LAXintl
Posts: 20183
Joined: Wed May 24, 2000 12:12 pm

LA To Back Perks To Discourage Use Of LAX

Thu Jan 19, 2006 10:51 am

The county Board of Supervisors officially recommended Tuesday that the city of Los Angeles and its airport agency create incentives to encourage air carriers to fly out of airports other than LAX.

The motion by Supervisor Mike Antonovich aims to reduce congestion at Los Angeles International Airport and on neighboring freeways while also encouraging Los Angeles World Airports to take advantage of the region's other, underused airports, Antonovich said.

Last week the county joined the cities of El Segundo, Inglewood and Culver City, and other plaintiffs in agreeing to settle a lawsuit that opposed the city of Los Angeles' planned $11 billion modernization of LAX. Tuesday's motion is an effort to start over fresh, said Lori Glasgow, Antonovich's airport deputy.

Antonovich's motion recommends incentives that have been used at other airports across the country, Glasgow explained. For instance, LAWA could reduce the taxes and fees paid by airlines for gas, parking, rent and landing fees at Ontario, Van Nuys and Palmdale airports, she said.

Offering a guaranteed number of flights out of outlying airports, and subsidizing the cost of the flights if there were not enough passengers, could also give air carriers the needed stability to move into a different airport, she said.

Still other incentives could include a free shuttle from the Van Nuys park-and-ride to the Palmdale Airport, or subsidizing the cost of security officers to operate metal detectors at airports other than LAX, the motion suggested. Helping to pay for security or cargo improvements at outlying airports could also help, the motion said.


The entire article can be viewed at;
http://www.dailybreeze.com/news/articles/2216822.html
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
 
KRIC777
Posts: 262
Joined: Thu Jun 13, 2002 6:25 am

RE: LA To Back Perks To Discourage Use Of LAX

Thu Jan 19, 2006 10:59 am

Well, I was on business in the LA area over the weekend and flew out of ONT yesterday....the joint was an absolute ghost town at midday...no crowds, no traffic Much more convenient than battling the 405 or 105 traffic getting into LAX...especially if your in the eastern half of the LA basin.
 
SFORunner
Posts: 306
Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2004 4:23 am

RE: LA To Back Perks To Discourage Use Of LAX

Thu Jan 19, 2006 11:11 am

Quoting Laxintl (Thread starter):
The county Board of Supervisors officially recommended Tuesday that the city of Los Angeles and its airport agency create incentives to encourage air carriers to fly out of airports other than LAX.

The cheapest incentive is to leave TBIT and the rest of the facilities as-is and let them deteriorate.

What's the traffic split between international pax (connecting, terminating, or originating) vs domestic pax at LAX?

If this is a large number, it's an overly simplistic view to force flights to other airports in order to reduce net traffic.
 
commavia
Posts: 9733
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 2:30 am

RE: LA To Back Perks To Discourage Use Of LAX

Thu Jan 19, 2006 11:12 am

Typical politican's response: rather than fixing capacity problems and encouraging growth in the free market and trying to respond proactively to what consumers want, let's artificially tinker with the market and hurt one of our biggest economic assets in the process. Stunning, simply stunning.
 
jacobin777
Posts: 12262
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 6:29 pm

RE: LA To Back Perks To Discourage Use Of LAX

Thu Jan 19, 2006 11:22 am

ok..a little bit far-fetched...maybe somone knows better...but why couldn't LAX expand outwards........? its been done to a certain extent in Japan and China (HKG)............

$11 billion does get lots of gravel and dredging equipment.....
"Up the Irons!"
 
LAXintl
Posts: 20183
Joined: Wed May 24, 2000 12:12 pm

RE: LA To Back Perks To Discourage Use Of LAX

Thu Jan 19, 2006 11:47 am

Quoting Commavia (Reply 3):
Typical politican's response: rather than fixing capacity problems and encouraging growth in the free market and trying to respond proactively to what consumers want, let's artificially tinker with the market and hurt one of our biggest economic assets in the process. Stunning, simply stunning.

I am a true capitalist, however am pragmatic at the same time. Accordingly, I feel the proposal is a rather good one.

As part of the modest expansion of LAX which was approved last month, the city and county must do something to encourage usage of other regional airports. LAX simply cannot continue to absorb unchecked future demand even with the approved growth plans.
As such economic incentive could go a long way in helping shift travel patterns to other airports in the region. I also suspect LAWA will ensure LAX sees significant upward movement of its fee structure to further provide a disincentives to airlines and ultimately the consumer to shift away.

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 4):
ok..a little bit far-fetched...maybe somone knows better...but why couldn't LAX expand outwards........? its been done to a certain extent in Japan and China (HKG)............

Will never be done. There are a myriad of environmental issues which would never be overcome. As is, even slight modifications within the airfield property line on the Westside of the airport has had to contend with issues such as protecting endangered blue butterflies that make parts of the airport a home!
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
 
FA4UA
Posts: 777
Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2003 6:26 pm

RE: LA To Back Perks To Discourage Use Of LAX

Thu Jan 19, 2006 11:48 am

This is just a manifestation of a larger infrastructure problem in SoCal... The LA area is decades late in creating a viable train/subway network which would take the burden off the freeways and lighten traffic in the surrounding areas. The current light rail and train network is a joke. For me (who lives in North Hollywood) to drive to LAX takes nearly an hour to go 17 miles. To take the Red Line which is not too far from my house to light rail down to LAX takes nearly double that and encompases two transfers!

What a mess... but the weather is great!
FA4UA
The debate continues... Starwood or Hyatt... which is better
 
skyharborshome
Posts: 202
Joined: Sun Dec 25, 2005 11:19 am

RE: LA To Back Perks To Discourage Use Of LAX

Thu Jan 19, 2006 11:54 am

Flew from ONT yesterday and heading to LAX tomorrow. While getting in and out of Ontario is a breeze, I still love seeing all the big birds parked at LAX.
Fly CHD!
 
aeroman62
Posts: 146
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2004 3:16 pm

RE: LA To Back Perks To Discourage Use Of LAX

Thu Jan 19, 2006 12:35 pm

ONT is a gem, LAX is a crowded dump - it is inevitable that traffic will move to ONT, what's stopping a JetBlue or Air Tran from grabbing the under utilized gates now at ONT and adding service where it makes sense.

On the other hand I flew two flights into ONT this week, from LAS and to OAK, the first was 90% full, the second was 2/3rds empty, so maybe demand isn't there.
 
LAXintl
Posts: 20183
Joined: Wed May 24, 2000 12:12 pm

RE: LA To Back Perks To Discourage Use Of LAX

Thu Jan 19, 2006 1:17 pm

The modern new facilities at Ontario are indeed dying to see more use.

Overtime the airport will naturaly become more and more popular considering the Inland Empire (Riverside-San Bernardino Counties) is the fastest growing region of California.
Ontario is also is quite convenient for many of those whom reside on the Eastern parts of LA County also.

The airport currently handles about 7 million passengers whiles its design capacity was for 12million. LAWA also has a masterplan design which could bring the airport capacity comfortably to 20million. The current top airline at Ontario is Southwest carrying near 50% of the airports passengers.
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
 
centrair
Posts: 2845
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2005 3:44 pm

RE: LA To Back Perks To Discourage Use Of LAX

Thu Jan 19, 2006 1:49 pm

Maybe they need to make it so that all those airports are connected by a rapid transit system.

Cut the amount of traffic going in and out of LAX by allowing people to park at another airport, and ride to LAX. Maybe even allow a person to make a transfer between airports.

But in the end the idea has merit. LA is, I believe, the second largest city in the U.S., yet it only really has 1 airport that can do the job. ORD has two, NYC has 3, and Frisco has two. Hell Dallas and Houston have two each. And all get good use. LA needs something. Was at LAX a few years back...man I know barns that more modern and clean.
Yes...I am not a KIX fan. Let's Japanese Aviation!
 
echster
Posts: 393
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2004 4:01 pm

RE: LA To Back Perks To Discourage Use Of LAX

Thu Jan 19, 2006 2:08 pm

I believe in a free market but if this is about suggestions, why not start with the international flights. Say, for instance, any international flights going east and north fly from ONT, while west and south fly from LAX. I live near ONT and think it is a very nice - if not under used - airport.
 
PanAm747
Posts: 4713
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 4:46 am

RE: LA To Back Perks To Discourage Use Of LAX

Thu Jan 19, 2006 2:13 pm

Oh dear...another chapter in the Cuckoo's nest that is southern California airport politics.

SNA can never grow. BUR has it written in the city charter that no new construction of any type can ever be done. LGB is slot controlled. ONT is a great facility but too far out for most people. El Toro was offered for free and turned down.

Now LAX's neighbors want it to downsize. Exactly where are people supposed to go for flights? BUR? LGB? SNA? San Diego? Bakersfield? Las Vegas? Santa Barbara?

I always pray our grandchildren will forgive us when our airports are slot-controlled and fares are exorbitant. "Why couldn't they make any hard choices back then?" they will ask. Wish I had an answer.
Pan Am:The World's Most Experienced Airline - P(oor) S(ailor's) A(irline): San Diego's Hometown Airline-Catch Our Smile!
 
wilax
Posts: 448
Joined: Tue Jun 18, 2002 2:39 pm

RE: LA To Back Perks To Discourage Use Of LAX

Thu Jan 19, 2006 2:44 pm

Quoting PanAm747 (Reply 12):
I always pray our grandchildren will forgive us when our airports are slot-controlled and fares are exorbitant. "Why couldn't they make any hard choices back then?" they will ask. Wish I had an answer.

AMEN!!!

This kind of narrow self interest infuriates me. It is just plain prejudice. People think all airports are a huge imposition until they need to fly somewhere. Most planes today are so quiet that they are rarely noticed. It is the definition of hypocracy to oppose something simply because it may inconvenience you rather than the objective right-or-wrong of the issue itself.
 
lgbflttrainer
Posts: 85
Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2005 2:01 am

RE: LA To Back Perks To Discourage Use Of LAX

Thu Jan 19, 2006 3:28 pm

While ONT is a really nice facility, it will never take hold as a legitimate option, simply because getting there is way too difficult. Both the I-10 & Hwy 60 are miserable freeways on a good day (which is rarely).

BUR could be a nice alternative for domestic traffic, but the terminal is antiquated and unsafe by FAA standards. Plus, the city of Burbank will not be building a new terminal there for at least 10 years, due to NIMBY-itis.

LGB...as previously mentioned is slot controlled and that number (41) will never be raised, simply because the residents of Long Beach are extremely vocal about it...similar to BUR.

SNA has been given approval to expand, but they have limited space to do so...meaning that the growth there will be slight.

VNY...will never be commercial, because it's already swamped with GA traffic.

PMD...another fantasy that will not become reality. The distance is way to far to accomodate LA...the travel in good traffic. From LAX, it's approximately 75 miles (which in SoCal could mean up to 3 hours). Not a fun proposal.
Overt enthusiast...like that's a BAD thing?
 
elal106
Posts: 939
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2000 1:50 pm

RE: LA To Back Perks To Discourage Use Of LAX

Thu Jan 19, 2006 4:43 pm

LGBFLTTrainer is absolutely correct. Especially with ONT. For someone living outside of LA then yes ONT may be an excellent option. However, someone like me living in LA it sounds quite far fetched to drive at least an hour away to fly out of ONT. Without traffic on the 405 it takes 45 minutes just to get down to LGB. LAX is still the most convenient option for me.
 
2travel2know
Posts: 2236
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 7:05 am

RE: LA To Back Perks To Discourage Use Of LAX

Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:54 pm

Quoting Aeroman62 (Reply 8):
ONT is a gem, LAX is a crowded dump - it is inevitable that traffic will move to ONT, what's stopping a JetBlue or Air Tran from grabbing the under utilized gates now at ONT and adding service where it makes sense.

ONT needs to do something about their International Arrivals Terminal openning hours. Mexican airlines can't fly there because when they plan to land, there's nobody there to attend them.
I don't work for COPA Airlines!
 
airlineaddict
Posts: 308
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 12:37 pm

RE: LA To Back Perks To Discourage Use Of LAX

Thu Jan 19, 2006 10:41 pm

ONT needs to do some PR work with folks in the L.A. basin. The last time I was at ONT was pre-new terminal. No jetways, semi-outdoor baggage claim, etc. If the population knew there was a modern terminal there, that might help shift traffic.

On the other hand, I finally flew on JetBlue from LGB. Talk about a dump, and yet it was packed. Low fares and great service always brings the traffic.
 
D950
Posts: 472
Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2004 12:17 am

RE: LA To Back Perks To Discourage Use Of LAX

Thu Jan 19, 2006 11:20 pm

Quoting LGBFltTrainer (Reply 14):
While ONT is a really nice facility, it will never take hold as a legitimate option, simply because getting there is way too difficult. Both the I-10 & Hwy 60 are miserable freeways on a good day (which is rarely).

Spot on, plus the car rental companies instituted some nonsense surcharge to the tune of $20 a day, so ONT suddenly is no longer an alternative unless you have business in the inland empire.
Resting on your laurels is a synonym for flirting with disaster
 
ltbewr
Posts: 12388
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2004 1:24 pm

RE: LA To Back Perks To Discourage Use Of LAX

Fri Jan 20, 2006 12:07 am

Perhaps LAX should become more like JFK and mainly become an international and long haul domestic O&D airport, shifting most domestic to other airports. ONT could be get some international charter traffic and expand domestic service to/from cities in the western USA flights. LAX is still going to be the main origination and connection airport for many to Asia, Europe and long haul domestic and international services in the Americas for the anticipated future and should be narrowed to that.
 
N62NA
Posts: 4006
Joined: Sun Aug 10, 2003 1:05 am

RE: LA To Back Perks To Discourage Use Of LAX

Fri Jan 20, 2006 12:34 am

Quoting FA4UA (Reply 6):
The LA area is decades late in creating a viable train/subway network which would take the burden off the freeways and lighten traffic in the surrounding areas. The current light rail and train network is a joke.

How true!

The entire LA area had a fantastic network of streetcars (the "light rail" of the first half of the 20th century) from the 1900s through the 1950s. Of course, as the auto became more popular, usage of the streetcars dwindled and I believe it was General Motors that convinced LA County to tear up all the rails by the 1950s and switch to buses.

I have several old US Geological Survey maps of the LA basin - one is from 1923, one from 1954 and another from the 1960s and it is just fascinating to see the expansion of the rail network up until 1954, followed by their disappearance starting in the 1960s.

To this day, the city is still in the process of removing the remnants of the old streetcar lines (drive on Santa Monica Blvd near Century city and you'll see), when what they should be doing is rebuilding them.
 
pgtravel
Posts: 237
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 6:04 am

RE: LA To Back Perks To Discourage Use Of LAX

Fri Jan 20, 2006 1:24 am

Quoting Aeroman62 (Reply 8):
ONT is a gem, LAX is a crowded dump - it is inevitable that traffic will move to ONT, what's stopping a JetBlue or Air Tran from grabbing the under utilized gates now at ONT and adding service where it makes sense.

One thing that's stopping them is the rather high landing fees at ONT. They have a new terminal out there that needs to be paid for, so it is not cheap. Remember, B6 went into ONT before LGB, but when they couldn't get a better deal on landing fees, they focused growth on LGB instead.
 
SRT75
Posts: 204
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2005 2:42 am

RE: LA To Back Perks To Discourage Use Of LAX

Fri Jan 20, 2006 1:42 am

Classic LA politics. The ONLY viable option for LA is LAX. This has been proven over an over again. ONT makes no sense for business travellers or connecting pax. Palmdale did have limited commercial service a while ago, and that never went anywhere. Burbank can be weight restricted in the summer, and the termainal is antiquated. Long Beach is a joke. Santa Ana is good for Disneyland and Orange County, but the strict pax limits preclude any meaningful expansion.

To ease some congestion at LAX I would propose developing Palmdale as a cargo airport. Subsidize or use incentives to get FedEx, UPS, PolarAir Cargo, NW Cargo, and other cargo-only operations to move from LAX to Palmdale. The only problem is compensating these companies for the extra fuel prices involved with trucking the freight from Palmdale to a rail depot or the final destination instead of from LAX (I would suspect most of FedEx's cargo ends up in Los Angeles proper).

Quoting AirlineAddict (Reply 17):
ONT needs to do some PR work with folks in the L.A. basin

There has been an ongoing radio ad camplaing boasting the convenience of "LAO - Los Angeles Ontario airport."
 
b777a340fan
Posts: 652
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 12:42 am

RE: LA To Back Perks To Discourage Use Of LAX

Fri Jan 20, 2006 2:37 am

Quoting PanAm747 (Reply 12):
SNA can never grow. BUR has it written in the city charter that no new construction of any type can ever be done. LGB is slot controlled. ONT is a great facility but too far out for most people. El Toro was offered for free and turned down.

That was exactly my thought! Although there is merit to the idea in general, I don't know whether politicians have made a thorough plan. Expanding those airports would not only require a generous budget to actually build the structure, but also to maintain it if you include added security, personnel, etc... Furthermore, as many have pointed out, a lot of those airports have little room to grow. SNA, for example, is bound by the freeway on one side and housing complexes on the other. It's not as easy as it sounds. It's going to require time, money, years of patience (can you imagine California rush hour w/ added construction?  banghead  ), and I'm sure there will be strong opposition, as always.

Quoting FA4UA (Reply 6):
The LA area is decades late in creating a viable train/subway network which would take the burden off the freeways and lighten traffic in the surrounding areas. The current light rail and train network is a joke.

Again, it is always easy to say and harder to do. In order to build a "viable" train/subway network, you have to have space. In the current Los Angeles area, there is little of that. So an underground network seems like a good choice, but you have to remember that California is plagued with the possibility of earthquakes and the likes, making it even harder to do.

I travel in/out of LAX quite often and I don't believe it's that bad, not any worst than JFK, ORD, LHR or the likes. Stress is unfortunately an inherent aspect of today's travel, but I don't mind, just bring along a stress ball  Big grin .
Just my thoughts....Happy Flying!
 
acjflyer
Posts: 294
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2005 9:44 am

RE: LA To Back Perks To Discourage Use Of LAX

Fri Jan 20, 2006 2:37 am

I'm new at this so forgive me being a bit naive, but is it not at all cost effective to build a new airport just outside of L.A.? It seems that there aren't many other options out there, but it doesn't sound like anyone is willing to put the money into creating another option either.
 
longhaulheavy
Posts: 376
Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2003 1:52 am

RE: LA To Back Perks To Discourage Use Of LAX

Fri Jan 20, 2006 2:57 am

Quoting KRIC777 (Reply 1):
Well, I was on business in the LA area over the weekend and flew out of ONT yesterday

ONT is great! When ever I'm there, I always have this feeling like I'm doing my part to help develop the American west.

It also played a role in "24" this week...
 
N62NA
Posts: 4006
Joined: Sun Aug 10, 2003 1:05 am

RE: LA To Back Perks To Discourage Use Of LAX

Fri Jan 20, 2006 3:31 am

Quoting B777A340Fan (Reply 23):
Again, it is always easy to say and harder to do. In order to build a "viable" train/subway network, you have to have space.

The reality is, they do have the space. Streetcar tracks used to run down Santa Monica Blvd (they had their own right of way in the median). Same with San Vicente and Culver Blvd down to Venice.

Just drive down Culver Blvd from Main Street in Culver City to the 405 Freeway and you'll notice a very nice landscaped park running parallel to you. That's where the tracks used to be (and may still be, just buried under some topsoil)!

The old Exposition Line parallel to Exposition Blvd is actually going to be reconstructed all the way from just south of downtown LA to the National Blvd and Washington Blvd intersection in Culver City.
 
N1120A
Posts: 26467
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: LA To Back Perks To Discourage Use Of LAX

Fri Jan 20, 2006 4:08 am

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 4):
ok..a little bit far-fetched...maybe somone knows better...but why couldn't LAX expand outwards........? its been done to a certain extent in Japan and China (HKG)............

$11 billion does get lots of gravel and dredging equipment.....

Dockweiler State Beach is a protected area. You are not talking about a deep water bay here, but a coastline that we need to protect from erosion as it is. That kind of shock to the ecosystem would be disasterous.

Quoting Echster (Reply 11):
why not start with the international flights. Say, for instance, any international flights going east and north fly from ONT, while west and south fly from LAX. I live near ONT and think it is a very nice - if not under used - airport.

Except that ONT is far away from most of the long haul cachement and doesn't have anywhere near the connecting opportunities.

Quoting LGBFltTrainer (Reply 14):
BUR could be a nice alternative for domestic traffic, but the terminal is antiquated and unsafe by FAA standards. Plus, the city of Burbank will not be building a new terminal there for at least 10 years, due to NIMBY-itis.

Remember also that BUR is nearly as penned in as SNA and has short runways that have no chance of being extended, so it is not exactly the kind of place that can expand anyway

Quoting N62NA (Reply 20):
usage of the streetcars dwindled and I believe it was General Motors that convinced LA County to tear up all the rails by the 1950s and switch to buses.

GM and Firestone actually

Quoting B777A340Fan (Reply 23):
So an underground network seems like a good choice, but you have to remember that California is plagued with the possibility of earthquakes and the likes, making it even harder to do.

BART proved that even an unsupported underwater tunnel will withstand a major earthquake

Quoting Acjflyer (Reply 24):
but is it not at all cost effective to build a new airport just outside of L.A.? It

It is not space effective. There is nowhere to build it

Quoting N62NA (Reply 26):
The old Exposition Line parallel to Exposition Blvd is actually going to be reconstructed all the way from just south of downtown LA to the National Blvd and Washington Blvd intersection in Culver City.

And then extended to the Colorado Intermodal Transit Plaza in Santa Monica
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
echster
Posts: 393
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2004 4:01 pm

RE: LA To Back Perks To Discourage Use Of LAX

Fri Jan 20, 2006 4:51 am

Quoting SRT75 (Reply 22):
To ease some congestion at LAX I would propose developing Palmdale as a cargo airport. Subsidize or use incentives to get FedEx, UPS, PolarAir Cargo, NW Cargo, and other cargo-only operations to move from LAX to Palmdale. The only problem is compensating these companies for the extra fuel prices involved with trucking the freight from Palmdale to a rail depot or the final destination instead of from LAX (I would suspect most of FedEx's cargo ends up in Los Angeles proper).

Or they could join DHL on surplus military property at RIV!
 
ltbewr
Posts: 12388
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2004 1:24 pm

RE: LA To Back Perks To Discourage Use Of LAX

Fri Jan 20, 2006 4:54 am

Quoting SRT75 (Reply 22):
To ease some congestion at LAX I would propose developing Palmdale as a cargo airport. Subsidize or use incentives to get ... cargo-only operations to move from LAX to Palmdale.

Now THAT is a good idea! Much of the bulk air freight, that which isn't 'overnight' FedEx, UPS, DHL, etc., would be better served by ONT or Palmdale. Much movement of that freight isn't going into the LA area anyway, thus cutting down on truck traffic there. Perhaps they could become much like Alliance Airport in the DFW area. Air Freight airlines, and some of their big clients could set up warehouses in and around those airports, freeing space near LAX for other uses. One problem with Palmdale could be the 'skunk works' and other manufacturing facilities of Lockheed-Martin there.
 
NADC10Fan
Posts: 117
Joined: Wed May 11, 2005 5:03 am

RE: LA To Back Perks To Discourage Use Of LAX

Fri Jan 20, 2006 5:26 am

Quoting PanAm747 (Reply 12):
SNA can never grow. BUR has it written in the city charter that no new construction of any type can ever be done. LGB is slot controlled. ONT is a great facility but too far out for most people. El Toro was offered for free and turned down.

NiMBYs ... I have really come to despise them.  gnasher 

So, exactly why was was a "free" El Toro "turned down" again? I knew it was there, but I've never seen/heard the details of how/why this was.
TANSTAAFL!
 
ei a330-200
Posts: 336
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2001 8:22 am

RE: LA To Back Perks To Discourage Use Of LAX

Fri Jan 20, 2006 5:51 am

Quoting FA4UA (Reply 6):
This is just a manifestation of a larger infrastructure problem in SoCal... The LA area is decades late in creating a viable train/subway network which would take the burden off the freeways and lighten traffic in the surrounding areas. The current light rail and train network is a joke. For me (who lives in North Hollywood) to drive to LAX takes nearly an hour to go 17 miles. To take the Red Line which is not too far from my house to light rail down to LAX takes nearly double that and encompases two transfers!

The issue that arises when talking about light rail in the LA area is viability. Firstly, you don't have the public transportation culture in LA. Everyone is used to driving themselves and generally are not receptive to new forms of public transportation. Secondly, you have the fact that the LA metro area is the largest in the nation. It stretches from South from Ventura and North from Oceanside, and West from basically the mountains. That is huge. The ability of of a light rail system to get from each quadrant to another would take forever. Think about a train stopping every mile or so from Orange County to ventura county. you also don't have the major "downtown" centralization like most other cities have. For example, many international corporations don't have their company headquarters in the "downtown" area of Los Angeles, but rather in many of the suburbs. My hometown, for example, houses the Western HQs for Yamaha, Panasonic, Bandai, Shaw Carpets, Diamond Sports, Pacific Horizion, Mitsubishi. And I live a good 20 miles from Downtown. So the idea of public transportation just won't work in the LA area.
 
BigGSFO
Posts: 2214
Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2005 5:27 am

RE: LA To Back Perks To Discourage Use Of LAX

Fri Jan 20, 2006 6:07 am

Quoting EI A330-200 (Reply 31):
So the idea of public transportation just won't work in the LA area.

Agreed. I grew up in LA-metro. Even if a subway system as complex as NYC or London were to sprout up overnight, there would still be jammed freeways. It is a car culture.
 
lgbflttrainer
Posts: 85
Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2005 2:01 am

RE: LA To Back Perks To Discourage Use Of LAX

Fri Jan 20, 2006 7:05 am

LGB is about to approve a new, modern terminal. However, because of constraints surrounding the current terminal (it is listed as an historical landmark), they still won't have jetways.

That, combined with the strict slot allottment means that LGB will never be a significant commercial facility.
Overt enthusiast...like that's a BAD thing?
 
AussieItaliano
Posts: 343
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 12:27 pm

RE: LA To Back Perks To Discourage Use Of LAX

Fri Jan 20, 2006 7:06 am

Quoting EI A330-200 (Reply 31):
So the idea of public transportation just won't work in the LA area.

I disagree. If the government were to become really committed to public transport, or assist private enterprises in that aspect, they could build an incredible network. We're talking about local and express services, in addition to rapid intercity trains. Most Southern Californians I know would gladly ride public transport if it were faster than driving, but right now, it isn't.
Third Runway - LHR, Second Runway - LGW, Build Them Both!!!
 
RiddlePilot215
Posts: 280
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2003 2:19 pm

RE: LA To Back Perks To Discourage Use Of LAX

Fri Jan 20, 2006 7:11 am

Just a question....

Even though the idea of having service added to most of the surrounding LA airports is quite a good one... Don't most of them suffer from the NIMBY effect?

It seems as though people WANT planes just to go to LAX, because they're able to direct all departures and arrivals out over the water, and then vector them back around once their too high to really make a noise difference.
God is good, all the time. All the time, God is good.
 
N1120A
Posts: 26467
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: LA To Back Perks To Discourage Use Of LAX

Fri Jan 20, 2006 7:17 am

Quoting EI A330-200 (Reply 31):
Think about a train stopping every mile or so from Orange County to ventura county.

Orange County and Ventura County wouldn't have that sort of thing. You would take over the rights of way on the heavy rail and run more frequent Metrolink and Amtrak California commuter service, which connect to the intra-Los Angeles system at more places than just Union Station. Additionally, there is already a right of way close enough to LAX to run an intermodal commuter station, it is just a matter of doing it.

Quoting AussieItaliano (Reply 34):
I disagree. If the government were to become really committed to public transport, or assist private enterprises in that aspect, they could build an incredible network. We're talking about local and express services, in addition to rapid intercity trains. Most Southern Californians I know would gladly ride public transport if it were faster than driving, but right now, it isn't.

You are completely right. A Southern Californian's wet dream is a great public transport system AND having a cool car to tool around in on the weekends. The issue is that we do all this start and stop building that makes things a hell of a lot more expensive. What we need to do is bite the bullet, spend a bunch of money building a good system asap and then refine from there. That is how all the other cities did it and that is the only way it will work.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
N62NA
Posts: 4006
Joined: Sun Aug 10, 2003 1:05 am

RE: LA To Back Perks To Discourage Use Of LAX

Fri Jan 20, 2006 8:00 am

Quoting EI A330-200 (Reply 31):
Firstly, you don't have the public transportation culture in LA. Everyone is used to driving themselves and generally are not receptive to new forms of public transportation.

That's true, at least for people 21 and over, but it's the younger (future) citizens that would really benefit the most from this and would probably be more receptive to using a good public (rail) transportation system.

Here in Miami Beach, there's this proposal for Baylink, which is a light rail system that would go from downtown Miami to South Beach on Miami Beach. They did some polling (and a non binding referendum I believe) of citizens in Miami Beach and those in favor of Baylink were skewed to the younger end of the demographic age spectrum, while those older citizens were against it.

Quoting EI A330-200 (Reply 31):
Secondly, you have the fact that the LA metro area is the largest in the nation. It stretches from South from Ventura and North from Oceanside, and West from basically the mountains. That is huge. The ability of of a light rail system to get from each quadrant to another would take forever.

Don't need to have such an extensive (and expensive), far reaching network as the old Pacific Electric rail system. Instead concentrate it in Los Angeles, Beverly Hills, Westwood, Santa Monica, Culver City. There's an awful lot of people living in those areas - and working in those areas too (especially the Wilshire Corridor).

As a business traveller to Los Angeles, if I could take a train from LAX to my hotel in any of these areas, I would. I could even rent a car once I got to my destination, as there are plenty of car rental offices scattered throughout the city - many will even bring the car to your hotel.
 
SuseJ772
Posts: 657
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 11:13 am

RE: LA To Back Perks To Discourage Use Of LAX

Fri Jan 20, 2006 8:06 am

Quoting Centrair (Reply 10):
Maybe they need to make it so that all those airports are connected by a rapid transit system.

That is a GREAT idea. I never thought of that. I think LA will never be able to have a real public transit system (although I think it could work, they just won't resolve to do it), but I do think a public rail system between the five major airports would be a great idea.

Quoting PanAm747 (Reply 12):
BUR has it written in the city charter that no new construction of any type can ever be done.

I thought they were doing construction right now on the terminal. It seemed like it the last time I was there.

Quoting PanAm747 (Reply 12):
ONT is a great facility but too far out for most people.

I disagree. The problem with ONT isn't its location, its the fares (except WN of course).

Quoting LGBFltTrainer (Reply 14):
While ONT is a really nice facility, it will never take hold as a legitimate option, simply because getting there is way too difficult. Both the I-10 & Hwy 60 are miserable freeways on a good day (which is rarely).

Yeah, like the 405 is any better. Still most people in LA would have to take either the 60, 10, or 405 at some point to LAX, so your argument doesn't hold up. At least most the time, those from within LA would be going against traffic on their way to the airport (assuming morning departure, evening arrival).

Quoting AirlineAddict (Reply 17):
ONT needs to do some PR work with folks in the L.A. basin.

I disagree. I think a lot of people in LA would want to fly ONT, it all comes down to the fares. For example, I can usually fly ATL-LAX for around $250. ATL-ONT is more like $350-370. You give me equal fares, I'd fly into ONT right now, with out a PR campaign.

Quoting SRT75 (Reply 22):
This has been proven over an over again. ONT makes no sense for business travelers or connecting pax.

I disagree. It makes sense if it is cost effective. Sure, if your business is in DOWNTOWN LA, then yes, go to LAX. But if it is anywhere on the outskirts (especially east and north), I think it provides a better place to fly into. This all is assuming two things: 1) more competitive fares and rental care rates, and 2) more destination options. The majors pretty much just fly to their hubs (SLC, ATL, DFW, DEN, IAH).


Hopefully all of this will encourage more flights to ONT (and others if possible) and those flights will be cheaper. I think this is a great idea for LA.
Currently at PIE, requesting FWA >> >>
 
JFK998
Posts: 100
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2005 11:39 am

RE: LA To Back Perks To Discourage Use Of LAX

Fri Jan 20, 2006 8:21 am

A city like LA should have 2 airports. Just like NYC has JFK and LaGuardia. However, there isn't much room to expand and the only thing I could think of is dividing LAX in to 2 separate areas, one area for international and one area for domestic. I mean the Tom Bradley Terminal is good, but maybe an extension of that plus a new terminal setup for domestic flights could ease the congestion at LAX. LGB could never handle the domestic traffic of LAX. ONT could handle it, however it is a little out of the way for those who are closer to LAX. BUR needs to make major improvements and it too is too far out of the way for people who are closer to LAX. So there is only one solution.
 
aaway
Posts: 1239
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 2:07 am

RE: LA To Back Perks To Discourage Use Of LAX

Fri Jan 20, 2006 9:03 am

Quoting Commavia (Reply 3):
Typical politican's response: rather than fixing capacity problems and encouraging growth in the free market and trying to respond proactively to what consumers want, let's artificially tinker with the market and hurt one of our biggest economic assets in the process. Stunning, simply stunning.

Quite indicative of the political climate in the LA Basin. The LAX expansion debacle was doomed from the start with the appeasement tact used to garner support for the project. And I'm of the opinion that as long as our local government remains bound by term limits, it will remain nigh impossible to signifcantly expand LAX. Tom Bradley was the last non-term limited LA mayor. The 80's expansion of LAX, as well as the expanded Port of LA, and the (re)introduction of rail transit occurred under his administration. Takes time to build consensus for major infrastructure projects.

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 4):
ok..a little bit far-fetched...maybe somone knows better...but why couldn't LAX expand outwards........? its been done to a certain extent in Japan and China (HKG)............



Quoting N1120A (Reply 27):
Dockweiler State Beach is a protected area. You are not talking about a deep water bay here, but a coastline that we need to protect from erosion as it is. That kind of shock to the ecosystem would be disasterous.

Also, from a strictly logistical standpoint, expanding LAX seaward would be an extraordinarily herclean task. The airfield is actually a bit over 100' above sea level. The best vantage point to see this is from Sandpiper Street - now closed to auto traffic but still accessable by foot - near the approach ends of the 06s. This is the area where homes were once built across sanddunes at the westerly end of LAX. Standing at Sandpiper's summit will reveal the great contrasts in elevation.

KIX, LGA, NGO, and SFO are all slightly above sea level. HKG was unique in that an island was flattened build it.

Quoting Laxintl (Reply 5):
LAX simply cannot continue to absorb unchecked future demand even with the approved growth plans.
As such economic incentive could go a long way in helping shift travel patterns to other airports in the region. I also suspect LAWA will ensure LAX sees significant upward movement of its fee structure to further provide a disincentives to airlines and ultimately the consumer to shift away.

I'm going to disagree with a portion of your post, Laxint. LAWA will indeed raise fees and increase lease rates, but I believe the airlines will simply pass the cost to the consumer. The LCC presence at BUR, LGB, and ONT will probably dissuade much investment in those markets by the network carriers. There will certainly be some organic growth, particularly in the Inland Empire, but I wouldn't expect a slew of new domestic services. Perhaps the significant short-term change to the ONT market will be its developing niche status in the U.S. - Mexico market.

All-in-all, this recommendation by the LA County BoS could be significant...or nothing at all. The BoS has no authority or oversight in the day-to-day operation of LAX, but can certainly be a hinderence in the long-term vision for LAX by the City. It'll be a matter of how the City decides (or if it decides) to pursue this issue.
"The greatest mistake you can make in life is to continually be afraid you will make one." - Elbert Hubbard
 
LAXintl
Posts: 20183
Joined: Wed May 24, 2000 12:12 pm

RE: LA To Back Perks To Discourage Use Of LAX

Fri Jan 20, 2006 9:47 am

Quoting 2travel2know (Reply 16):
ONT needs to do something about their International Arrivals Terminal openning hours. Mexican airlines can't fly there because when they plan to land, there's nobody there to attend them.

Actually FIS hours not parse are the airports fault. Its much more a simple supply and demand equation with the Federal Government. Unless if an airline is willing to subsidize the added specific coverage for its flight, FIS hours are designed to cover the majority of operations. As more and more flights operate, the hours can be expanded as funding becomes available.
For instance at LAX, while staffing is usually around, the Federal folks do not allow for 24/7 scheduling of international passenger flights.

Quoting LTBEWR (Reply 29):
Now THAT is a good idea! Much of the bulk air freight, that which isn't 'overnight' FedEx, UPS, DHL, etc., would be better served by ONT or Palmdale.



Quoting SRT75 (Reply 22):
To ease some congestion at LAX I would propose developing Palmdale as a cargo airport. Subsidize or use incentives to get FedEx, UPS, PolarAir Cargo, NW Cargo, and other cargo-only operations to move from LAX to Palmdale

Good idea to in trying to move cargo ops away from LAX, however might be easier said then done.

Palmdale I would say is almost a non starter as the airport is simply too far away from the general LA basin for both the express carriers and general cargo carriers.

In regards to Ontario, it does have more potential, however also has some hurdles. In particular the majority of LA's freight forwarder community is located near LAX and the Port of Los Angeles / Long Beach.
There is strong resistance in having to use further off airports like Ontario. Cost would likely increase due need for much additional trucking, and extended delivery times which be experienced.

For instance EVA Air a few years back planned to move its freighter ops to Ontario and received all types of ecenomic inducements including a facility at Ontario, however backed out at the last minute when it realized the carrier would see declines in cargo volume and rates if it made the move.

Another little issue with the importance of LAX and cargo is that there is an extremely high volume of cargo that moves right off ships in the LA / Long Beach ports straight to the airport for onward shipment both domesticaly and around the world from LAX. A shift of cargo traffic away from LAX would not only strech supply chains, however as mentioned before cause increased cost for items such as trucking. This alone is a big issue, as the ports and several other local agencies are actively working on trying to reduce truck trips.
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
 
klkla
Posts: 634
Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2004 8:51 am

RE: LA To Back Perks To Discourage Use Of LAX

Fri Jan 20, 2006 10:52 am

Quoting Centrair (Reply 10):
But in the end the idea has merit. LA is, I believe, the second largest city in the U.S., yet it only really has 1 airport that can do the job. ORD has two, NYC has 3, and Frisco has two. Hell Dallas and Houston have two each.

The L.A. area already has four major airports (LAX, SNA, BUR, ONT). Five if you include Long Beach. But like the other cities you mention only one of the airports is a major international airport.

Quoting PanAm747 (Reply 12):
El Toro was offered for free and turned down.

Actually, LAWA tried to get control of this airport and was opposed by officials and residents of Orange County. It would have made a perfect location for another large airport.

Quoting LTBEWR (Reply 19):
Perhaps LAX should become more like JFK and mainly become an international and long haul domestic O&D airport, shifting most domestic to other airports.

This idea has a lot of merit. If there's so much opposition to growth at LAX that would make the most sense. Being that BUR and SNA are in the same position most of the domestic O&D could be moved to LGB and ONT.

Quoting Acjflyer (Reply 24):
I'm new at this so forgive me being a bit naive, but is it not at all cost effective to build a new airport just outside of L.A.? It seems that there aren't many other options out there, but it doesn't sound like anyone is willing to put the money into creating another option either.

This would be a good idea if Los Angeles wasn't so big. The only available unused land would be north towards Palmdale/Lancaster and most people form L.A. would not want to drive an hour or more (depending on traffic) to get to an airport.
 
pgtravel
Posts: 237
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 6:04 am

RE: LA To Back Perks To Discourage Use Of LAX

Sat Jan 21, 2006 2:18 am

Quoting N62NA (Reply 37):
Don't need to have such an extensive (and expensive), far reaching network as the old Pacific Electric rail system. Instead concentrate it in Los Angeles, Beverly Hills, Westwood, Santa Monica, Culver City. There's an awful lot of people living in those areas - and working in those areas too (especially the Wilshire Corridor).

I agree with this, but there is already a good "Rapid" bus system that makes public transit in these areas much easier. I live in Beverly Hills, and I actually take the bus every morning to work in Westwood. The busses run often, are clean, and don't stop very often. Another good idea is the new orange line that was opened in the valley. They basically paved over some old rail tracks and created a busway that cars cannot travel on. Much cheaper than building a subway tunnel and still fast. There are clearly improvements that can be made, but they are making some progress.
 
apodino
Posts: 3027
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2005 2:11 am

RE: LA To Back Perks To Discourage Use Of LAX

Sat Jan 21, 2006 2:41 am

I was taking a look at the airport arrival demand chart for LAX today. it seems to me they have some room to grow at LAX. According to the FAA chart, LAX has an airport arrival rate of 85, and the most aircraft due in any hour is 60. And thats the peak, So they can accept at least another 25 aircraft per hour in LAX before you even think about any delays. You only get ATC delays when the arrival rate is lower than the demand. Obviously LAX is well below that number.

And Boeing7E7 once claimed they have daily ground delay programs. Looking at the FAA demand numbers that I see, I just don't see how this can happen. But LAX does have a bit of room to grow before its totally saturated.
 
ikramerica
Posts: 13760
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: LA To Back Perks To Discourage Use Of LAX

Sat Jan 21, 2006 2:47 am

One important aspect of a transit system is the ability for riders to reach it.

If you have to walk a mile to get to it, what value is that? If you have to drive to it and they have no park and ride, what value is that? If you place it in locations that are too hilly, and you have to walk up steep hills to get to it, who would do that every day?

LA suffers from all three of those problems. To be effective, the valley alone would need a Manhattan sized system, as would the westside. And on the westside, the slope of the terrain would make walking to it stressful for anyone but the most fit people.

Now, would it have been nice if they reintroduced the beach trains, connecting east LA to the ocean? Yes, but that was never going to happen. They recently ripped out the center median on Santa Monica Blvd to make a super wide road at great expense.

LA expanded over the last 50 years around the car. Once that happens, trying to superimpose an effective rail system on top of it becomes impossible. Other major cities with heavy rail/subway systems are either smaller, or have had them forever, before everyone was car focused and all the businesses had a chance to decentralize.

The closest example might be how Washington DC did theirs, basically as a commuter/tourist subway with one loop in the city, but DC again has a very central focus for the city (government). If you work in the businesses that aren't government related, they are scattered around like LA and you don't tend to take the Metro to them.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
MDW22L31C
Posts: 176
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 7:03 am

RE: LA To Back Perks To Discourage Use Of LAX

Sat Jan 21, 2006 2:57 am

What ONT needs is more flights to the Midwest and the East Coast. With only 1 SWA flight to BNA and JB stopped its midday flight to JFK. We need nonstop flights to ORD and Midwest hubs. Making a connection in ATL, DEN, LAS and PHX is not a good option at times.

I have take to UAE to LAX sometime too. And their are always full.

Thank god the UA put TED and 1 UAE to SFO.
 
abrelosojos
Posts: 4050
Joined: Sun May 29, 2005 6:48 am

RE: LA To Back Perks To Discourage Use Of LAX

Sat Jan 21, 2006 3:44 am

Quoting Centrair (Reply 10):
Frisco has two.

= It has 3 I thought?

-A.
Live, and let live.
 
hawaiian717
Posts: 3139
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:46 am

RE: LA To Back Perks To Discourage Use Of LAX

Sat Jan 21, 2006 4:49 am

Quoting Apodino (Reply 44):
I was taking a look at the airport arrival demand chart for LAX today. it seems to me they have some room to grow at LAX. According to the FAA chart, LAX has an airport arrival rate of 85, and the most aircraft due in any hour is 60.

What size of aircraft does that 85/hour arrival rate assume? LAX gets a substantial number of heavy aircraft, which mean a greater separation between aircraft, reducing the arrival rate.

Quoting Abrelosojos (Reply 47):
It has 3 I thought?

San Jose would be the third, but it is a bit far for those destined to the city of San Francisco itself. For those folks, SFO or OAK are better options.
 
ikramerica
Posts: 13760
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: LA To Back Perks To Discourage Use Of LAX

Sat Jan 21, 2006 5:00 am

CO has 3 IAH flights a day. From ONT, they have an overnight, a morning and a late afternoon. To ONT, they have a morning, afternoon and evening.

They just seem to charge more at some times than from LAX, but not always. It really depends.

So you can get a lot of places 1 stop from ONT. They just don't to an EWR flight.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.

Who is online