"Side issue here - are all the terminals owned by the airport, or are some owned by individual airlines?"
Terminals are usually owned by the airport, leased to the airlines on a long-term basis (usually a 30-year lease).
"It's amazing to see some people attitude toward this topic is so bias and they are not admitting it."
It's called having an opinion, and it's what makes debating interesting. Think of what the a.net forums would be like if we all had the same opinions.
"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."
No one's denying that one, I think all of us would agree.
"Don't just upgrade the Tom Bradley Terminal . . . do something for the others too"
It would be up to the major lease holder on each terminal to make those upgrades.
One thing that is worth noting is that, in most cases, if an airline makes a major upgrade to a terminal that it is leasing, they will usually get some sort of a rate reduction in that lease. Having the tenant pay for the upgrade reduces the airports' financial risk, and allows them to direct their project funds towards projects which would benefit everyone. Which reminds me of another point that must be reinterated:
As I said before, 9/11 changed a lot of things. A great many capital projects that were on the board were removed after 9/11, due to the expected revenue shortfalls that everyone would be experiencing. There simply wasn't money available to fund these projects, and the FAA had to redirect a goodly portion of their grant monies to security-related projects.
Tom at MSY
Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
RE: $225-Million Upgrade Of LAX International Terminal
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
As someone who's worked at LAX for the last 16 years, this post is a BINGO!!! It goes well beyond the capability of TBIT (or any other terminal, for that matter) to accomodate an A380. The whole friggin' airfield needs a revamp to accomodate it.
Side issue here - are all the terminals owned by the airport, or are some owned by individual airlines?"
Terminals are usually owned by the airport, leased to the airlines on a long-term basis (usually a 30-year lease).
Tom in NO,
At LAX, Terminals 3 and 6 actually reverted back to LAWA control. LAWA had a plan (pre 9/11) to rebuild T-3 completely. This plan is/was outside of the LAX Masterplan debacle. Not sure about T-1; T-2 is leased to LAXTWO Corp.- the consortium of AC, NW, HA, NZ, VS; T-4, AA: T-5, DL: T-7/8, UA.
Also, though SFO's new Int'l Terminal is Y-A380 compliant, SFO has similiar, if not more severe, airfield configuration issues.
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
As someone who's worked at LAX for the last 16 years, this post is a BINGO!!! It goes well beyond the capability of TBIT (or any other terminal, for that matter) to accomodate an A380. The whole friggin' airfield needs a revamp to accomodate it.
Side issue here - are all the terminals owned by the airport, or are some owned by individual airlines?"
Terminals are usually owned by the airport, leased to the airlines on a long-term basis (usually a 30-year lease).
Tom in NO,
At LAX, Terminals 3 and 6 actually reverted back to LAWA control. LAWA had a plan (pre 9/11) to rebuild T-3 completely. This plan is/was outside of the LAX Masterplan debacle. Not sure about T-1; T-2 is leased to LAXTWO Corp.- the consortium of AC, NW, HA, NZ, VS; T-4, AA: T-5, DL: T-7/8, UA.
Also, though SFO's new Int'l Terminal is Y-A380 compliant, SFO has similiar, if not more severe, airfield configuration issues.
-
- flyinghighboy
- Posts: 729
- Joined:
RE: $225-Million Upgrade Of LAX International Term
Just a question, can LAX expand anymore eg buy land around it? I've been there a few times, and even walked from LAX to the hotel I was staying in, (quite fun indeed)
anyway would they ever in the near future consider that? What about building out into the ocean with artifical land? I know this will cost a lot, but what other option is there for LAX to expand?
[Edited 2003-12-13 07:48:07]
anyway would they ever in the near future consider that? What about building out into the ocean with artifical land? I know this will cost a lot, but what other option is there for LAX to expand?
[Edited 2003-12-13 07:48:07]
RE: $225-Million Upgrade Of LAX International Terminal
Okay, let me say that again.
"Would we have this problem if the A380 was built by BOEING"?
Why am I asking this question? Well, considering a lot of people have made comments regarding the manufacture should pay for the upgrades at major airports including LAX. If that's the case, would LAX make BOEING (American Manufacture) pay the bill?
"Would we have this problem if the A380 was built by BOEING"?
Why am I asking this question? Well, considering a lot of people have made comments regarding the manufacture should pay for the upgrades at major airports including LAX. If that's the case, would LAX make BOEING (American Manufacture) pay the bill?
RE: $225-Million Upgrade Of LAX International Terminal
EK413,
Good question. And my answer: Definitely wouldn´t be a problem.
KA.
Good question. And my answer: Definitely wouldn´t be a problem.
KA.
RE: $225-Million Upgrade Of LAX International Terminal
Flyinghighboy,
Theoretically LAX can expand to the north. That land is mostly (I estimate 90%) zoned residential - single family homes, multifamily (apartments, condos) homes. Go the the following link http://www.lmu.edu/pages/104.asp. The problem is that city government has taken a "soft" stance realitive to expansion of LAX. All of the proposals submitted thus far have specified a minimal amount of land acquisitions - obstensibly to appease the 'neighbors'. Unfortunately, this process has gotten bogged down as a result of this tact. Personally, I would've liked the City of L. A. to take the approach the City of St. Louis took. It's unfortunate that the expansion of STL led to the (virtual) destruction of a town. The City of Louisville, Kentucky took a novel approach to relocation of residents as a result of the expansion of Standiford Field in that the Airport Authority, in conjunction with the city, built a new neighborhood from scratch. A definite win-win for all concerned.
The possibly of expansion via the ocean was rejected as an option. The study of this option calculated at least 10 years to build and nearly $5 billion to construct. The major problem with this option is that field elevation is measured at approx. 110ft above sea level. This would be a hurculean task to say the least!
Theoretically LAX can expand to the north. That land is mostly (I estimate 90%) zoned residential - single family homes, multifamily (apartments, condos) homes. Go the the following link http://www.lmu.edu/pages/104.asp. The problem is that city government has taken a "soft" stance realitive to expansion of LAX. All of the proposals submitted thus far have specified a minimal amount of land acquisitions - obstensibly to appease the 'neighbors'. Unfortunately, this process has gotten bogged down as a result of this tact. Personally, I would've liked the City of L. A. to take the approach the City of St. Louis took. It's unfortunate that the expansion of STL led to the (virtual) destruction of a town. The City of Louisville, Kentucky took a novel approach to relocation of residents as a result of the expansion of Standiford Field in that the Airport Authority, in conjunction with the city, built a new neighborhood from scratch. A definite win-win for all concerned.
The possibly of expansion via the ocean was rejected as an option. The study of this option calculated at least 10 years to build and nearly $5 billion to construct. The major problem with this option is that field elevation is measured at approx. 110ft above sea level. This would be a hurculean task to say the least!
RE: $225-Million Upgrade Of LAX International Term
To take it a step farther, Aaway, LAX currently owns a lot of the property north of the 24s (northern runways) and property directly east of the 24s and the 25s. And exactly, the city's soft approach on expansion is the barricade that's really blocking expansion.
BN747
BN747
RE: $225-Million Upgrade Of LAX International Terminal
BN747,
Right On! That land that LAX owns north of the 24s was purchased as a result of the FAA rule that states that homes could not be within 750 feet of the centerline of an active runway. When 24R/6L was completed in the mid 60s, the southern most homes in this area were less than a football field's length from the centerline. The area is really just a buffer between LAX and Westchester. Should 24R/6L ever be reconstructed further north (as it should, since theres only 650' separation between the north complex runways), it would force LAWA to purchase more land in that area - which is what LAWA should have set out to do to begin with, IMO!
Also, in regards to an earlier post by you, AA T-4 gate 49 can accomodate 747-400s, but that terminal couldn't accomodate an A380. Not enough centerline clearance between the C10 alleyway and the west side gates; Not enough centerline clearance between taxiway C and the top (south end) of the terminal. Wingspan of that ship is just too great for T-4 or, for that matter, LAX in general.
[Edited 2003-12-15 02:39:26]
Right On! That land that LAX owns north of the 24s was purchased as a result of the FAA rule that states that homes could not be within 750 feet of the centerline of an active runway. When 24R/6L was completed in the mid 60s, the southern most homes in this area were less than a football field's length from the centerline. The area is really just a buffer between LAX and Westchester. Should 24R/6L ever be reconstructed further north (as it should, since theres only 650' separation between the north complex runways), it would force LAWA to purchase more land in that area - which is what LAWA should have set out to do to begin with, IMO!
Also, in regards to an earlier post by you, AA T-4 gate 49 can accomodate 747-400s, but that terminal couldn't accomodate an A380. Not enough centerline clearance between the C10 alleyway and the west side gates; Not enough centerline clearance between taxiway C and the top (south end) of the terminal. Wingspan of that ship is just too great for T-4 or, for that matter, LAX in general.
[Edited 2003-12-15 02:39:26]
-
- flyinghighboy
- Posts: 729
- Joined:
RE: $225-Million Upgrade Of LAX International Term
How long would it take to board an A380 with just one jetway as well? Will LAX ever see dual jetways?
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: 727tiger, a321us, AAPilot48Heavy, aerace, AerolineasAR343, alancostello, AnishReddi, Areopagus, Aviationclipz, AviationScorpio, BasilFawlty, Bergfalke, bhxdtw, blrBird, BobMUC, boerje, Bostrom, chepos, colganreturns, CriticalPoint, ddaly241, December17, dmcreif, eicvd, Fex180, flightsimer, flyCMH, flyoregon, flysouth, Google Adsense [Bot], Heavierthanair, Jalap, JetFlight89, joeycapps, jtt99, JW28, KarlB737, kcdjs, kwbl, mooseofspruce, oakleaf1, onwFan, opticalilyushin, panamair, Peacefulswiss, phljjs, phyiiugufy, pugman211, pushpakvimaan, redroo, RL777, robsaw, rugray, russyyz, SailorHiker, SEU, southsky, stackelberg, Tepelus, THRUSTLOCK, timf, tjwgrr, uconn99, voxkel, WesternDC6B, Whiteguy, yowacramprat, YVR744CP, ZKCIF and 350 guests