CcrlR From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 2326 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (14 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 1653 times:
It was a good decision. I think that they might still expand O'hare I think and they are still working on Midway until they are complete and they are opening Meigs Field too so I think that that was a good idea.
"He was right, it is a screaming metal deathtrap!"-Cosmo (from the Fairly Oddparents)
DCA-ROCguy From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 4647 posts, RR: 31
Reply 3, posted (14 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 1600 times:
Ummm....isn't this a thread about LAX?
The new Mayor, James Hahn, ran against the airport expansion to get NIMBY votes. He wants to distribute more traffic out to ONT.
In other words, he ran against economic reality. People who go do LA do *not* want to drive an hour into the Inland Empire to ONT. They want to fly to LAX which is near the city. The only economically feasible alternative to LAX for the LA City area proper is Burbank. And that airport has such psychotic NIMBY's that they can't even get more than 14 gates at an airport that could support over double that number.
Hahn apparently isn't getting rid of LAX expansion altogether....he's proposed a remote parking structure and a rail/ bus system to move people into the terminal area. The idea is that cars would not be parked near the terminal. But that doesn't do anything about gate or runway capacity.
Whatever happens, LAX desperately needs its runways spaced wider for safer taxiing for 744's. The airfield capacity, according to the airport authority, could be enhanced greatly just by moving the existing runways a few hundred feet further apart.
If Mayor Hahn wants a congested airport that can't meet the traffic demands of the LA area, that's up to him. Trying to shove people to ONT where they don't want to go is NOT the answer.
Need a new airline paint scheme? Better call Saul! (Bass that is)