alexchao
Posts: 665
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2001 12:35 pm

$225-Million Upgrade Of LAX International Terminal

Tue Dec 09, 2003 6:04 pm

Mayor Jim Hahn Announces $225-Million Upgrade of Tom Bradley International Terminal at LAX

Largest construction project at airport since 1984 Olympics; Renovation will improve operational efficiency and enhance customer satisfaction at major U.S. air gateway

LOS ANGELES, Dec. 8, 2003 (PRIMEZONE) -- Los Angeles Mayor Jim Hahn today announced a $225-million project to renovate the interior of the Tom Bradley International Terminal (TBIT) at Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) for improved operational efficiency and enhanced customer satisfaction. Nearly 40 percent of the estimated cost is allocated to security and safety upgrades. The terminal overhaul will be the most extensive capital improvement project undertaken by Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA) since the 1984 Summer Olympics.

"Los Angeles International Airport is a global gateway for millions of travelers every year, which is why we are determined to ensure that LAX maintains the highest levels of safety, security and efficiency in the years ahead,'' said Mayor Hahn. "We must make the necessary investments to ensure that LAX maintains its prominence as an international hub and a major economic engine for our region.''

The $225-million project will be financed with a combination of airport revenues, Passenger Facility Charges (PFCs), and LAWA's commercial paper program. The U.S. Transportation Security Administration is expected to reimburse LAWA for up to 90 percent of the cost of installing the outbound baggage security screening system. At an estimated cost of $72 million, the screening system complies with a federal mandate to screen 100 percent of all checked luggage and will replace an interim solution in place since December 31, 2002, that has resulted in increased passenger congestion and circulation challenges.

"Since Tom Bradley International Terminal opened in 1984, it has welcomed millions of passengers to Los Angeles from all over the world,'' said Los Angeles City Councilmember Cindy Miscikowski (11th District). "But over the years, wear and tear has begun to show and it is time to remake the terminal in the image of Los Angeles as the Gateway to the Pacific Rim and the world.''

"Preserving and enhancing international gateway service at LAX is a critical component of the regional air transportation solution for Southern California envisioned and promoted by Mayor Hahn,'' said Los Angeles Board of Airport Commissioners President Ted Stein. "Even as we look to the other airports in the region to do their part to meet the growing demand for air service, we recognize the unique role of international service at LAX.''

Other major elements of the TBIT renovation project on both the Upper/Departures and Lower/Arrivals Levels include:


-- Dynamic overhead signage and plasma displays for flight information and other public communication;

-- Improved acoustics and lighting of all public areas, including new back-lit walls and more exterior windows for natural light;

-- New canopy over ticketing counters and back walls;

-- New terrazzo and carpet flooring;

-- Improved ramps and stairs for easier passenger access to bus-gate holdrooms and exits from federal inspection areas;

-- New food/beverage and retail concessions with outdoor seating, a children's play area, and a second-level walkway connecting the mezzanine seating area to new concessions;

-- More "intimate" and relaxing in-transit waiting lounges;

-- Replacing existing airline clubs with new combined airline lounges;

-- Faster-throughput baggage claim carousels;

-- Upgrading all elevators, escalators and moving walkways.

The Los Angeles Board of Airport Commissioners is expected to consider authorization to request proposals for construction management in the near future and will begin soliciting construction bids in May 2004.

Thirty-two international air carriers currently operate at TBIT, serving more than nine million passengers annually. LAX serves almost one-third of all air travelers between the United States and Asia-Pacific, the fast growing international market in the world.

Source: http://biz.yahoo.com/pz/031208/49400.html
 
User avatar
EK413
Posts: 4336
Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2003 3:11 pm

RE: $225-Million Upgrade Of LAX International Terminal

Tue Dec 09, 2003 6:58 pm

All I can say is what a waste of money!
$225 million to upgrade the wear & tear in the Tom Bradley International Terminal.
Wouldn't it be a good idea to re-configure the bays so that it can accommodate the A380. Let's see Qantas, Air France, Singapore Airlines, Virgin Atlantic, Korean Airlines are just some of the carriers which will be flying the A380 into LAX. So where would the passengers be disembark???
Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We are tonight’s entertainment!
 
lehpron
Posts: 6846
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2001 3:42 am

RE: $225-Million Upgrade Of LAX International Terminal

Wed Dec 10, 2003 8:02 am

That was I was about to say too, how come they are not interested in investing for an A380? Do they assume bigger planes that 747/777 cannot exist, let alone be built, just can't work?

What is this "can't" crap?
The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.
 
sllevin
Posts: 3312
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 1:57 pm

RE: $225-Million Upgrade Of LAX International Term

Wed Dec 10, 2003 9:25 am

Wouldn't it be a good idea to re-configure the bays so that it can accommodate the A380.

So we shouldn't update the terminal so a few airlines can run a handful of flights a day? As a passenger, I'd much rather see a nice updated terminal. And the A380 mods will cost a ton more money.

If airlines want to take flights out of LAX because the city won't waste a billion dollars so they can have new oversized toys, let them. The airport is overcrowded as it is, a few less flights a day would be a good thing.

Steve
 
alexchao
Posts: 665
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2001 12:35 pm

RE: $225-Million Upgrade Of LAX International Terminal

Wed Dec 10, 2003 9:49 am

As a person constantly going through the International Terminal, I will appreciate the updates. The terminal is old and is in need of major renovation.

I have a feeling this is only the first wave of updates. I think LAX will be A380-ready when the A380 is launched.

-alexchao
 
aussie747
Posts: 1005
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2003 11:15 pm

RE: $225-Million Upgrade Of LAX International Terminal

Wed Dec 10, 2003 6:47 pm

Isn't Terminal 4 at LAX the AA Terminal equipped for the A380 (end piers)? Although the taxiways need to be enlarged especailly around corners. That was the conensus I have in Australia any thoughts from those in LA.
 
User avatar
EK413
Posts: 4336
Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2003 3:11 pm

RE: $225-Million Upgrade Of LAX International Terminal

Wed Dec 10, 2003 7:03 pm

Sllevin
So we shouldn't update the terminal so a few airlines can run a handful of flights a day? As a passenger, I'd much rather see a nice updated terminal. And the A380 mods will cost a ton more money.

If airlines want to take flights out of LAX because the city won't waste a billion dollars so they can have new oversized toys, let them. The airport is overcrowded as it is, a few less flights a day would be a good thing.

I understand maybe the terminal has wear & tear & is due for a update. I personally think that re-configuration of the bays should be on the drawing board too!
Think of it this way, wasn't the A380 designed to reduce congestion at major hubs?
Example;Qantas has 5 aircraft at the same time in LAX, the A380 might cut it down to 2-3 aircraft depending on the configuration.
Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We are tonight’s entertainment!
 
Mizzou65201
Posts: 192
Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2000 2:11 am

RE: $225-Million Upgrade Of LAX International Terminal

Wed Dec 10, 2003 8:06 pm

From the LA Times article, Monday 12/8, on the TBIT renovations

Airlines that use the Bradley terminal say they are pleased that it will be updated, but concerned that the building still will not be ready for the arrival of the world's largest passenger jet in 2006. Seven carriers plan to fly the 555-seat Airbus A380 to LAX.

The upgrade planned next year will work in part to get the Bradley terminal ready for the A380, Deputy Mayor Troy Edwards said, by making it "far easier" for the facility to handle the increased number of passengers coming off the large jet at the same time.

But airlines that have ordered the A380, including Air France, Lufthansa, Singapore Airlines and Virgin Atlantic, are particularly concerned that gates at the Bradley terminal are not designed to handle the large, two-story plane. They would have to load and unload passengers at remote gates near the sand dunes, from where they would be bused to and from waiting rooms in the Bradley terminal, which are designed to hold 35 passengers each.

This is an "unacceptable alternative," executives representing Air France, Lufthansa, Singapore Airlines and Virgin Atlantic, wrote to Kim Day, interim executive director for the city's airport agency.

The mayor's office agrees. "The remote gates provide a second-tier level of service for our international passengers," Edwards said.

He said the city has included plans to build gates onto the Bradley terminal that can accommodate the A380 in Hahn's $9-billion modernization proposal for LAX. Construction on larger gates, however, is not slated to start until 2009, three years after the A380 is scheduled to arrive in Los Angeles.
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: $225-Million Upgrade Of LAX International Terminal

Wed Dec 10, 2003 8:47 pm

All the airlines mentioned will only be incidental compared to the massive displeasure of Qantas if they can't have 3 of their new birds on the ground at the same time there.

N
 
ScottB
Posts: 5454
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2000 1:25 am

RE: $225-Million Upgrade Of LAX International Term

Thu Dec 11, 2003 6:15 am

Well, boo-freaking-hoo! If the above-mentioned airlines like QF, AF, SQ, LH, and VS want to operate their A380's to LAX, they ought to be willing to put up their fair share of the cost of the upgrades to the airfield/terminal. Have LAWA issue a set of bonds to pay for the A380-specific upgrades and service the bonds with a special fee on A380 landings. It is certainly NOT fair to force the vast majority of the other airlines at LAX which will NEVER operate the A380 to shoulder the cost of the upgrades, especially given that 10 A380's would only represent the number of seats in 12-13 747-400's. If congestion at LAX is such a huge problem, then reduce the number of prop/RJ flights -- the number of flights between SAN and LAX on UA/AA is simply ridiculous given that it is virtually all connecting traffic. If you reconfigure the gates at the TBIT to accomodate the A380, that reduces the number of gates available -- and that begs the point of the A380's ability to offer increased capacity.

WN had more than two-and-a-half times the number of LAX passengers than QF, SQ, AF, LH, AND VS *COMBINED* in 2002. They get nothing out of A380-specific upgrades aside from operational disruptions at the airport related to construction. Why should Southwest, United, and American pay for an upgrade which solely benefits their competitors?

If A380 operators choose to end service to LAX because they won't be able to fly the A380 into the airport, someone else will be more than happy to take advantage of that market opportunity. I'm sure that United would LOVE to have the LAX-Australia market to itself! If the A380 operators choose to increase service to, say, SFO with A380's, LAX loses some connecting passengers -- but it could be argued that the LA metro area gains very little net benefit from connecting passengers, and the freed-up capacity from shifting those passengers to other airports could easily be applied to O&D traffic. The availability of A380 gates won't fix SFO's operational problems/airfield when the fog rolls in, either.

LAX *is* in the enviable position of being able to call the shots given its status as the primary international gateway for Southern California. SAN doesn't have terminal space, and ONT is too far away from L.A. to be desirable as an alternative (not to mention that LAWA runs ONT, anyway). Sure, displeased A380 operators could choose to fly somewhere else, but they'd essentially be cutting off their noses to spite their faces. Someone else would step in to fulfill demand from LAX. And I think that Qantas' "massive displeasure" would pale in comparison to the "massive displeasure" from United, American, Southwest, Delta, Alaska, Skywest, Northwest, Continental, America West, and US Airways, which are (in order) the top ten airlines at LAX if they were told that they were going to be paying the cost of A380 upgrades for a half dozen foreign airlines.

[Edited 2003-12-10 22:18:04]
 
User avatar
RayChuang
Posts: 8007
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2000 7:43 am

RE: $225-Million Upgrade Of LAX International Terminal

Thu Dec 11, 2003 6:31 am

What LAX really needs to do is to completely build an all-new remote terminal away from the Bradley International Terminal with most of the gates sporting 80 x 80 meter spacing AND dual-level jetwalks to accommodate the A380-800's from AF, KE, LH, QF and VS.

At the rate things are going SFO will end up getting QF A388 service first.  Insane
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 18260
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: $225-Million Upgrade Of LAX International Terminal

Thu Dec 11, 2003 6:38 am

Scottb:

Is it really "either/or"?

If QF or SQ or VS decide that they'll put an A380 into SFO, that doesn't mean they'll pull out of LAX altogether.

They can easily continue some 747 service into LAX. They all have other routes - in the case of QF, SYD/LHR - where the A380 can be deployed while LAX sorts itself out.

Even if they did pull out completely in favor of SFO, I'm not sure who would - or could - "step in" to fulfill demand from LAX on at least some of those international routes. Who has the rights?

UAL would be pleased to have LAX/SYD to itself? Sure. Would QF let that happen? Doubt it.

Isn't it all a bit of a storm in a teacup? Somehow or other, if the airlines want to do it, a few A380's will land at LAX and somehow or other, arrangements will be made.

Those arrangements may not be ideal in the first instance, but there's a lot of airports where the "arrangements" for the 747 were very far from ideal in the first instance.

cheers

mariner
aeternum nauta
 
Sydscott
Posts: 3081
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2003 11:50 am

RE: $225-Million Upgrade Of LAX International Terminal

Thu Dec 11, 2003 6:42 am


Well you get the award for shortsightedness Scottb. If the other major airports around the world are going to be equiped for the A380 when its introduced for service I can't see any reason why LAX shouldn't be. Other airport authorities have made the decision to re build terminals etc without increasing their landing charges on all the carriers. I'm sure LAX is a profitable operation and in typical drama queen fashion they will come to the party whinging and whining the whole way in typical Californian fashion.

I agree with spending $225 million upgrading it, the place needs a paint job and some new carpet.

Meanwhile you forget the QF feeds AA flights at LAX whilst LH, UAL and SQ are members of Star, plus US Airways aill be soon, and AF has teamed up with Delta. So its not as if the major carriers at LAX aren't going to get some benefit of the increased passengers coming in on the A380.

And Boo hoo to WN not being able to take advantage of International Connecting traffic. Under that reasoning LAX shouldn't have upgraded for the 747 either because AA, WN, Delta, Alaska, Skywest, Continental, America West and US Airways dont operate them. What sort of logic is that???
 
Tom in NO
Posts: 6725
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 1999 10:10 am

RE: $225-Million Upgrade Of LAX International Terminal

Thu Dec 11, 2003 7:03 am

The problem with just redesigning or expanding areas at LAX in order to immediately accomodate the 380 is the effect it would have on existing operations there, and on the existing infrastructure. It may a simple problem of having to get everything required designed, then prioriting it, then funding and constructing it. If I'm LAX, I'm going to have all my ducks lined up before I begin such a project, and not just start throwing bricks and concrete up in a disorganized manner.

Sometimes I laugh at how airports are perceived that we won't accomodate airlines, or build facilities, or the like. RDU, BNA, and PIT are examples are airports that did, and are now screwed, or about to be.

At the same time, I would be almost positive that LAX will be in a position to accomodate the 380. Remember that while the airport may front the construction funds (through bonds or PFC's), the airlines will end up paying it back.

I'm also positive that while the 380-operating are probably losing sleep over this, they won't be pulling LAX service because of it.

Tom at MSY
"The criminal ineptitude makes you furious"-Bruce Springsteen, after seeing firsthand the damage from Hurricane Katrina
 
ScottB
Posts: 5454
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2000 1:25 am

RE: $225-Million Upgrade Of LAX International Term

Thu Dec 11, 2003 8:49 am

My point isn't that I think A380 operators will pull service from LAX absent upgrades; rather, I think it's very unlikely because of the size of the market. My point is that they really have little leverage to try to force LAWA into spending a lot of money for facilities which will be used by perhaps 10 daily flights.

The other major airports can do what they wish with regard to upgrades supporting the A380. And at airports where an A380 operator is the dominant hub carrier (i.e. FRA, MUC, CDG, SIN, SYD, DXB, etc.) that airline will indeed pay the lion's share of the upgrade costs -- as it should be. But, in truth, it is unfair to expect a large number of airlines to subsidize the operations of a few, especially when the public benefit (reduced congestion) is so minimal!

At the time when the 747-100 was introduced, many of the large U.S. airlines *were* operating or had ordered the type -- the likes of Pan Am, TWA, Continental, American, Delta, Braniff, Eastern, and Northwest Orient. The DC-10 and L1011 were also being introduced and required upgrades to facilities. These upgrades were needed by most airlines, not a handful. Even PSA ordered the L1011!

I don't have a problem with LAX spending money on upgrades for the A380. I just think the A380 operators should bear the full cost of the upgrades. As far as the domestic carriers code-sharing with A380 operators goes, it matters little to DL, AA, UA, US, CO, or NW whether their code share partner operates a 747-400 or A380, or whether the code share flight departs LAX or SFO. Actually, I'm sure United would be happy to have LH and SQ operating larger equipment from SFO, given that UA has a larger presence there.

Sometimes practicality needs to win out over grandiose so-called "vision." Those airlines reaping the greatest benefit from the A380 should be willing to pay the associated infrastructure costs.
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: $225-Million Upgrade Of LAX International Terminal

Thu Dec 11, 2003 9:06 am

I don't have a problem with LAX spending money on upgrades for the A380. I just think the A380 operators should bear the full cost of the upgrades

That's a great way to hand future operators free facilities.

N
 
elwood64151
Posts: 2410
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2002 10:22 am

RE: $225-Million Upgrade Of LAX International Terminal

Thu Dec 11, 2003 9:13 am

When the 777 was launched, a lot of airports chose to expand gate areas. But the 777 was originally supposed to have foling wing-tips. There's nothing wrong with that (thousands of military jets fly much more rigorous flights than any commercial airliner, and they have folding tips).

Maybe Airbus needs to adjust its design so that the aircraft fits into the gates.

Of course, one could have said the same thing about the 747 back in '69.

A lot of people seem to be forgetting that a lot of these airlines will still be flying 747s, 777s, A340s and A330s. If the airport isn't ready for the A380, don't fly it there! LAX misses out of the landing fees of the largest passenger jet in the world, unless the airline wishes to inconvenience its passengers.

It's all about choices. As they say, one size does not fit all. LAX has said, "Too big."
Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it in summer school.
 
PHXinterrupted
Posts: 461
Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2002 6:41 am

RE: $225-Million Upgrade Of LAX International Terminal

Thu Dec 11, 2003 9:21 am

Let the operators of the A380 pay for the upgrades they want, or better yet, let Airbus pay for it!
Keepin' it real.
 
brons2
Posts: 2462
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2001 1:02 pm

RE: $225-Million Upgrade Of LAX International Term

Thu Dec 11, 2003 9:31 am

I for one hope to never see an A380 at LAX, because I'll be the one paying for it in higher fares when I travel to Southern California.
Firings, if well done, are good for employee morale.
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: $225-Million Upgrade Of LAX International Terminal

Thu Dec 11, 2003 9:33 am

Let the operators of the A380 pay for the upgrades they want, or better yet, let Airbus pay for it!

You people are confused. LAX provides a service, not only to the passengers but to the airlines. They make money both ways.

Businesses usually try to accomodate their customers requests, and then they pass along the cost of that accommodation to all their customers.

Suggestions that Airbus pay for it are bullshit. Boeing didn't pay for 747 upgrades.

You can't ask the initial group of A380 customers to pay for it. If you do, then everyone that buys the A380 after the upgrades are complete will get a free ride.

N
 
BN747
Posts: 5344
Joined: Thu Mar 28, 2002 5:48 am

RE: $225-Million Upgrade Of LAX International Term

Thu Dec 11, 2003 12:32 pm

There's no way any of the top A380 cxrs are gonna pull outta LAX because LAX isn't or won't be ready. QF everyday has between 3-5 744s on the ground simultaneously that = buckets of cash in this market. That also equals QF-LAX traffic is generating the cash to pay for the new aircraft. That scene is duplicated nowhere outside Australia. So they ain't going anywhere! Neither is SQ or MH. Therefore (since they are making buckets of cash) if the wanna bring it here....the need to spend some of that cash to accomodate it. That applies to all the carriers wishing to do so.The park two 744s at AA's T-4. Since AA tweaked their gates to do do this..well a little more tweaking can squeeze in an A380 or two.

Hypothetically, if AA had A380s on order..they'd have to foot the bill to upgrade T-4 to service it. LAWA would have to implement taxiway/runway improvements.

Aussie747 I'm not certain about the end gates at T4 at this time. Only the very end (outer and centered gate) currently takes a 777. The gates that take QF744s are 41 &43 (I think the) and these deep are closest to the curbside deep into the alley. AA must feeling the heat that QF is putting on them to join their side in the tung-of-war to get the A380 in here.

But I've mentioned in seperate thread what RayChuang said here...that the remore area is the best place for the A380s. The only problem is they'd berestricted to the north complex runways only. I'm not sure if the bridge taxiway 'AA' and the Sepulveda Tunnels (for taxiway B and C are up to the task...nor the 25 runways as far that goes. But 2-3 remote stands with dual jetways is the only true solution (and temporary) to this problem.


BN747
"Home of the Brave, made by the Slaves..Land of the Free, if you look like me.." T. Jefferson
 
Tom in NO
Posts: 6725
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 1999 10:10 am

RE: $225-Million Upgrade Of LAX International Terminal

Thu Dec 11, 2003 12:57 pm

"My point is that they really have little leverage to try to force LAWA into spending a lot of money for facilities which will be used by perhaps 10 daily flights."

That statement I totally agree with. As airport operators, we have often felt that airlines too often try to ram stuff down our throats. Yes perhaps, a certain project might benefit more than one entity, but if I don't have money for it, or can't obtain the funding for it, I ain't building it. Especially in these post 9/11 days where airports have also seen a big-time drop in revenues, with no compensating drop in expenses. Let the airlines fund their own projects. They've done so in the past, and it's turned out well. If the airlines want to begin 380 service into a new brand new facility (as an example), let them accept the financial risk and fund it up front themselves.

Tom at MSY
"The criminal ineptitude makes you furious"-Bruce Springsteen, after seeing firsthand the damage from Hurricane Katrina
 
Sydscott
Posts: 3081
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2003 11:50 am

RE: $225-Million Upgrade Of LAX International Terminal

Thu Dec 11, 2003 1:13 pm


Some of you are so shortsighted and thats the last I'm saying. Major airports around the world are footing the bill for upgrades associated with the A380. Besides which the airlines that operate the A380 into LAX will be paying higher landing charges anyway so in effect they will be paying for the upgrade. So dont give me all this crap about "they should be forced to pay for it." THEY ARE!!!! How long have designs been around from both Airbus and Boeing for larger size aircraft?? A decade?? They've had plenty of time to plan for the introduction of larger planes and have chosen to ignore the problem until its almost too late. It's a typical lack of planning and forward thinking by LAX and nothing more. The airlines will be bringing more passengers and more flights, after all thats what they do. LAX should provide the facilities to let them do it, like all the other airports around the world are, and enjoy the extra revenue and pax that will come through.
 
emiratesa345
Posts: 2043
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2003 10:11 am

RE: $225-Million Upgrade Of LAX International Terminal

Thu Dec 11, 2003 1:23 pm

I was thinking the same thing as EK413 and others.

EmiratesA345 Smile/happy/getting dizzy
You and I were meant to fly, Air Canada!
 
Sydscott
Posts: 3081
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2003 11:50 am

RE: $225-Million Upgrade Of LAX International Terminal

Thu Dec 11, 2003 1:37 pm

As Tom in NO points out, in these post September 11 days Americans aren't travelling as much, but yet there are International Carriers adding new frequencies and larger planes into LAX. SQ & Emirates come to immediately to mind. This presents an opportunity for LAX to make up any revenue shortfall from International Carriers. They should be welcoming this, figuring out the IRR of a project to handle the capacity and investing money to bring their facilities up to scratch. Somehow I dont think New Orleans International will have to worry about the A380 anytime soon however Tom!!!!

Sydney will have to deal with all of QF's A380 fleet, plus probably some of them from Emirates, SQ and Virign Atlantic. Do you hear them whinging about it??? But then they are public company listed on the Stock Exchange so of course they welcome it as an opportunity to make more money for their shareholders.
 
Tom in NO
Posts: 6725
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 1999 10:10 am

RE: $225-Million Upgrade Of LAX International Terminal

Thu Dec 11, 2003 2:09 pm

"Somehow I dont think New Orleans International will have to worry about the A380 anytime soon however Tom!!!!"

Thanks for confirming something I've known for quite a long time  Smile.

The other thing I know is that based upon my 19-odd (20 next August) years employed in airport management is that I have learned a thing or two about airport finances, capital funding, project management, airport operations, not to mention airport/airline relationships. I stand by my comments.

Maybe LAX has some big grandiose plan in the works, and they're planning some big announcement. I don't know, I don't work for them. I have, however, worked with several of them while I was employed with LA County Airports years ago.

Sydscott points out correctly, that SYD will have to deal with a lot of QF's 380. Of course, LH at FRA, SQ at SIN, etc. will have to, as well. They don't have a choice, those are their hubs.

LAX isn't in the trick box that the 380 operator hubs are. They're not the one's desperate for so-called improvements.

So I'll leave it at: in lieu of, or until something more permanent (which the 380 operators pay for) comes along, rack 'em on the remotes.

Tom at MSY


"The criminal ineptitude makes you furious"-Bruce Springsteen, after seeing firsthand the damage from Hurricane Katrina
 
sllevin
Posts: 3312
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 1:57 pm

RE: $225-Million Upgrade Of LAX International Term

Thu Dec 11, 2003 2:36 pm

Here's some interesting numbers.

Assuming that a billion dollars could be borrowed at 3%, the interest alone would be 2.5 million dollars every month. If there were 20 A380 flights every day, that works out to a touch over $4,000 for each flight, just to service the interest. Reduce the number of flights to 15, and the number comes up to just about $5,500. Double that to assume you'll actually pay this bond off sometime, and you are looking at $11,000 for every A380 flight -- or $20 per passenger. (assuming every seat is full on every flight).

Hey, if the airlines are willing to pay that fee (and guarantee it to some reasonable extent), heck, let's start building tomorrow. But for the city itself to simply eat that money seems foolish.

Steve
 
Sydscott
Posts: 3081
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2003 11:50 am

RE: $225-Million Upgrade Of LAX International Terminal

Thu Dec 11, 2003 2:41 pm

Tom,

This is where I've worked for the past 5 years. Just so you know where I'm coming from.

http://www.macquarie.com.au/au/map/

Incidentally I stand by my comments as well. Sell LAX to us and we'll show you how to run an airport.
 
User avatar
RayChuang
Posts: 8007
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2000 7:43 am

RE: $225-Million Upgrade Of LAX International Terminal

Thu Dec 11, 2003 3:48 pm

My worry about trying to park the A380-800 at the remote gates at LAX is the fact it is going to take an inordinately long time ground service the plane, especially loading and off-loading passengers and cargo/luggage! I think LAX should RIGHT NOW start work on a completely new remote terminal that has both 80 x 80 meter gate spacing and dual-level jetwalks, especially given that Air France (AF), Korean Air (KE), Lufthansa (LH), Malaysian Airlines (MH), Qantas Airways (QF), and Singapore Airlines (SQ) will definitely fly the A388 there. And further down the road, we may see potentially A388's from Cathay Pacific (CX), Emirates Airways (EK), and Air China (CA) flying to LAX, too. (I think both CX and CA will order the A388 before 2010.)
 
Skip7966
Posts: 118
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2003 6:05 pm

RE: $225-Million Upgrade Of LAX International Terminal

Thu Dec 11, 2003 5:05 pm

I don't know how the length part would come into play, but with the size of a 380, wouldn't it make sense to park it between two gates and hook up a jetway to each side?
 
ScottB
Posts: 5454
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2000 1:25 am

RE: $225-Million Upgrade Of LAX International Term

Thu Dec 11, 2003 5:11 pm

Gigneil:

"You can't ask the initial group of A380 customers to pay for it. If you do, then everyone that buys the A380 after the upgrades are complete will get a free ride."

Sure you can. That's why you finance the project with bonded indebtedness. Anyone who wants to operate an A380 into the airport has to share equally in the cost of the debt service. Or you build a separate terminal for the A380 operators and charge high enough rents to recoup the associated costs. Or let the airlines build their own A380-capable terminal on their own dime. Delta's building its own terminal at BOS, AA is building its own at JFK, and QF controls/owns its terminal facilities at SYD, right?

"Businesses usually try to accomodate their customers requests, and then they pass along the cost of that accommodation to all their customers."

Hahahahahaha! You're kidding me, right? Businesses (at least the ones who are profitable) generally charge their customers something proportional to the cost of producing their products, plus some markup. Airline tickets are a notable exception given all the loss-leader fares out there and ridiculously priced "business" fares. If I ask UA to fly me on a 777 non-stop from BOS to GFK, at the same price as a normal discounted fare, do you think they will accomodate my request? If I ask Dell to give me a top-end server for $1, will they raise prices for other customers to accomodate me?

LAWA's other airline customers SHOULD be able to say whether they want to share the cost of A380-related modifications. And the airport's neighbors ought to have some say in whether or not even larger, noisier aircraft are flying in and out of LAX.

Sydscott:

"Besides which the airlines that operate the A380 into LAX will be paying higher landing charges anyway so in effect they will be paying for the upgrade."

You aren't actually asking us to swallow your argument that increased landing fees for the A380 will cover the costs of the infrastructure upgrades, are you? Well, perhaps if (assuming Steve's numbers are correct) the landing fee for the A380 is $10,000 or so higher than that for the 747, it would work. If you're arguing that the A380 is a way for LAX to increase revenue, I'd argue that LAWA would probably make more money from two 7E7's than from a single A380, especially given that the 7E7 likely will not require special accomodation.

Arguing that airports like SYD, SIN, DXB, FRA, CDG, etc. will be ready misses the point that SIN & SQ, DXB & EK, and CDG & AF essentially have the same owners -- their respective governments. As the largest tenants at SYD and FRA, QF and LH respectively will pay the majority of any increases in costs for A380 support. The situation is NOT the same at LAX. Most of the costs of operating LAX are borne by airlines who will not operate the A380. I'd argue the same is true of LHR as well. SYD's not complaining because they know they can raise what they charge and QF will have no choice but to pay it. If fact, I'm sure QF will be very pleased if A380 improvements at SYD increase Virgin Blue's costs.

LAWA's ultimate constituency is not the airlines, but rather the people of Los Angeles. Raising fares to and from L.A. for everyone for the sake of increased profits at a half-dozen foreign carriers does not serve the people of Los Angeles.
 
User avatar
RayChuang
Posts: 8007
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2000 7:43 am

RE: $225-Million Upgrade Of LAX International Terminal

Fri Dec 12, 2003 1:09 am

ScottB,

What's interesting is that SIN, DXB, FRA and CDG already have gates that can support the A380-800 (or will very soon have them), primarily through the 80 x 80 meter spacing; at DXB, their terminal expansion now under construction will also include dual-level jetwalks to expedite faster passenger loading/unloading.

Again, I cite the example of San Francisco International Airport (SFO). Because the new International Terminal (Concourses A and G) was designed and built during the late 1990's (when Airbus had pretty much agreed on the 80 x 80 meter "box" spacing at the parking gate for the then-A3XX design), SFO right now has at least four gates that are ready to accommodate the A388 with no problems. Indeed, with some minor contruction work these A388 gates could even add dual-level jetwalks! Big grin

This is why I really hope LAX officials get off their duffs right now and finally build a brand new remote terminal extension to the Bradley International Terminal with 80 x 80 gate spacing and dual-level jetwalks, given that LAX could become one of the most-used airports for the A388.
 
Tom in NO
Posts: 6725
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 1999 10:10 am

RE: $225-Million Upgrade Of LAX International Terminal

Fri Dec 12, 2003 2:03 am

"That's why you finance the project with bonded indebtedness. Anyone who wants to operate an A380 into the airport has to share equally in the cost of the debt service. Or you build a separate terminal for the A380 operators and charge high enough rents to recoup the associated costs. Or let the airlines build their own A380-capable terminal on their own dime. Delta's building its own terminal at BOS, AA is building its own at JFK, and QF controls/owns its terminal facilities at SYD, right?"

Bingo.

"LAWA's other airline customers SHOULD be able to say whether they want to share the cost of A380-related modifications."

If the airline is a signatory carrier (they operate with a signed lease agreement), then there will likely be a clause in the lease that gives them the right to comment/vote on proposed capital projects. If they are non-signatory (charter outfits, sub-leasing tenants), then they won't.

Most US airports are publicly owned and operated, and cannot be operated as a profit making enterprise. Any revenue generated over and above operating and financial expenses (bonds, etc) must be put back into the operating fund as either refunds or credits to the airlines. Privatised airports (and there are very few in the US, it's just not popular over here for many reasons, not the least of which are hassles with the FAA) have an advantage in that they can operate as a business (with shareholders, etc, etc).

"Sell LAX to us..." (easier said than done)
"...and we'll show you how to run an airport" (I'll hold off on that one)

Tom at MSY


"The criminal ineptitude makes you furious"-Bruce Springsteen, after seeing firsthand the damage from Hurricane Katrina
 
elwood64151
Posts: 2410
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2002 10:22 am

RE: $225-Million Upgrade Of LAX International Terminal

Fri Dec 12, 2003 2:15 am

Not that I agree with those that say Airbus or the airlines should pay for it, but a thought occurs:

We do not have the same route systems now that we had in the 1960s and 1970s when the widebodies were introduced. The airlines and Boeing didn't need to pay for the upgrades because a) there were two (and later three) competitors in the widebody market who were adding aircraft just or almost as big; b) the 747, DC-10, and L.1011 were operating routes very different from what they operate now.

N/S JFK-ORD with a DC-10 was commonplace. ORD-PHX, SEA-MSP, MEM-PHL, MCI-JFK, DFW-BOS and other routes saw widebody aircraft at various points during the period. Many of those airports no longer see anything close to that size of aircraft.

In the late '60s/early '70s, almost every airport had to change to accomodate new aircraft types. That is not the case today.

Again, I am not saying that Airbus or the airlines should pay for the upgrades. I'm just offering a differnet perspective.
Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it in summer school.
 
sllevin
Posts: 3312
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 1:57 pm

RE: $225-Million Upgrade Of LAX International Term

Fri Dec 12, 2003 4:56 am

Just as a data point, DC-10 Series 10 and L-1011's use much smaller, non-jumbo gates. That's why CO and DL went to the 764, which also fits in those gates.

Steve
 
Sydscott
Posts: 3081
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2003 11:50 am

RE: $225-Million Upgrade Of LAX International Terminal

Fri Dec 12, 2003 7:05 am


Actually Scottb I am asking you to swallow the argument. Sydney, for example, has reconfigured its fees to charge the airlines by the number of passengers their plane carries. This was primarily because of Virgin Blue who were carrying a large number of passengers on their 737's but because their aircraft were lighter than QF's they had a lower landing fee. Virgin were furious about the change.

So using that system, if you charge for example $5 per passenger, that means a 747-400 with a capacity of 412 generates $2060 but an A380 with 555 passengers on board pays $2775. That way the larger the aircraft, the more the airline pays for the use of the airport facilities and the more they contribute to the cost of building the infrastructure associated with it.

I would also point out that LHR will see quite a bit of A380 activity and as the worlds busiest international airport, they are making room for them. Quite a prudent move considering Virgin will base theres at LHR and the number of operators there will be of the type into LHR. You guys can whinge and whine all you like about the A380 and the cost of modifications, but its going to be a fact of life pretty soon. SFO has made the room for it, and just because LAX likes to cower to the likes of Southwest so its gets another 100 or so frequencies per hour flown by vast fleets of 737's, doesn't mean that it can ignore the needs of its International Carriers. Meanwhile I'll be at LAX again next week so I'll have a look for myself.
 
ScottB
Posts: 5454
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2000 1:25 am

RE: $225-Million Upgrade Of LAX International Term

Fri Dec 12, 2003 7:54 am

Sydscott-

Your "example" doesn't even prove your point! Let's say that A380-related improvements cost only $250 million and the airport issues 30-year bonds at an interest rate of 5.0%. Annual payments to service the debt would be $16.1 million; assuming an average of 10 daily A380 landings gives a debt service cost of $4412 per flight, or $8 per passenger. But in actuality that A380 really would have to pay $4412 MORE in landing fees than a 747-400. Your example yields incremental revenue of a paltry $715 -- nowhere near enough to cover the additional cost.

You say that SYD has "reconfigured its fees" -- now that wouldn't have happened at the request of the largest user of SYD, now, would it? I'm sure that Virgin Blue WERE furious since the airport management were complicit with Qantas in shifting costs to the competition. It wouldn't hurt SYD to see Virgin Blue go out of business considering that I'm sure Qantas would be happy to pay increased landing fees in order to not have discount competition.

Actually, if I ran BA, I'd be ticked off if my airline had to pay increased fees at LHR in order to accomodate my competitors flooding the market with additional capacity.

LAX *SHOULD* "cower to the likes of Southwest" (not to mention its TEN LARGEST airline customers, none of which will operate the A380). Explain to me again why the vast majority of L.A. passengers should subsidize a handful of foreign-owned carriers?
 
bkkair
Posts: 384
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2001 9:10 pm

RE: $225-Million Upgrade Of LAX International Terminal

Fri Dec 12, 2003 9:04 am

The attitudes of some people here about the airport spending money for the A380 are amazing! These A380 passengers will get off and alot of them will connect to US airlines. Everyone benefits.The economy of the whole city benefits with more passengers, tourists, trade. What is wrong with you people? Other cities send trade missions around the world to get more airline service because of the tremendous benefits to the whole country, not try to push airlines away.

The LAX airport is a shambles already. Anyone who has flown into SGN will notice the resemblance. The utter chaos, fighting your way into and out of the terminal, waiting in a 2 hour long queue to clear customs and immigration even with all 80 immigration positions working. This is the reality of this horrible airport today. How much more abuse can passengers and airlines take from LAX?

I fly there monthly and I can't remember the last time we had a gate at the terminal. Always those dingy 20 year old city airport busses out to the remote terminals. So the A380 using bus gates is really no big deal at all. Why should an A380 get to park at the terminal when A319's can't even get a gate?

I wonder if the arguments here would be different if it was a Boeing that the improvements were being made for and it was being operated by US airlines?

 
Tom in NO
Posts: 6725
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 1999 10:10 am

RE: $225-Million Upgrade Of LAX International Terminal

Fri Dec 12, 2003 9:34 am

"I wonder if the arguments here would be different if it was a Boeing that the improvements were being made for and it was being operated by US airlines?"

I doubt it. I seem to recall that (at the minimum) UA, DL, and AA all paid for their own terminal renovations at LAX.

Which brings up another thought: if the US domestic carriers wish to renovate their own terminals to accomodate the alliance 380's that might park there, I'd tell them to go for it (all things equal, and there's adequate taxiway clearances). If having an alliance carrier drop a 380 in means taking away adjacent gates for a time, so be it. It happens.

As for SFO, they had the luxury of being able to build their new international facility, and to build as needed to 380 specs. They had project approval from the airlines, the funding in place, and the physical ability to do it. Comparing SFO and LAX terminal areas and expansion capabilities is like comparing apples and oranges.

Tom at MSY

"The criminal ineptitude makes you furious"-Bruce Springsteen, after seeing firsthand the damage from Hurricane Katrina
 
User avatar
EK413
Posts: 4336
Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2003 3:11 pm

RE: $225-Million Upgrade Of LAX International Terminal

Fri Dec 12, 2003 10:48 am

Would we have this problem if the A380 was built by BOEING?

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We are tonight’s entertainment!
 
Mizzou65201
Posts: 192
Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2000 2:11 am

RE: $225-Million Upgrade Of LAX International Terminal

Fri Dec 12, 2003 11:12 am

Question (not necessarily my actual opinion):

Anyone wonder if the city (mayor's office) is holding the A380 improvements out as leverage in its quest for the more overwhelming LAX overhaul it has proposed? I seem to recall that the airlines were not too thrilled about that plan, which Hahn is still pushing as I recall.
 
Sydscott
Posts: 3081
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2003 11:50 am

RE: $225-Million Upgrade Of LAX International Terminal

Fri Dec 12, 2003 12:29 pm


Scottb;

It doesn't take a large number of dollars to widen taxiways and install gates that can accomodate the A380, all this talk of billions of dollars is rubbish. I've seen the detailed project costs for Sydney and also seen the numbers at LHR. Suprisingly enough they stack up to a creditable IRR and I'm not getting into an argument over figures with someone who doesn't have access to them. In reality LAX needs a major overhaul and thats where the billions will and should be spent.

The reconfiguration of fees happened because MAP wanted more money from direct aviation sources and that presented the best opportunity to do it. All the airlines at Sydney are paying more, some got hit more than others due to the nature of their businesses. It's got nothing to do with any 1 airline. Plus your assertion that SACL would like to see any of its airlines, especially one who now has 40 odd aircraft and rents a substantial portion of terminal space from us, go bankrupt is ridiculous. Besides which Virgin now has a market cap of some $2.3 billion and is making around $150m in profits and increasing. It's simply not going to happen. I suggest you read more about MAP, who we are and what we do before making such idiotic remarks.

The biggest threat to BA isn't its competitors flooding LHR with capacity. If you have a look, BA is more worried about cross-subsidising the expansion of Stansted and, consequently, Ryanair than it is about the A380. Besides which it will codeshare on virtually all of QF's A380 services from LHR and the BAA will have BA's old terminal to reconfigure as much as they like once BA moves to the new terminal. They have planned for the introduction of the A380, and its increased use, as any major world hub airport should and LHR is even more congested than LAX is. LAX should learn from them.

LAX shouldn't cower to anyone especially its biggest clients. It should be seeking to maximise its return from its assets PERIOD. This should take into consideration the needs of all the airports users including the "foreign owned" carriers that operate into the International facilities. It's called planning and infrastructure development. Clearly there is neither a plan, nor any thinking about the Infrastructure needed to continue the development of LAX. Hopefully the new paintjob and carpet will be the start of long term infrastrucutre development at the airport. Explain to me why UAL should subsidise their competitors at SFO??? Explain why BA should do so at LHR??? Why CX should at Hong Kong??? Why JAL & ANA should at Tokyo??? It's the volume of International services at LAX thats made it the most important Pacific Airline hub on the West Coast. It used to be SFO.

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.
 
User avatar
RayChuang
Posts: 8007
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2000 7:43 am

RE: $225-Million Upgrade Of LAX International Terminal

Fri Dec 12, 2003 12:50 pm

Folks,

Let's consider the major issues that LAX is going to need to properly accommodate the A380-800:

1. The extreme inadequecy of the Bradley International Terminal. As it currently stands, the Bradley Terminal is already bursting at the seems trying to accommodate the large number of 747-400's flying in and out of that airport, and the A388 with its (on average) 150 more pax per plane plus luggage for those extra 150 pax is going to cause major bottlenecks in ground servicing the plane.

2. The fact the south east-west runways may be inadequate to handle the massive load of the A388, especially the Sepulveda Boulevard underpass.

3. The need to widen taxiways to accommodate the wider stance of the A388.

We're talking a project that could run way over US$1 billion to complete. LAX officials should have realized this like back in the late 1990's when Airbus was already in serious design definition phase of the plane.

Compare this to SFO's situation. When SFO started work on the current International Terminal in the latter half of the 1990's one of the important criteria was to ensure the terminal could accommodate future larger airliners. That's why the gates at the end of Concourses A and G have the 80 x 80 meter gate spacing, the spacing Airbus settled on during the A3XX design stage by circa 1997. As such, the only upgrades SFO needs to accommodate the A388 is to widen the taxiways, a project that would cost under well US$100 million to complete.
 
bigb
Posts: 731
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2003 4:30 pm

RE: $225-Million Upgrade Of LAX International Terminal

Fri Dec 12, 2003 3:19 pm

Would we have this problem if the A380 was built by BOEING?

One answer yes, the aircraft that large will have problems at LAX. LAX have to find a efficient way to fund such a project.
ETSN Baber, USN
 
bigb
Posts: 731
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2003 4:30 pm

RE: $225-Million Upgrade Of LAX International Terminal

Fri Dec 12, 2003 3:38 pm

It doesn't take a large number of dollars to widen taxiways and install gates that can accomodate the A380, all this talk of billions of dollars is rubbish.

How would you know how much it cost for LAX to expand the airfied taxiways for the A380. Remember, the taxiways have to widen that means, they will need to tear up the old and build new because when a taxiway is being widen, lights will need to be redone. Paving the Taxiway will need to be redone to handle the weight of the A380 and drainage systems will need to be tweaked.

I've seen the detailed project costs for Sydney and also seen the numbers at LHR. Suprisingly enough they stack up to a creditable IRR and I'm not getting into an argument over figures with someone who doesn't have access to them.

One thing you forget is that these cities are not LA. These airports are not ran under the same group as LAX is. No matter how much the cost is, Money for the upgrades at LAX will not come easy, thats a fact.

In reality LAX needs a major overhaul and thats where the billions will and should be spent.

You agree that LAX needs a overhaul. That alone will be a estimate over a billion U.S. dollars to do so in my opinion. If ya don't belive me, just look at smaller projects going on at other U.S. Airports and their costs. HAS for example, has put more than a billion dollars into expanding IAH alone.
ETSN Baber, USN
 
ScottB
Posts: 5454
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2000 1:25 am

RE: $225-Million Upgrade Of LAX International Terminal

Fri Dec 12, 2003 4:24 pm

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 or LHR 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.
 
WesternDC1010
Posts: 306
Joined: Sat Jul 19, 2003 9:29 am

RE: $225-Million Upgrade Of LAX International Terminal

Fri Dec 12, 2003 4:32 pm

I love ScottB's response:

"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."

I RESPECT this guy!

- Ron
Western DC-10-10
Western Airlines - The Only Way To Fly
 
Dionysus
Posts: 60
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2003 1:52 pm

RE: $225-Million Upgrade Of LAX International Terminal

Fri Dec 12, 2003 5:10 pm

It's amazing to see some people attitude toward this topic is so bias and they are not admitting it.
 
aviasian
Posts: 1244
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2001 8:11 am

RE: $225-Million Upgrade Of LAX International Terminal

Fri Dec 12, 2003 9:16 pm

I am all for spending most of the money on upgrading existing terminal buildings to make them more pleasant for the millions of passengers using them annually . . . recently travelled to and from LAX on Northwest, and after check-in, it was just that few miserable shops (two of which were closed) and some chairs facing the glass windows. Don't just upgrade the Tom Bradley Terminal . . . do something for the others too.

It is not fair to expect the various carriers who are introducing A380s to pay for upgrades to accommodate these giant airliners. It is one thing for them to pay for specific facilities in their home base airports but quite another to expect them to pay for these at a foreign airport (unless the airport is prepared to give the airline major fees concessions to offset such investments).

Simply put, if LAX does nothing to make the airport A380-friendly, airlines will just fly their A380s to other airports that have raced to do so.

KC Sim
Bangkok
 
User avatar
VirginFlyer
Posts: 3974
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2000 12:27 pm

RE: $225-Million Upgrade Of LAX International Terminal

Fri Dec 12, 2003 10:31 pm

Side issue here - are all the terminals owned by the airport, or are some owned by individual airlines?

V/F
"So powerful is the light of unity that it can illuminate the whole earth." - Bahá'u'lláh