 27):
AA has stated many times that their oneworld partners bring in a lot of transfer passengers.

Sure there are some transfers at LAX, but something like 90% of enplanement are O&D. And of that remaining 10%, the bulk is clearly ones under the same roof connections at major operators like AA and UA.

There must be many connections between international and domestic carriers at LAX. That's never been convenient, even between members of the same alliance in most cases. Many other airports are much better. The "separate terminal" concept should have been scrapped long ago and replaced with something more like AMS where everything is in one terminal and you can walk between all gates, regardless of carrier, and it's impossible to get lost.

One reason why LAX has fewer connections may simply be that passengers know it's not designed to facilitate connections and they thus prefer to connect elsewhere.


User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25416 posts, RR: 49
Reply 33, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 9825 times:

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 32):
There must be many connections between international and domestic carriers at LAX.

Sure out of 64 odd million annual passengers a million or two might be transferring on international connections, but again the airports focus from day one has been on O&D flow - the overwhelming portion of that 64 million.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 32):
The "separate terminal" concept should have been scrapped long ago and replaced with something more like AMS where everything is in one terminal and you can walk between all gates, regardless of carrier, and it's impossible to get lost.

Really goes back to the concept of airline desires to have their exclusive facilities and desire set up and furnish them as spartan or exclusively as they desire. There is lots of benefits to individual airlines with such ownership structure.

Common use facilities not only can be burdensome form cost perspective, but airlines lose their individuality and being able to differentiate the facility mood along with essentially helping finance their competitors facilities as well.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 32):
One reason why LAX has fewer connections may simply be that passengers know it's not designed to facilitate connections and they thus prefer to connect elsewhere.

When originally designed the airlines did not want to make LAX a transit way point and instead from the ground up looked to design a facility focused to get people from the curb to their planes with the greatest ease possible.
That's why for example the airport has a horse shoe terminal design, and the walk from the curb to your gate is often merely a few hundred feet even today.

Ultimately for a variety of reasons the airport nor airlines want needless extra transfer passenger counts at LAX as they creates constraints, but also needlessly help push the airport closer to its court mandated passenger caps. People might not realize the airport is actually bound by court agreement to encourage services to other airports, and not provide incentives for carriers to grow or add new flight at LAX.

For those that need a west coast transfer airport, please go to SFO. With a smaller home market, they are likely happy to get a boost from transfer flow passengers counts. (just hopefully the ATC/weather delays don't leave them stuck).



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineJHwk From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 235 posts, RR: 0
Reply 34, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 9403 times:

Quoting boilerla (Reply 11):
Although it's a stab in the dark, based on my experience I'd wager many of the transfers that do occur are: United (T7) to the Star Alliance partners in T2, and United to the Bradley. It's not that often, but it's a big pain.

I think the hardest is from gate 60-63 on United to the upper 80's on United Express. It is quite a haul. The plan doesn't seem to address that.

Quoting oc2dc (Reply 3):
The moving of the runway is a massive waste of money. LAX has a good safety record and doesn't suffer from delays. There is no need to spend this ridiculous amount of money on something so unnecessary.

The safety record actually speaks to the need for it. I would rather see it pushed out another 5-10 years though and limit 380 use on the north complex period, until there are enough at the airport to warrant supporting them everywhere.

LAX has a lot of improvements to do. I hope the lawsuits don't slow down the people mover, integrated rental car center, and connections to the Crenshaw Metro line. I hope the people mover is fast enough that taking a taxi from the transit center makes more sense than having them queue at the arrivals level. Not sure if people are patient enough for it, but maybe eliminating the airport surcharge from that point would give people an incentive. Automobile traffic to TBIT is a mess and there are few ways of fixing it unless they want to dig a tunnel to Pershing and make circulation more like PHX or DFW.


User currently onlineairplaneboy From United States of America, joined May 2004, 562 posts, RR: 10
Reply 35, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 9361 times:

Does building a terminal 0 seem like a realistic possibility? Would it be connected to Terminal 1 inside the secure area?

User currently offlineaklrno From United States of America, joined Dec 2010, 943 posts, RR: 0
Reply 36, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 9267 times:

Quoting FlyingGoat (Reply 31):

Perhaps my enthusiasm was a bit premature, but it's nice to see at least one map that suggests the In-N-Out will remain.

If I were a betting man, I'd bet on In-N-Out remaining. There doesn't seem much point in removing the restaurant unless the parking garage next to it is removed as well. All that may very well happen, but I just don't see it. But what do I know, I'm not a planner...

The published maps show the land needed for construction purposes that needs to be bought. Somewhere in the planning documents it says that the FAA will advise as to what their requirements will be for runway safety. Then, in order to get FAA approval, the airport will have to acquire the land needed. Since the runway safety area for 24R appear to cover the In-n-Out, the Parking Spot, and a medical building next to it, I suspect they will all go. Since nothing can be built there, there may still be a park, just no burgers.

They also need space for navigation facilities, antennas and lights.


User currently offline802flyguy From United States of America, joined May 2012, 200 posts, RR: 0
Reply 37, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 8952 times:

As long as the In-N-Out stays I'm okay!  

That said, I do have some concerns, most of which were very well covered in replies 24, 30 and,33.

The congestion on the horseshoe roadway is indeed very annoying. So much so that when I arrive at T-1, I walk over to T-7 to catch my car rental shuttle. But I wonder how much the central rental facility will cost and how much will be passed on to renters. I would rather sit on the bus for a few more minutes than be socked with a USD 10 ( or more) rental surcharge.

Still no plan to bring the the Metro line actually into the airport? I do agree with the idea that the reason it didn't happen in the first place (as it should have) was lobbying from Super Shuttle and the cab companies, but the thing to do now is what DCA (and several European airports) do and bring the rails to the terminal. People simply do not like switching to a shuttle bus.

I know this is Fantasy Land stuff, but the BNSF heavy rail tracks run very close to LAX. What about a connection the to (a future) Metro Rail line and maybe someday Amtrak? I know, that will never happen, Just like connecting CalTrain to SFO. Their line runs right by that airport The silly CalTrain/BART/People Mover (or whatever SFO calls is it) connection does not do the trick, but I digress.

As many readers know, at many European airports, a train station (local or inter city) is just an escalator or elevator ride away from baggage claim. Why can the US not do this?


User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25416 posts, RR: 49
Reply 38, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 8778 times:

Quoting airplaneboy (Reply 35):
Does building a terminal 0 seem like a realistic possibility? Would it be connected to Terminal 1 inside the secure area?

Well this approval give the airport the option to pursue it. Might be beneficial for domestic operators - ala SWA, and others depending on what size of eventual T-3 reconfiguration becomes.

Regarding connector to T-1, no clue but from the drawing I saw it looked like the connection to T-1 was adjacent to the ticket counter lobby, so could be before security.

Quoting 802flyguy (Reply 37):
But I wonder how much the central rental facility will cost and how much will be passed on to renters. I would rather sit on the bus for a few more minutes than be socked with a USD 10 ( or more) rental surcharge.

Last year the budget was ~$400mil'ish -- and yes you as a renter will certainly be funding it.
Look at SFO when they opened their consolidated facility they slapped on a flat $17.50 facility charge PLUS 11% concession recovery fee.

Quoting 802flyguy (Reply 37):
Still no plan to bring the the Metro line actually into the airport?

No. Plans call for the future Crenshaw line (scheduled to open in late 2018) to run via a intermodal transit center off the airport, with a separate JFK like AirTran people mover running to/from the airport.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineJHwk From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 235 posts, RR: 0
Reply 39, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 8740 times:

Quoting 802flyguy (Reply 37):
I know this is Fantasy Land stuff, but the BNSF heavy rail tracks run very close to LAX. What about a connection the to (a future) Metro Rail line and maybe someday Amtrak? I know, that will never happen, Just like connecting CalTrain to SFO. Their line runs right by that airport The silly CalTrain/BART/People Mover (or whatever SFO calls is it) connection does not do the trick, but I digress.

As nice as SFO's international terminal connection to BART is, it was a whole lot of money spent poorly. A better land-side people mover (read faster) that connected to BART would have been more capital and operationally efficient, and could have encouraged further extension south of BART.

SFO's AirTrain takes nearly 15 minutes from the rental car shuttle to Terminal 3... I will never forgive it for making me miss a check-in deadline when it first opened. (The old shuttle buses took 5 minutes.)

LAX has a whole lot more stops that will be required, so to make up for it they really need some speed between stations.


User currently offline802flyguy From United States of America, joined May 2012, 200 posts, RR: 0
Reply 40, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 8607 times:

Quoting JHwk (Reply 39):
SFO's AirTrain takes nearly 15 minutes from the rental car shuttle to Terminal 3... I will never forgive it for making me miss a check-in deadline when it first opened. (The old shuttle buses took 5 minutes.)

Not only that but there are three changes of level from BART to the ticket counter (or bag claim).

Not to mention that BART actually takes longer and is more expensive than the SamTrans 7F express bus that went from SFO to downtown SF.

This might be a good time to mention that in SkyTrax (FWTIW) ranking of the world's best 25 airports NOT ONE is in the US.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...hat-study-obama-is-so-upset-about/


User currently offlineBraniff747SP From United States of America, joined Oct 2008, 2986 posts, RR: 1
Reply 41, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 8571 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Thread starter):

As part of the approved plan the 06L/24R runway would be shifted 260-feet to the north and a centerway taxiway running between the runways will be constructed similar to the southside configuration.

Excellent news... Now comes the legal fight which LAX has every right to win.

Only downside is... Where does In N Out go?



The 747 will always be the TRUE queen of the skies!
User currently offlineontime From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 65 posts, RR: 0
Reply 42, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 8267 times:

Quoting JHwk (Reply 39):
LAX has a whole lot more stops that will be required, so to make up for it they really need some speed between stations.

While this might be a minor point in the context of such a large airport improvement project, I am very disappointed to see that the Automated People Mover does not make a full loop around the airport terminal area, but instead only travels in a horseshoe and comes to a complete end at Terminal 7.

Now I am biased because I fly almost exclusively on United (T7) out of LAX, but this horseshoe setup means the passengers at T7 have a long (meaning slow) ride with many stops both arrving and departing from the airport. I prefer the setup like the Airtrain at both JFK and SFO, where in one direction you're the first stop, but going the opposite direction you're the last -- it evens out the pain of making extra stops among the different terminals. Meaning at LAX Terminal 1 could be the first stop coming from the Rental Car Center, and then leaving Terminal 7 you'd head right out of the central terminal area back to the Rental Car Center. THe current plan is a real dud for those of us using Terminal 7.

(And if need be, you can have an "inner loop" for passengers connecting between terminals, though like others, I am dubious that LAX has enough inter-terminal connections to warrant that. Certainly, without the inner loop, you'd only have to build about half the amount of track in the central terminal area vs. the current plan, and the stations in each terminal would be smaller and cheaper, since they'd be one track only.)


User currently offlineStuckInCA From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 1971 posts, RR: 0
Reply 43, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 8054 times:

Quoting oc2dc (Reply 3):
Also, I feel like the way LAX is now, its like 8 different airports on one lot.

Exactly. Eight terrible airports on one lot.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 4):
Its like that by design.

By bad design.

I'm not sure what good solution exists for LAX. I'm guessing it'll get incremental improvements through time and remain terrible relative to its peers. For international travel to/from the LA area there isn't really a better option. Anyone traveling domestically through LAX that doesn't live immediately adjacent to it is a mystery to me.


User currently offlineJHwk From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 235 posts, RR: 0
Reply 44, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 8032 times:

Quoting Reply 42):
...disappointed to see that the Automated People Mover does not make a full loop around the airport terminal area, but instead only travels in a horseshoe and comes to a complete end at Terminal 7.

Doh... I missed that part!

Wow, talk about turning a great opportunity into an awful solution! Assuming an optimistic expansion of Metro, it would take a good 45 minutes to my office, vs 10 minutes in a cab from T7.

I really wish they would just provide an integrated terminal with feeders out to the various concourses. The Theme Building, tower, and central plant get in the way of it being centralized, but they could still do a combined terminal for 1, 2, 6, 7, and 8, and expand TBIT out to pick up 3 and 5.

Sure... you lose all the parking... but you could open up World Way significantly and improve the landside airport flow exponentially.


User currently offlineaerowrench From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 52 posts, RR: 0
Reply 45, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 7954 times:

Quoting oc2dc (Reply 3):
The moving of the runway is a massive waste of money. LAX has a good safety record and doesn't suffer from delays. There is no need to spend this ridiculous amount of money on something so unnecessary

It would probably be best to do some research before blabbing about a safety record. Up until the South Complex runway project, LAX was top dog for runway incursions. Since then, the HS (hot spots) are concentrated on the North Complex. The waste of money will be in defending the project against a multitude of frivolous lawsuits.


User currently offlineBoeing717200 From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 856 posts, RR: 0
Reply 46, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 7816 times:

Quoting HNL (Reply 29):

Rough math says it and the parking structure will be inside the RPZ... Not a good sign for burger fans...


User currently offlineN62NA From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 4471 posts, RR: 7
Reply 47, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 7797 times:

Quoting 802flyguy (Reply 37):
Still no plan to bring the the Metro line actually into the airport? I do agree with the idea that the reason it didn't happen in the first place (as it should have) was lobbying from Super Shuttle and the cab companies, but the thing to do now is what DCA (and several European airports) do and bring the rails to the terminal. People simply do not like switching to a shuttle bus.

Perhaps in another decade they could detour the Crenshaw line so that it just doesn't go past the airport, but actually loops into the airport. But the way it looks on the map doesn't seem too bad. You get off at the airport stop and hop some kind of people mover thingy. That's how the new MIA airport connection to the light rail that goes to downtown Miami from MIA is setup.

Quoting 802flyguy (Reply 37):
As many readers know, at many European airports, a train station (local or inter city) is just an escalator or elevator ride away from baggage claim.

In particular, AMS. Very very convenient!


User currently offlineweb500sjc From United States of America, joined Sep 2009, 740 posts, RR: 0
Reply 48, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 7776 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting JHwk (Reply 44):
I really wish they would just provide an integrated terminal with feeders out to the various concourses. The Theme Building, tower, and central plant get in the way of it being centralized, but they could still do a combined terminal for 1, 2, 6, 7, and 8, and expand TBIT out to pick up 3 and 5.

I wish they could ATL-ize it, have a big terminal on the east end, and then have a tunnel out to concourses. The airport is a mess to drive around and I wouldn't dare try walking around the place.

in regards to the actual terminals, 4, 5 and 6 are nice and i love flying out of them- I haven't flown out of the north side in years and they were dismal then - nothing to do airside.



Boiler Up!
User currently onlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13135 posts, RR: 100
Reply 49, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 7671 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting rangercarp (Reply 22):
Unlike LAX, both terminals at DTW are late model and top-notch.

Touche'.  
Quoting FlyingGoat (Reply 28):
Nice to see the In-N-Out location will not be effected! The aircraft should fly right over In-N-Out.  

Oh.... That would be a bonus.   

Quoting 802flyguy (Reply 37):
I know this is Fantasy Land stuff, but the BNSF heavy rail tracks run very close to LAX. What about a connection the to (a future) Metro Rail line and maybe someday Amtrak? I know, that will never happen, Just like connecting CalTrain to SFO. Their line runs right by that airport The silly CalTrain/BART/People Mover (or whatever SFO calls is it) connection does not do the trick, but I digress.

As many readers know, at many European airports, a train station (local or inter city) is just an escalator or elevator ride away from baggage claim. Why can the US not do this?

Add to that fantasy having the green line and bring down the Expo line... and I'm there. How can the airport *not* be connected to rail?

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlinelegacyins From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 2077 posts, RR: 0
Reply 50, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 7567 times:

Quoting 802flyguy (Reply 37):
Just like connecting CalTrain to SFO. Their line runs right by that airport The silly CalTrain/BART/People Mover (or whatever SFO calls is it) connection does not do the trick, but I digress.

If you can figure how to get a heavy rail line across a major 8 lane highway and does not cost over a billion, I think you have a fine idea. BART goes directly into the International Terminal at SFO and connects to the Millbrae Caltrain system. BART, by far, carries the most passengers as compared to Caltrain. I find the system quite efficient and never had a problem with it.



John@SFO
User currently offlineKD5MDK From United States of America, joined Mar 2013, 342 posts, RR: 0
Reply 51, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 7511 times:

For the people saying light rail should go into LAX, to which terminal? It's certainly not going to stop at all of them. APM to a single station makes a lot more sense.

User currently offlineByrdluvs747 From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 2361 posts, RR: 1
Reply 52, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 7475 times:

Quoting JHwk (Reply 44):
I really wish they would just provide an integrated terminal with feeders out to the various concourses.
Quoting web500sjc (Reply 48):
I wish they could ATL-ize it, have a big terminal on the east end, and then have a tunnel out to concourses.

I'm not convinced all the airlines want a common terminal. DL is still playing their game of closing the tunnel between T4 and T5 in order to prevent connections between AA and AS. AA seems ok with it as it keeps DL(Skyteam) and UA(Star) from airside connections between TBIT and T5-6-7, yet via the shuttle AS can connect to AA.

In regards to connections at LAX, the advantage goes to AA and OW(or at least will once the connector is built).

Quoting StuckInCA (Reply 43):
Anyone traveling domestically through LAX that doesn't live immediately adjacent to it is a mystery to me.



Because the other LA area airports don't offer the same range of nonstops that LAX does. This becomes important for pricing and during irrops. I use LAX even though I could fly into ONT, BUR or LGB from PHX. Also from an aviation geek perspective, LAX is just far more interesting.



The 747: The hands who designed it were guided by god.
User currently offlinechristao17 From Thailand, joined Apr 2005, 941 posts, RR: 8
Reply 53, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 7252 times:

Quoting web500sjc (Reply 48):
The airport is a mess to drive around and I wouldn't dare try walking around the place.

Once or twice I year I fly into LAX from BKK and then make a domestic connection to United. The walk from TBIT to Terminal 7 isn't bad at all and provides a good opportunity to stretch my legs and get some (relatively) fresh air between flights.



Keeping the "civil" in civil aviation...
User currently offline802flyguy From United States of America, joined May 2012, 200 posts, RR: 0
Reply 54, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 7113 times:

Quoting legacyins (Reply 50):
Quoting legacyins (Reply 50):
If you can figure how to get a heavy rail line across a major 8 lane highway and does not cost over a billion, I think you have a fine idea. BART goes directly into the International Terminal at SFO and connects to the Millbrae Caltrain system. BART, by far, carries the most passengers as compared to Caltrain. I find the system quite efficient and never had a problem with it.

You're right, of course, that actually putting Caltrain into the airport would be insanely expensive.
What I was thinking is keeping the tracks where they are and building a pedestrian / moving sidewalk bridge over the 101 freeway. (Rather than a dreaded shuttlebus). The tracks are just on the other side of the freeway, so close that from the tarmac at the old US Airways pier, you could hear the train horn (as long as an airplane was not taxiing). The problem with the Caltrain/BART connection at Millbrae is paying a separate fare and, of course, schlepping bags between the two systems (and changing levels.) And it takes time.

As for airport employees using transit, over 60 percent of SFO's staff live south of the airport.(Or did as of the mid 90s, when I saw the report) While BART is great for people who live in The City or the East Bay, it does little for Peninsula or South Bay folks.

This thread started about LAX and has started to creep a bit, even though some good points are being raised. Maybe we need a new thread about the deplorable inter modal connections at US airports?


User currently onlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13135 posts, RR: 100
Reply 55, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 6960 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Eight of the twelve US runway incursions occurred at LAX in 2009.

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/oct/09/local/me-runways9

While that is *far* better than before. We need the taxiway to further reduce them. I'm impressed there hasn't been an accident.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 23):
4) Option to build a T-0 connected to T-1

I missed this. Very interesting and needed!

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 23):
3) T-3 is reconfigured

I'm curious as to the details. It looks like the pier is moved further from T-2 (A380 gates at T-2?)

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 24):
Quoting oc2dc (Reply 3):
The moving of the runway is a massive waste of money. LAX has a good safety record and doesn't suffer from delays. There is no need to spend this ridiculous amount of money on something so unnecessary.

As I've stated before, I agree completely.

Moving the runway cuts runway incursions and increases capacity by 150 flights per day.

LAX needs expansion in terminal space, gates, and airside capacity.

Quoting 802flyguy (Reply 54):
Maybe we need a new thread about the deplorable inter modal connections at US airports?

  

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25416 posts, RR: 49
Reply 56, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 6874 times:

Quoting StuckInCA (Reply 43):
By bad design.

Why would it bad design when the airline community specifically requested the a design to have isolated islands, with individual private satellite terminals?
They did not want the train station like great large halls of previous generation airports, but wanted more intimate custom designed facilities.

The carriers were not seeking to shuffle passengers amongst each other, but instead sought to devise a setup that worked best to get folks to/from their cars to gates in the shortest distance.

With a clean sheet of paper and empty land, the architects of the time came up with the horse shoe and terminal design where focus was to minimize distance from the street to the gate.

And guess what - this still works. I can be off my plane, in my car in a matter of minutes. No mile long concourses to hike, endless passage ways or corridors, or long moving side walks, etc. Quite simple ingress and egress.

The airfield similarly works quite well its 4 parallel runways with consistently one of the nations top on time performance stats.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlinemercure1 From French Polynesia, joined Jul 2008, 1496 posts, RR: 2
Reply 57, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 6847 times:

So while maybe LAX might not be the prettiest or fanciest it certainly is rather practical and does a good job for the bulk of travelers.

It is indeed rather simple to get from street to gate. Distances are indeed short.

I hate airports that have terrible long concourses or long passage ways where one must navigate for kilometers to get any where.

Also I think the individual terminal set up at LAX is not bad as its a more manageable size. I also dislike those facilities that have huge single central terminals where you must deals with thousands of people every direction. If you want UA you go to UA terminal, etc. Simple concept.

Also, I don't believe I have ever had delays due to things like ATC or weather either in many years at LAX. Compare this to place like SFO where one can be stuck morning, night, summer or winter.

So like I said, maybe not prettiest girl, but she is pretty practical.


User currently offlineDeltal1011man From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 9435 posts, RR: 14
Reply 58, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 6733 times:

Quoting LDVAviation (Reply 1):
One can only hope that the commercial interests that stand to make millions of dollars from the contracts to build the various elements of the modernization plan, from runways to terminal, overwhelm the NIMBY groups with their money and political influence.

....Not to start a political debate but uh... don't get your hopes up. CA seems perfectly happy handicapping industry and doesn't seem to care about tax dollars.

Shame because as you said, No one wants to go to

yep.
User currently offlineJHwk From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 235 posts, RR: 0
Reply 59, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 6718 times:

Quoting mercure1 (Reply 57):
It is indeed rather simple to get from street to gate. Distances are indeed short.

I do love being able to "sneak out" from Terminal 8 right into the taxi queue. Drop-off for United works best as well.

Quoting mercure1 (Reply 57):
Also, I don't believe I have ever had delays due to things like ATC or weather either in many years at LAX. Compare this to place like SFO where one can be stuck morning, night, summer or winter.

So like I said, maybe not prettiest girl, but she is pretty practical.

Yes, but... have you ever been there during a curbside bomb scare? SEUI Strike? General mayhem at TBIT curbside? The roadways, especially at arrivals level, are a complete mess. If you drive and park it isn't too bad, but it isn't a walk in the park either.

Space effectiveness in the existing land-side facilities is poor. There simply isn't enough depth to make it flow properly. The only way I can think to fix it would be a centralized terminal and screening facilities, and making parking less convenient.


User currently offlineN62NA From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 4471 posts, RR: 7
Reply 60, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 6711 times:

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 49):
bring down the Expo line.

I believe the Crenshaw line accomplishes this, unless you're saying start Crenshaw trains in downtown LA, run them over the expo to Crenshaw and then down the new Crenshaw line.


User currently offlinemercure1 From French Polynesia, joined Jul 2008, 1496 posts, RR: 2
Reply 61, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 6650 times:

Quoting JHwk (Reply 59):
Yes, but... have you ever been there during a curbside bomb scare? SEUI Strike? General mayhem at TBIT curbside? The roadways, especially at arrivals level, are a complete mess. If you drive and park it isn't too bad, but it isn't a walk in the park either.

What airport have you been to that has been pleasant during a bomb scare, or employee strike ?

Sure LAX might not be that modern, fancy or spacious but it work rather well. I enjoy landing, being in a car in a matter of minutes. Other airports one is often stuck in long walks, passage ways, trains, shuttles, etc

I am not saying that there should not be little improvements, however on the whole I think the airport works incredibly well for being one of the worlds Top-10 airports in activity. In reality I think it actually amazing good considering such facts.


User currently offlineaklrno From United States of America, joined Dec 2010, 943 posts, RR: 0
Reply 62, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 6432 times:

T-2 at LAX is the fastest big city international airport experience I know of. Heading into NZ at T-2 I can go from the curb to the gate in 10 minutes INCLUDING TSA times and just a couple of hundred meters of walking if I time it right. Compare that with any international experience at HKG, LHR, JFK, SIN, FRA. Same is true for arrivals. Next month I'm flying LAX T-7 to LHR T-1. I expect the LHR walking to be 4 or 5 times longer than LAX. Maybe more.

That same trip I'm connecting from T1- to T-7. The walk at T-1 is at worst (gate 14) about 2-3 minutes. I'll just walk across the center to T-7. It will take about 10 minutes, probably less time than I will walk from the arrival gate to customs at LHR, and a lot more pleasant.

If I'm getting picked up at LAX I meet the relatives on the departure level. It's rarely crowded on the upper level. They get in, pick me up, and we are out in less than 5 minutes. It helps to know the shortcuts. The only really bad thing I encounter is the rental car and hotel shuttles. A train to the rental center should fix that. Avoid the lower level at LAX and it is fine.

I regret that NZ is moving to TBIT, but depending on the gates at the new TBIT it may not be too bad.

LAX isn't pretty, but I'm not there for the esthetics.


User currently offlineStuckInCA From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 1971 posts, RR: 0
Reply 63, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 6235 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 56):
Why would it bad design when the airline community specifically requested the a design to have isolated islands, with individual private satellite terminals?

I'll turn this back on you. Why does the fact that it's what the airline community asked for mean that it's not a bad design?

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 56):
And guess what - this still works. I can be off my plane, in my car in a matter of minutes.

Based on your username, you are clearly fond of LAX. I've used it a great number of times having lived in the area. Sometimes it worked as you described. Sometimes it was far far worse.

I can get off my plane in SEA or MSP (for example) and be at my car (or even rental car) even having to pick up a bag within a matter of minutes virtually every time. And I can get from one terminal to the other easily without having to clear security again. And I can wander between terminals if I like while killing time. Easily.


User currently offlineLDVAviation From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 1069 posts, RR: 4
Reply 64, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 6150 times:

Quoting StuckInCA (Reply 63):
I can get off my plane in SEA or MSP (for example) and be at my car (or even rental car) even having to pick up a bag within a matter of minutes virtually every time. And I can get from one terminal to the other easily without having to clear security again. And I can wander between terminals if I like while killing time. Easily.

You can't really compare LAX to any of those airports. The metro areas served by SEA and MSP are not world capitals. There was a lot more to overcome, there was a lot more to do.

In LA, the problem has been until recently that no one owned the problem or the fact that LA was becoming a world capital and deserved a gleaming gateway. The Airport Board for the longest time was a bunch of political cronies, so was the airport director. There was no vision, there was hardly any competence, there was no recognition that LAX had to be better because it was the first impression visitors got of LA.

Thankfully, with the hire of the current director that all changed. However, these things take time and money and I for one like the modular/evolutionary approach that the Board is taking. It is not unforeseen that in the future all parking will be offsite and the people mover will provide the only access to the CTA. If that were to happen, one could imagine an airport that would be a series of parallel concourses with a central ticketing building where the parking structures are now. Curiously, the second phase of the Midfield Satellite Concourse will add a central ticketing building in front of T4/T3. One step at a time.


User currently offlineDeltal1011man From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 9435 posts, RR: 14
Reply 65, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 6124 times:

Quoting LDVAviation (Reply 64):
In LA, the problem has been until recently that no one owned the problem or the fact that LA was becoming a world capital and deserved a gleaming gateway. The Airport Board for the longest time was a bunch of political cronies, so was the airport director. There was no vision, there was hardly any competence, there was no recognition that LAX had to be better because it was the first impression visitors got of LA.

pretty much nail on the head here. Nice post.

Quoting StuckInCA (Reply 63):
I can get off my plane in SEA or MSP (for example) and be at my car (or even rental car) even having to pick up a bag within a matter of minutes virtually every time. And I can get from one terminal to the other easily without having to clear security again. And I can wander between terminals if I like while killing time. Easily.

Thats because SEA/MSP aren't on the same level. AA/DL/UA along have nearly 600 flights a day. With WN its about 750.

I don't think MSP or SEA have a total of 750 flights a day.



yep.
User currently offlineWALmsp From United States of America, joined Sep 2010, 147 posts, RR: 0
Reply 66, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 6080 times:

Quoting StuckInCA (Reply 63):
Why does the fact that it's what the airline community asked for mean that it's not a bad design?

First off, I would say that the adage "the customer is always right" applies here with the airlines being the customers in the airport being the service provider. In this case, LAX gave the customers what they asked for. Second, the airport was designed in the late 50s and opened in 1961. At that time, the airlines are regulated, connections, if any, were usually within the same airline, and the requirements of an airport were completely different. Security was not an issue, Alliances were not even a consideration, and providing easy curb-to-gate access was more of a priority than it is today. When LAX opened, it was a good design for its time.

Today, the requirements have changed with security receiving a greater priority, an exponentially higher amount of passengers, and inter-line connections that are vital to the traveler. if LAX were to be designed today, it would have a completely different look to incorporate those considerations into its layout. LAX is similar to JFK in that they both contain a series of independent terminals. However, JFK has the advantage of more space in order to build a connecting train while LAX has a very constrained perimeter requiring significant modifications to any redesign.

In addition, MSP had the advantage of only needing to move its security checkpoints in order to allow access between all of its wings. In the early days of airport security, checkpoints were set up at the entry to each concourse and were not as restrictive as they are today.

I'm not saying that you are wrong. What I'm saying is that the design of LAX was appropriate to the time that it was constructed. No one could have foresaw all the changes that would occur in the new requirements for airports that would develop. LAX was a good design; the challenge today is how to make it into a modern convenience within its limited parameters, both physically and politically. I do not think you can say that LAX is a bad design when taking all of this into context.



In memory of my Dad, Robert "Bob" Fenrich, WAL 1964-1979, MSP ONT LAX
User currently offlineaklrno From United States of America, joined Dec 2010, 943 posts, RR: 0
Reply 67, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 5970 times:

I

Quoting WALmsp (Reply 66):
I'm not saying that you are wrong. What I'm saying is that the design of LAX was appropriate to the time that it was constructed. No one could have foresaw all the changes that would occur in the new requirements for airports that would develop. LAX was a good design; the challenge today is how to make it into a modern convenience within its limited parameters, both physically and politically. I do not think you can say that LAX is a bad design when taking all of this into context.

I can't tell you how many times I have heard criticism of an engineering/design decision by someone who wasn't there but knows much better what should have been done.

My usual comment: It seemed like a good idea at the time.


User currently offlineBeardown91737 From United States of America, joined Jun 2011, 542 posts, RR: 0
Reply 68, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 5899 times:

Quoting WALmsp (Reply 66):
designed in the late 50s and opened in 1961

Same timeframe as O'Hare, but ORD scaled better.

I really liked LAX before the 1984 Olympics. Back when LAX was in its original configuration, there was only one roadway level, and the rental cars were right across the street from the terminal exit. With the dual levels and parking garages in the middle, LAX became too much in too little space. DFW is the same pattern, but it is too much separation between terminals.

Quoting LDVAviation (Reply 64):
world capital

World class cities achieve that status based on architecture, history, museums, fine arts, and being a business center. Gleaming airports aren't the key.

Quoting 802flyguy (Reply 37):
I know this is Fantasy Land stuff, but the BNSF heavy rail tracks run very close to LAX. What about a connection the to (a future) Metro Rail line and maybe someday Amtrak?

No problem if you are leaving the airport and don't have a flight to miss. After 12 years of riding commuter trains in Chicago, I would not use commuter rail to get to an airport. Also there is the issue of mixing baggage into commuter facilities.

Quoting LDVAviation (Reply 1):
I hope the commercial interests and their lobbyists can debunk once and for all the idea to "regionalize air traffic."
Quoting LAXintl (Reply 33):
People might not realize the airport is actually bound by court agreement to encourage services to other airports, and not provide incentives for carriers to grow or add new flight at LAX.

There is the answer. LAWA itself plays up "regionalization". This reduces pressure from LAX NIMBY neighbors, and also from motorists who blame LAX for vehicle traffic within 10-15 miles of LAX. At one point, there were some plans to use PMD as an international airport, via some magic train which would whisk passengers 45 miles north (and 2,500 feet uphill) to start their journey. Personally I think the potential of regionalization is limited to the outlying airports getting service to as many legacy hubs as possible, then use AS, WN, B6, F9 or whatever to get P2P to the top destinations of the local flying public. No one should think that someone who lives 10 miles from LAX would go to ONT or SNA instead.

Quoting LDVAviation (Reply 1):
Traffic at Ontario Airport has not fallen 40% because of some LAWA conspiracy to thwart efforts at regionalization. It has fallen because no one wants to fly out of Ontario, not the airlines or the passengers.

Not an accurate use of "no one". ONT serves more passengers than BUR, LGB, and PSP. More accurate would be "no one" who lives near ONT would rather drive to a more distant airport, especially a congested one.



135 hrs PIC (mostly PA-28) - not current. Landings at MDW, PIA, JAN.
User currently onlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13135 posts, RR: 100
Reply 69, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 5751 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Deltal1011man (Reply 58):
CA seems perfectly happy handicapping industry and doesn't seem to care about tax dollars.

   And then they wonder why business goes to Nevada, Colorado, or Texas...

Look at the empty office buildings, retail, and warehouses in the South bay part of LA (south of LAX).   There shouldn't be that many idle buildings.  
Quoting N62NA (Reply 60):
I believe the Crenshaw line accomplishes this, unless you're saying start Crenshaw trains in downtown LA, run them over the expo to Crenshaw and then down the new Crenshaw line.

Rail works via connections. There was a plan to have the Exposition line "Y" and come down existing right of way to LAX and IMHO that would be more effective. This is based off talking with a cousin of mine who does urban planning and specializes in planning where rail stations should be an line layouts. The Crenshaw line will require train transfers to get to too many locations. Every transfer cuts down by 75% the number of people willing to use rail. I wish the Crenshaw line well, but it is not following good rail 'rule of thumb' design concepts.

Quoting StuckInCA (Reply 63):
I've used it a great number of times having lived in the area. Sometimes it worked as you described. Sometimes it was far far worse.

LAX has problems as it has too little floor space for the quantity of passengers.

Now, the 'horseshoe' design of airport terminals has its issues. LAX, JFK, and DFW were all built on the concept. The way to correct the problem is per DFW with a rail system traveling two directions to connect terminals within security. While not as ideal as some of the more modern designs, the only solution for lax is the Hahn era "West Terminal" that I so wished had been built.

But I agree with you. On busy days, LAX is HORRID. That is why I fly LGB any opportunity. Its too the point I simply do not want to take my kids through LAX. I fail to see why the city won't spend money as it is *far* worse than say DFW.

But at least there is *some* expansion plan.


Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21532 posts, RR: 59
Reply 70, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 5619 times:

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 69):
Now, the 'horseshoe' design of airport terminals has its issues. LAX, JFK, and DFW were all built on the concept. The way to correct the problem is per DFW with a rail system traveling two directions to connect terminals within security. While not as ideal as some of the more modern designs, the only solution for lax is the Hahn era "West Terminal" that I so wished had been built.

The roadway has nothing to do with this. The roadway is for o&d and an inter terminal train does nothing to address how crowded the road gets. DFW is a connecting hub with very little roadway traffic to begin with. And the have/had a tram connecting rental and long term to keep the shuttle buses out of there.

LAXs traffic caused by busses. Dropping off and picking up. If the rental car train is built, with a "fly away, super shuttle, tour bus, long term parking" stop offsite as well, you would solve the congestion. Moving the taxis to the center could also help. Make first level of short term taxi and towncar and disabled only.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25416 posts, RR: 49
Reply 71, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 5639 times:

Quoting WALmsp (Reply 66):
First off, I would say that the adage "the customer is always right" applies here with the airlines being the customers in the airport being the service provider. In this case, LAX gave the customers what they asked for.

  

LAX was a unique opportunity for the industry.

They had open land and a blank canvas to come up with what was to be the first facility built designed in entirely for the jet-age.

LAX was not some 1930s or 1940s airport that had to be modified to serve their needs, but could be designed from the ground up clean.

Airline industry focus at the time was on convenience and also giving each airline their own individualism.

Working with famous top architects of the time, they came up with the idea of the horseshoe roadway and the satellite terminal concept with each of the major airlines of the day getting their own.

The design maximized things like parking spots for jet aircraft with new jetways, provided customers with bright modern terminals which airlines could furnish in their own themes and minimize distance from your car to your aircraft seat - a key design focus to make it an easy airport experience.

http://www.aviationexplorer.com/vintage_classic_airliners/lax%201960s%20postcard.jpg

Frankly they did a great job and it worked quite well as intended.

But fast forward 50-years and the airport which was essentially designed for 15-million enplanements, handles almost 65 million.

I don't think anyone forecast the huge economic growth the region would have and subsequent massive increases in airline volume.

As result over the years they have had to do interim projects to keep up - 1970s for widebodies, 1980s TBIT and double deck roadway, 1990s expansion and refresh of many terminals.

While not perfect what remains, still works well enough to that 1960 vision - it still pretty easy to get in and out.

Quoting StuckInCA (Reply 63):
Based on your username, you are clearly fond of LAX.

Actually not. I personally think the airport is a negative in many ways - creates noise, pollution, and terrible traffic burden on the western half of the city.

Nothing would make me happier then actually see less activity at LAX, and people actually adopting the regionalization approach and utilizing all the other airports the region has to offer.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlinemercure1 From French Polynesia, joined Jul 2008, 1496 posts, RR: 2
Reply 72, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 5559 times:

Impressive photo.

Amazing how vacant and empty the area looked.

I also love the theme building. So unique and futuristic still.

Yes agree, its still a short distance from the car to your plane in 2013, a convenience very few major global airports in the world can achieve.


User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19727 posts, RR: 58
Reply 73, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 5532 times:

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 19):
I swear, my beloved Los Angeles is becoming the next Detroit, unable to build and only explain why things cannot be done.

In the last decade, Detroit has opened not one but TWO brand-new, sparkling, gorgeous, modern terminals. I haven't used the North Terminal yet, but Midfield is fantastic (I refuse to call it by it's eponymous name). While not as architecturally gee-whiz-bang as DXB or BKK, it is attractive, clean, bright, passenger-friendly, and efficient.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 69):

And then they wonder why business goes to Nevada, Colorado, or Texas...

It's booming here in NorCal. Bottom line, there needs to be a national streamlining of infrastructure construction. There shouldn't be "environmental review" in places that are already ecologically devastated, especially if the construction will help the environment globally by reducing taxi and wait times and delays in general and thus reducing airline fuel burn.


User currently onlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13135 posts, RR: 100
Reply 74, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 5420 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 70):
LAXs traffic caused by busses.

I was referring the general transfer issues being discussed.

But its not just buses. LAX does not have the terminal floor space for the quantity of passengers. Why the traffic loop is bad, so is the check in, wait through security, and lack of amenities once past security. My most frequent flight is LAX-DFW-LAX. Checking in at DFW Terminal D is a far different experience than T1, T4, or UA's terminals. LAX needs more fixed than just the road access.

I have hope with this expansion, but it should be more. And DFW is an example where the 'horseshoe's' issues have been mitigated. The nice thing about the horseshoe is the O&D experience. Fast in and out. But only if the facility is operated below capacity (like DFW terminal D). Otherwise, for connection experience, the DEN layout is superior.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 73):
Bottom line, there needs to be a national streamlining of infrastructure construction.

Agreed. Here in SoCal everything seems stalled...  

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineLDVAviation From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 1069 posts, RR: 4
Reply 75, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 5329 times:

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 69):
But I agree with you. On busy days, LAX is HORRID. That is why I fly LGB any opportunity. Its too the point I simply do not want to take my kids through LAX. I fail to see why the city won't spend money as it is *far* worse than say DFW.

LAX has its own revenue sources, it does not draw revenues from the city. The Airport Board is spending a lot of money. Review the management reports on the LAWA website. The planning/construction of the new TBIT was fast tracked. They've slowed the pace of planning for the Midfield Concourse (northern portion), but they are still projecting a construction start of 4th quarter 2014.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 73):
In the last decade, Detroit has opened not one but TWO brand-new, sparkling, gorgeous, modern terminals. I haven't used the North Terminal yet, but Midfield is fantastic (I refuse to call it by it's eponymous name). While not as architecturally gee-whiz-bang as DXB or BKK, it is attractive, clean, bright, passenger-friendly, and efficient.

The midfield concourse was an attempt by the feds to jumpstart the Detroit economy. It helped as well that it was backed by the hub operation of a single airline.

At LAX, the politics weren't so neat. Up until recently, improvements to the leased (and even the common use) terminals were left to the airlines; they were not dictated by a more effective agent (e.g, the Board, the Feds, the City). The emphasis for the longest time was to keep rental rates and landing fees as low as possible for a number of reasons, this despite the fact that LAWA had latitude to increase both. The airlines, of course, liked this arrangement, but it also meant that a lot of the infrastructure was allowed to deteriorate. Without the additional revenue from rents and also concessions, the Board did not have the revenue to undertake any major improvement projects. You'll note that the terminal projects that were proposed during this sleepy period in LAX's history, including the West Concourse that was never built and the T4 renovation, were backed by a single airline, United and American respectively. During that period, from the late 80's through the early 2000's, the Board never took the initiative to do anything on its own.

What's happened over the last 5 years or so is that LAX raised revenue by adding concessions, renegotiating leases with buyback clauses for any improvements undertaken by the airlines, and reviewing its business practices to make sure that it was recouping its costs from all airport activities. As a result, LAX now has the revenue to undertake a number of projects on its own, without backing from a single airline. In fact, despite borrowing a large amount of money to build the TBIT West project, LAWA is in good enough a financial position to double its debt over the next five years without impairing its existing debt covenants.


User currently offlineUALAX From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 145 posts, RR: 0
Reply 76, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 5264 times:

Quoting LDVAviation (Reply 75):

What's happened over the last 5 years or so is that LAX raised revenue by adding concessions, renegotiating leases with buyback clauses for any improvements undertaken by the airlines, and reviewing its business practices to make sure that it was recouping its costs from all airport activities. As a result, LAX now has the revenue to undertake a number of projects on its own, without backing from a single airline. In fact, despite borrowing a large amount of money to build the TBIT West project, LAWA is in good enough a financial position to double its debt over the next five years without impairing its existing debt covenants.

Thank you LDVAviation for your insight. It seems to be a pastime on this forum to bash LAX without realizing the airport has taken significant steps recently to improve the airport. The airport did not deteriorate overnight and it is going to take years to get the airport fully modernized while meeting their commitments in the negotiated settlement.

I am looking forward to the new TBIT opening and the start of the midfield satellite concourse construction. It will be interesting to see what will happen to the displaced airlines during the T-3 rebuild. Will they shift to T-2 and/or use the MSC?


User currently offlineWA707atMSP From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 2226 posts, RR: 8
Reply 77, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 5275 times:

Quoting LDVAviation (Reply 75):
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 73):
In the last decade, Detroit has opened not one but TWO brand-new, sparkling, gorgeous, modern terminals. I haven't used the North Terminal yet, but Midfield is fantastic (I refuse to call it by it's eponymous name). While not as architecturally gee-whiz-bang as DXB or BKK, it is attractive, clean, bright, passenger-friendly, and efficient.

The midfield concourse was an attempt by the feds to jumpstart the Detroit economy. It helped as well that it was backed by the hub operation of a single airline.

The midfield (NW, now DL) terminal was built in the late 1990s, at the height of popularity of SUVs like the Ford Excursion, when the "Detroit three" auto companies were doing very well. It was not an "attempt to jumpstart the Detroit economy", because when it was being built, Detroit was very prosperous thanks to the profits the auto companies and their suppliers were earning on SUVs.

It opened in 2002, shortly after the SUV boom ended.



Seaholm Maples are #1!
User currently offlineStuckInCA From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 1971 posts, RR: 0
Reply 78, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 5084 times:

Quoting LDVAviation (Reply 64):
You can't really compare LAX to any of those airports. The metro areas served by SEA and MSP are not world capitals. There was a lot more to overcome, there was a lot more to do.

That's beside my point. And I'm not sure I'd classify LA as a world capital. Maybe. The point is that it's a terrible airport. It may have been a fine idea at the time, so in that sense, the execution of the design at that moment was probably OK if you are only judging it based on a moment in time. Reality is less kind. Viewed in hindsight, it was terrible.

Quoting Deltal1011man (Reply 65):
I don't think MSP or SEA have a total of 750 flights a day.

Wrong on both counts. They are both clearly smaller than LAX, but I only mentioned them as they are the airports I fly into and out of on a regular (very regular basis). There are few airports I dislike more than LAX. Give me MUC, ZRH, CPH, or even AMS or FRA. Most US airports even top LAX.

As to someone else's remark about engineering designs being judged harshly by people who weren't there at the time: don't I know it. I've been working in machine design for a long while. Accepting criticism and anticipating evolving requirements are part of the deal. Sometimes the best solution at one moment isn't the best one for the long term. For something that can't be replaced virtually ever - like an airport - it seems disingenuous to claim that it was a great plan at the time. A great plan would still be at least OK.


User currently offlineLDVAviation From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 1069 posts, RR: 4
Reply 79, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 4961 times:

Quoting WA707atMSP (Reply 77):
It opened in 2002, shortly after the SUV boom ended.

There was an article in Aviation Week when the Midfield Concourse opened that indicated that the Feds were involved in economic engineering. (I could be wrong.)

Quoting StuckInCA (Reply 78):
That's beside my point. And I'm not sure I'd classify LA as a world capital. Maybe. The point is that it's a terrible airport. It may have been a fine idea at the time, so in that sense, the execution of the design at that moment was probably OK if you are only judging it based on a moment in time. Reality is less kind. Viewed in hindsight, it was terrible.

This is not the time and place for the argument. Still, I am not the only one who has declared that LA is a world capital. It is now a generally accepted premise, validated in part by the fact that LA's influence on world culture is undeniable. And, we're not just talking movies and television. We're talking the LA School in architecture (e.g., Ghery and Mayne) and the numerous world class artists that were educated in LA art schools and/or call LA home.

On that note, LAWA selected three LA-based artists to create works for the new TBIT. All three are internationally-renown. There will be nothing provincial about the new TBIT.


User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25416 posts, RR: 49
Reply 80, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 4938 times:

Quoting LDVAviation (Reply 75):
The emphasis for the longest time was to keep rental rates and landing fees as low as possible for a number of reasons, this despite the fact that LAWA had latitude to increase both. The airlines, of course, liked this arrangement, but it also meant that a lot of the infrastructure was allowed to deteriorate. Without the additional revenue from rents and also concessions, the Board did not have the revenue to undertake any major improvement projects.

Personally I cant wait for the time when airlines start complain LAX is too expensive. Might be the only true chance to discourage increased activity at the airport in favor of other facilities.

Even with 40% rise in the fee structure the last few years, its still rather moderate cost facility.

Quoting LDVAviation (Reply 79):
This is not the time and place for the argument. Still, I am not the only one who has declared that LA is a world capital. It is now a generally accepted premise,

   LA is considered an Alpha world city.

People might not realize but LA basin has the 20th largest economy in the world if it were its own nation. Even its population exceeds that of 42 states. Plus it has other things like the largest trade port in the US, nations largest commercial property market in value, the nations second largest manufacturing center, and #1 recipient market of foreign investment in the US.

Its quite a significant place by any measure in the global arena.

[Edited 2013-05-03 22:40:27]


From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineBeardown91737 From United States of America, joined Jun 2011, 542 posts, RR: 0
Reply 81, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 4900 times:

Quoting StuckInCA (Reply 78):
The point is that it's a terrible airport. It may have been a fine idea at the time, so in that sense, the execution of the design at that moment was probably OK if you are only judging it based on a moment in time.

Agreed that LAX is well designed for what the airlines wanted in 1961. The question still remains if $5 billion can fix it. Runway incursions have to be the highest priority. After that, 90% of LAX is O/D and most of its problems are groundside and traffic, not connections.

Quoting mercure1 (Reply 61):
I enjoy landing, being in a car in a matter of minutes.

You can do this at just about any airport if you park in the $30/day lot, or if someone picks you up at curbside.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 71):
I don't think anyone forecast the huge economic growth the region would have and subsequent massive increases in airline volume.

Someone should have seen it coming. Los Angeles had at least 20% population growth every census from its founding until 1970.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 9):
I can only guess that LA hates fat people

The world capital of hamburger stands and donut shops does not hate fat people.

Quoting mercure1 (Reply 61):
What airport have you been to that has been pleasant during a bomb scare, or employee strike ?

None. These things seem to disproportionately happen at LAX. Not bomb scares, but in 2002, the news reported a terminal evacuation about every 3 weeks. You would expect the labor disruptions to happen somewhere like Seattle, but no.. LAX.



135 hrs PIC (mostly PA-28) - not current. Landings at MDW, PIA, JAN.
User currently offlineADent From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 1386 posts, RR: 2
Reply 82, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 4874 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 80):
Personally I cant wait for the time when airlines start complain LAX is too expensive. Might be the only true chance to discourage increased activity at the airport in favor of other facilities.

Where are they going to go? SNA and LGB are slot constrained. BUR has curfews and limited facilities. ONT is way out there, in an area economically depressed area, and higher cost. Except maybe ONT it seems like communities would be happier if their local airport closed.


User currently offlineByrdluvs747 From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 2361 posts, RR: 1
Reply 83, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 4827 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 80):
Personally I cant wait for the time when airlines start complain LAX is too expensive. Might be the only true chance to discourage increased activity at the airport in favor of other facilities.

The idea of a regionalized airport system in LA is a mythical pipe dream of community activists. It requires airlines to duplicate their efforts/costs, and potentially lowers yields/loads. On top of that you lose any intl connecting traffic.

Given the latest expansion of AA and others at LAX, it's obvious where the airlines are interested in growing

The only routes I can see operating from ONT are the current routes to various carrier hubs.

If these groups are so concerned with traffic into LAX, then they should funnel their efforts into increased rail transportation hubs.



The 747: The hands who designed it were guided by god.
User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25416 posts, RR: 49
Reply 84, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 4692 times:

Quoting ADent (Reply 82):
Where are they going to go? SNA and LGB are slot constrained. BUR has curfews and limited facilities. ONT is way out there, in an area economically depressed area, and higher cost. Except maybe ONT it seems like communities would be happier if their local airport closed.

All LA airports operate under capacity.

LGB was 17 commuter slots, SNA has no one on the waiting list and is about to expand its slots and passenger enplanement limits with revised settlement agreement, BUR is far below capacity and the curfew is "voluntary", while we know about ONT having modern empty facilities waiting on clients.

And yes many communities would love to see the airport close, including ones around LAX. Its the nature of the land here.

Quoting Byrdluvs747 (Reply 83):
The idea of a regionalized airport system in LA is a mythical pipe dream

Might be a dream, but its one I even hold to growing degree. I really see the downsides of LAX activity everyday, and wish it was not the one-stop solution for virtually the entire basin.

Since voluntary methods have not worked over the years, maybe future economic ones when LAX does truly become a higher price facility might shift the thinking a bit.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineLDVAviation From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 1069 posts, RR: 4
Reply 85, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 4541 times:

Quoting UALAX (Reply 76):
I am looking forward to the new TBIT opening and the start of the midfield satellite concourse construction. It will be interesting to see what will happen to the displaced airlines during the T-3 rebuild. Will they shift to T-2 and/or use the MSC?

My understanding is that the MSC (northern portion) will be ready by the time the heavy construction on the runway realignment project begins.

At that time, the MSC will provide temporary gates for all airlines on the north side (T1 to T3). In a previous thread on this subject, there is a drawing showing how the runway realignment will impact each terminal. (If I remember correctly, T1 will lose the most gates.)

On the opening of the new TBIT, there is supposed to be a public preview event in June. Let's hope by "public" LAWA means us. : )


User currently offlineplanesmart From New Zealand, joined Dec 2004, 939 posts, RR: 0
Reply 86, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 4424 times:

As I've got older, and the airport has aged too, I like LA less and less. Hope the re-development happens.

In less than a decade, there will probably be a new class of international airport - those that can handle A380 (and similar) passenger numbers and aircraft dimensions with ease, and those that can't.


User currently offlineN62NA From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 4471 posts, RR: 7
Reply 87, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 4316 times:

Quoting StuckInCA (Reply 78):
The point is that it's a terrible airport.

Well everyone is entitled to their opinion. Personally, I think it's a very nice airport and runs very efficiently.

Now, I can only vouch for my experience traveling to/from LAX on AA, but we have never been "30th in line for take off" or "held on the ground due to lightning in the area" or "had to wait for the de-icing crew to arrive."

In addition, it's never taken me more than 10 minutes to get from the airport entrance to the AA terminal in a car or rental car bus.

The AA terminal, while busy, isn't "bursting at the seams" like you experience at LGA for example. And there's a nice choice of restaurants and shops too (yes, it is not a shopping mall, but I'm there primarily to get on a plane as quickly as possible).


User currently offline802flyguy From United States of America, joined May 2012, 200 posts, RR: 0
Reply 88, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 4035 times:

Good, if brief, LAT article:

http://www.latimes.com/business/mone...l-airport-20130503,0,1067083.story


User currently offliner2rho From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2630 posts, RR: 1
Reply 89, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 3854 times:

Good to see this going through. LAX is behind by at least 20 years - this plan won't fix LAX completely, but it's a welcome and necessary step in the right direction.

Quoting twincessna340a (Reply 18):
Yes LAX is falling behind....it is arguably the US equivalent of LHR.

Though the terminal experience is better in the new parts of LHR, the comparison is indeed quite valid.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 55):
Moving the runway cuts runway incursions and increases capacity by 150 flights per day.

Exactly, apart from increasing safety in increases capacity and improves runway operations. If LAX is to grow it will mainly have to be via larger aircraft size. The larger runway separation and taxiway will help to that purpose.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 32):
One reason why LAX has fewer connections may simply be that passengers know it's not designed to facilitate connections and they thus prefer to connect elsewhere.

Interesting point. If LAX were made more connection-friendly, could connections increase noticeably..? I don't know. Due to its geographical location, the only connections that make sense are TransPacific-onwards USA.

Quoting 802flyguy (Reply 37):
Still no plan to bring the the Metro line actually into the airport?

This is really disappointing. I don't like the take-a-train-to-take-your-train concept. And considering that you will require at least one transfer to get anywhere from the Crenshaw line, that makes a minimum of two transfers. Not exactly an attractive proposition to get people off their cars....

Quoting 802flyguy (Reply 37):
I know this is Fantasy Land stuff, but the BNSF heavy rail tracks run very close to LAX. What about a connection the to (a future) Metro Rail line and maybe someday Amtrak?

Now you're starting to dream. But it's a dream that makes sense.

Quoting Reply 42):
I am very disappointed to see that the Automated People Mover does not make a full loop around the airport terminal area, but instead only travels in a horseshoe and comes to a complete end at Terminal 7.

Indeed. If you're already not going to bring Metro into the airport, at least build the APM right!

Quoting KD5MDK (Reply 51):
For the people saying light rail should go into LAX, to which terminal? It's certainly not going to stop at all of them.

No, 2 or 3 stations place in intermediate positions, each serving 2-3 terminals, with moving walkways, would suffice.


User currently offlineTheRedBaron From Mexico, joined Mar 2005, 2217 posts, RR: 8
Reply 90, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 3762 times:

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 9):
My guess an earthquake would cause billions of dollars of improvements.

Man you always crack me up!..LOL



The best seat in a Plane is the Jumpseat.
User currently offlineBeardown91737 From United States of America, joined Jun 2011, 542 posts, RR: 0
Reply 91, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 3304 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 80):
People might not realize but LA basin has the 20th largest economy in the world if it were its own nation.

It would be 21st if NY were it's own nation. I wonder if NY has to include Irvine too.

Quoting ADent (Reply 82):
Except maybe ONT it seems like communities would be happier if their local airport closed.

Yet people use those airports. Airports have enemies under the approach and departure paths.

For SNA, these are particularly rich opponents in Newport Beach. The rest of OC is fine without having to travel to a more distant airport, and part of OC is closer to LGB anyway. LGB also has slot restrictions. BUR is just a small airport. PSP should be mentioned. It brings valuable tourists and is really the only usable airport in its area, being 75 miles east of ONT.

You are right about ONT not minding the air traffic. The approach end is over industrial areas. The next closest airport is SNA at 45 miles. BUR, PSP, and LGB are even further away and all are smaller than ONT, although PSP and LGB offer additional non-stop destinations. LAX NIMBYs would be happy to have IE residents use ONT, and LA County motorists would welcome the traffic relief of everyone else using their nearest airport.

Quoting ADent (Reply 82):
ONT is way out there, in an area economically depressed area, and higher cost.

Way out there? Everyone in LA drives past it on their way to Vegas, and as I previously said, "way out there" works in both directions.
Economically depressed? That's played way out of proportion on a.net using cherry picked examples.
Higher cost? Yes, it is saddled with a giant bureaucracy that operates at big city prices.



135 hrs PIC (mostly PA-28) - not current. Landings at MDW, PIA, JAN.
User currently offlineJHwk From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 235 posts, RR: 0
Reply 92, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 3127 times:

Quoting r2rho (Reply 89):
If LAX is to grow it will mainly have to be via larger aircraft size.

The O&D market demands direct flights; it is hard to imagine 380's will be the solution for LAX-ORD or LAX-JFK even, and I doubt very much we will see a 380 on LAX-LAS.

Quoting r2rho (Reply 89):
Quoting KD5MDK (Reply 51):
For the people saying light rail should go into LAX, to which terminal? It's certainly not going to stop at all of them.

No, 2 or 3 stations place in intermediate positions, each serving 2-3 terminals, with moving walkways, would suffice.

Which gets me back to wanting two central terminals on either side of the Theme Building/Tower/Central Plant where the parking garages are now. If you make any more than two stops at the terminals then the system will be far too slow, and it looks like you will end up needing at least 3 but likely 4 to manage walking times. The people mover won't fix anything though unless it becomes easier than driving.


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...
Gas Prices Force Bakersfield-LAX Airport Bus Cuts posted Thu Jul 10 2008 10:54:03 by FATFlyer
LAX Airport/Airline Worker? Help Me Out! posted Mon Feb 18 2008 12:55:51 by Toddy333
LAX Airport posted Fri Jun 30 2006 03:40:47 by Slovacek747
Airport Modernization In India Faces Snags posted Fri Jan 6 2006 15:25:16 by Terryb99
LAX Airport posted Thu Oct 20 2005 19:56:42 by Ahdharia
Caracas: Svfm (La Carlota) As A Regional Airport? posted Tue May 17 2005 03:24:46 by Luisde8cd
LAX Airport Police Officer Killed Yesterday... posted Sat Apr 30 2005 17:53:59 by AlphaZulu
LAX Airport Upgrade Plan Gets OK posted Thu Oct 21 2004 21:39:07 by KarlB737
Kuwait Dismisses Report Of Lax Airport Security posted Mon Jul 12 2004 14:46:40 by Soups
LAX Airport Hotel And LAX Spotting. posted Thu Oct 2 2003 22:53:56 by Pe@rson