I agree, I doubt it would matter if the A380 were built by Boeing. I think it *would* matter if the largest airlines at the airport intended to operate VLA's. But they're not.
It's not just about widening taxiways, repositioning airfield lighting, enlarging aircraft parking spaces, etc. As others have said, LAX
has runway bridges which probably can't handle the weight of an A380, and reconstructing those bridges would be extremely expensive AND
probably cause more congestion during the construction than the use of the A380 at LAX
could ever hope to reduce.
LAWA is NOT a for-profit corporation, so its purpose is NOT to "maximise its return from its assets PERIOD." Its purpose is to provide a service to its owners which happen to be the people of Los Angeles. The people of Los Angeles are NOT better served by higher airfares to subsidize the bottom lines of foreign airlines. And "investing" hundreds of millions or billions of dollars in the hope of gaining back a few million per year in higher landing fees doesn't exactly sound like maximizing return on assets at all.
You've seen the project estimates but you're "not getting into an argument over figures with someone who doesn't have access to them." Why not? If you're right, the figures will back you up (at SYD
at least). And without anything concrete, your statement holds as much water as "we know the weapons of mass destruction are there, we just haven't found them yet." And as I said before, Qantas is the largest user of SYD
, so it's clear that they'll be willing to put up the money to pay for the improvements. "The reconfiguration of fees happened because MAP wanted more money from direct aviation sources and that presented the best opportunity to do it" sounds like a very nice reason to feed to the public and to regulators, but you know, corporations and their public relations people/executives don't always tell the real story.
I will agree most whole-heartedly that BA
, ANA, JAL, Cathay, UAL, et al shouldn't be subsidizing their competitors at their hubs! I also don't believe that the vast majority of airlines at LAX
(or any other airport) should be subsidizing a handful of other carriers.
"But hey if your happy to bury your head in the sand and send all the International Carriers to SFO
, be my guest. The airport will be the loser in the end." I can't believe you expect people to swallow that argument! Guess what? They're going to keep operating 747-400's to LAX
and filling them up. If they want to route lower-yield connecting traffic through SFO
and deal with SFO
's inadequate airfield which is unlikely to ever be fixed due to environmental issues, well, hey, I hope they have fun when the SFO
fog sets in and they have 550 angry delayed passengers who missed their connections! The international carriers fly to LAX
because (1) the L.A. metro area is considerably larger in population than the S.F. Bay Area (2) it's hard to compete with United at a gateway it dominates and (3) SFO
is a cluster**** when the fog comes in (which is often). And if Airline X chooses to pull out of LAX
because they can't operate their new toy, someone else would likely be more than happy to take their place.
I agree completely that the airlines at LAX
who control their own facilities and codeshare with A380 operators should be free to upgrade their terminals *at their own cost.* If you buy a car which is too large for your garage, it's not your neighbors' responsibility to help you pay for a new garage.