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

LAX Doubles Rent For Airlines.

Wed Nov 22, 2006 2:12 am

LAX to Raise the Rent on Airlines

Carriers, whose fees may double, say passengers ultimately will wind up paying more.

Airlines will have to pay far more to operate at Los Angeles International Airport under a new leasing policy approved Monday by airport commissioners -- and some carriers said passengers would feel the difference.

The new policy could more than double the amount of rent and other fees that some carriers pay for their space at LAX. Airport managers say they need to raise the rents to better reflect the costs of running and improving the airport.


http://www.dailybreeze.com/news/articles/4705646.html


While this has been in works for a long time(2004), the airport has moved ahead with its plans to revise the lease and rental policy at the airport.

The crux of the issue has to do with the airport raising both its actual lease rates and more controversially the new policy of charging for a portion of common use areas, not just actually leased facilities such as back office/gate/ticket counter space.
Basically airlines would be now liable for the entire terminal lease based on pro-ration of their overall activity at the facility as currently practiced at several other major US airports.
Initially affected airlines are those in T-1, T-3, and portion of T-6 (CO, Copa, AeroMexico), while the remainder of the airports carriers will see such similar lease changes as their current leases become due for renewal.

At the end of the day, many view such moves as the airports desire to make it more costly to do business at LAX in support of the Masterplan court settlement, thus provide economic impetus to shift activities to other regional airports such as ONT.
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
 
futurecaptain
Posts: 1918
Joined: Sat Sep 09, 2006 1:54 am

RE: LAX Doubles Rent For Airlines.

Wed Nov 22, 2006 2:33 am

Good, lets weed out the weak and unworthy carriers at LAX like those who dont want to pay the current rent.  stirthepot 
AirSO. ASpaceO. ASOnline. ASO.com ASO. ASO. ASO. ASO. ASO.
 
PanAm747
Posts: 4713
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 4:46 am

RE: LAX Doubles Rent For Airlines.

Wed Nov 22, 2006 4:19 am

Quote:
Good, lets weed out the weak and unworthy carriers at LAX like those who dont want to pay the current rent.

Let's go one further - let's prove once and for all to those in Southern California that think LAX is going to continue to expand (so their own airports can be phased out) that the future is now - if you want to fly out of LAX, be prepared to pay $$$$$$$$ for the privilege.
Pan Am:The World's Most Experienced Airline - P(oor) S(ailor's) A(irline): San Diego's Hometown Airline-Catch Our Smile!
 
gmcc
Posts: 138
Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2006 3:54 am

RE: LAX Doubles Rent For Airlines.

Wed Nov 22, 2006 5:37 am

Quoting Laxintl (Thread starter):
Initially affected airlines are those in T-1, T-3,

You mean they might have money to do something about the timewarp in T-3
 Wow!  bigthumbsup 
 
LAXintl
Posts: 20183
Joined: Wed May 24, 2000 12:12 pm

RE: LAX Doubles Rent For Airlines.

Wed Nov 22, 2006 6:20 am

Quoting Gmcc (Reply 3):
You mean they might have money to do something about the timewarp in T-3

I seriously doubt that. LAWA did sink a little bit of money in to the terminal recently, however for something major to happen tenant(s) need to step up and fund a remodel as has been done at near every other terminal in recent years.

Quoting PanAm747 (Reply 2):
Let's go one further - let's prove once and for all to those in Southern California that think LAX is going to continue to expand (so their own airports can be phased out) that the future is now - if you want to fly out of LAX, be prepared to pay $$$$$$$$ for the privilege.

Agreed. I believe LAWA will use the economic carrot & stick approach to influence airline and consumer patterns.

It will be interesting to see next summer when landing fee rates are up for adjustment. I'd be willing to bet the LAX fees see a good size increase compared to those of ONT.
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
 
AADC10
Posts: 1507
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2004 7:40 am

RE: LAX Doubles Rent For Airlines.

Wed Nov 22, 2006 6:21 am

Quoting Futurecaptain (Reply 1):
Good, lets weed out the weak and unworthy carriers at LAX like those who dont want to pay the current rent.

With this rent increase, they are clearly going after WN, US, AS and CO. Even when UA, AA, DL and NW's leases are up for renewal, their rates will not go up as much since they had substantial investments in the terminal renovations. DL and NW are even negotiating more favorable leases under Ch. 11. This is not going to push out the weak carriers, it is going to push out the lowest fare and short haul carriers.

Landing fees and leases at LAX have been relatively low, particularly when compared with SFO. Since some construction on the airfield will go forward landing fees will rise and with the terminal leases going up, that is going to put pressure on WN mostly. Be prepared to drive to ONT to get a cheap WN fare to LAS or OAK.

UA will probably the biggest beneficiary of the rent increases.
 
as739x
Posts: 5001
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2003 7:23 am

RE: LAX Doubles Rent For Airlines.

Wed Nov 22, 2006 7:30 am

FutureCaptain: Yes, well thought (sarcasim).

Alaska is furious over this move. We have been working with the airport for over a year on a new facility. Moving to a new terminal, re-designing T-3 to no avail. And now LAX raises or rent a very sub par terminal. The same Alaska that is the largest US carrier internationally (in regards to movement at currently 12 daily) which I wouldnt call one of the weaker airlines. Alaska, the same airline that proposed a complete upgrade on T-3 funding the work itself over 5 years ago. The same airline that can't get any more gates cause ever new carrier into LAX seems to be directed into the time-warp T-3. LAWA continues to make no sense to me and just treats one if its best tenants like crap. IMHO! Just another reason I see Alaska increasing Mexico and other destinations from San Francisco. At least SFO has a modern international terminal

ASLAX
"Some pilots avoid storm cells and some play connect the dots!"
 
User avatar
DesertFlyer
Posts: 358
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 2:05 pm

RE: LAX Doubles Rent For Airlines.

Wed Nov 22, 2006 7:41 am

Quoting AS739X (Reply 6):
I see Alaska increasing Mexico and other destinations from San Francisco.

I think that would be good. Maybe with such high fees, other airlines would be willing to move routes up to SFO instead of LAX. It is an easier airport to connect at and like you said, the Int. terminal is top notch. In all reality, this is just something I would like to see happen and I have no info on the business side of things and I'm sure there are reasons why this won't happen.
 
LAXintl
Posts: 20183
Joined: Wed May 24, 2000 12:12 pm

RE: LAX Doubles Rent For Airlines.

Wed Nov 22, 2006 7:59 am

Quoting AS739X (Reply 6):
The same airline that can't get any more gates cause ever new carrier into LAX seems to be directed into the time-warp T-3.

Make room for Spirit. They will be moving over to T-3 in December.

Quoting DesertFlyer (Reply 7):
Maybe with such high fees, other airlines would be willing to move routes up to SFO instead of LAX.

Even with the latest round of fee increases, LAX is still one of the cheaper airports in the country cost wise. As far as movement of routes to SFO, that will do nothing to support the much larger traffic demand the LA metro area has over the Bay Area.

Quoting AS739X (Reply 6):
Alaska is furious over this move.

While AS will be getting a sizable rate increase to just shy of $1million per month, they have been enjoying the fruits living off month-to-month under the expired lease and its extremely low rates now since May 2001!

Like them or not, the newly introduced rental rates are much more in line with the economic realities of market pricing and are being implement across the board as older leases expire.

IMO, one well written clause of the new leases allow LAWA to recapture under utilized facilities for reassignment to other airlines and hopefully put and end to facility squatting which has taken place by more then one airline in recent years.
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Crew
Posts: 11828
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: LAX Doubles Rent For Airlines.

Wed Nov 22, 2006 8:37 am

Quoting PanAm747 (Reply 2):
Let's go one further - let's prove once and for all to those in Southern California that think LAX is going to continue to expand (so their own airports can be phased out) that the future is now - if you want to fly out of LAX, be prepared to pay $$$$$$$$ for the privilege.

Man... my company is already considering relocating out of LA... Its so damn expensive to do business out here! I love the place... but eventually one has to pay for it.

Is LGB going to have its quota lifted? SNA? Quite bluntly, BUR and ONT might as well be in another state for me. The drive to/from them can take hours. Actually, SNA is too far out of the way...

LAX has been an airport for decades. It should be expanded. A city either grows or it rots. Ok, one alternative is good rail access is provided to ONT... otherwise its not of use to me. The time tax is too high.

What's bad is that these fees aren't being raised for some great new project (e.g., the western terminal). Its purely a scheme to raise funds at LAX for the city.  Sad

Personally, I think the decision to cap pax traffic out of LAX is going to bite the city and state. But hey, only my  twocents  With San diego sending an estimated 8 million pax/year to LAX... Santa Barbara, etc. What are they going to do, charge a higher fee for people who live outside of LA county? (Illegal, FYI)? The reality is, high wage jobs tend to fly more.

The noise from the airport is dropping. Build the west terminal and a proper rail system for LA... But sigh... that's a pipe dream.

This fee raise is silly. It will come out of the wages of airline employees in the long term. Or maybe the airlines cap employee travel out of LAX?  scratchchin  Trust me, no one is going to like it when the passanger cap it hit at LAX. Not the airline employees... Not the passangers or their companies... and eventually not the city of LA.

I'm not thinking LA's slide of convention market share is over...

Lightsaber
"They did not know it was impossible, so they did it!" - Mark Twain
 
LAXintl
Posts: 20183
Joined: Wed May 24, 2000 12:12 pm

RE: LAX Doubles Rent For Airlines.

Wed Nov 22, 2006 8:54 am

Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 9):
Its purely a scheme to raise funds at LAX for the city

Actually none of the revenue's at LAX go to the City general fund, or the other way around either. The airport is a self sustaining entity thats run along a quasi public/private corporation setup. The airport is fully responsible for its own budget profit/loss and has the ability to issue its own bonds along with business dealings outside LA City. (Look at how LAWA manages ONT and PMD which are located far outside LA City boundaries).

There was a little political battle over this a few years ago when the City tried to divert "borrow" airport funding for non airport related budgetary needs that went to court and even got the Federal Government involved.
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
 
gmcc
Posts: 138
Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2006 3:54 am

RE: LAX Doubles Rent For Airlines.

Wed Nov 22, 2006 8:56 am

Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 9):
Is LGB going to have its quota lifted? SNA?

SNA's cap of 10.8 million is in place till 12/31/2015. I don't think it will go up after that as Stop Polluting Our Newport, read NIMbY, will probably take the county to court to stop any further expansion. It is a shame because I saw a plan once for adding a second commerical runway to SNA but it is now probably forgotten in some county archive.

Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 9):
Personally, I think the decision to cap pax traffic out of LAX is going to bite the city and state.

High speed rail will bring everyone in from Palmdale.  rotfl   stirthepot 
 
N1120A
Posts: 26467
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: LAX Doubles Rent For Airlines.

Wed Nov 22, 2006 9:20 am

Quoting Laxintl (Reply 10):
(Look at how LAWA manages ONT and PMD which are located far outside LA City boundaries).

LAWA owns ONT, they manage PMD
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
flybyguy
Posts: 1415
Joined: Sun Jun 27, 2004 12:52 pm

RE: LAX Doubles Rent For Airlines.

Wed Nov 22, 2006 9:34 am

This sounds like simple supply and demand... demand is high to fly out of LAX and supply (space for expansion) is limited. Considering that LAX is a big business travelers airport (Asia, Mexico, and the East Coast) I'm confident businesses will pay more for the convenience of flying their people out of LAX. The only people that will be weeded out of LAX are low yield leisure travelers and airline companies whose clientele out of LAX are comprised of a large number of such people. So perhaps ONT and LGB will see an increase in leisure passenger numbers because of this rent hike... but I would stake money that the business travel numbers remain widely unaffected.

I wish there was a way not to squeeze the little guy here, but more and more in America it becomes painfully apparent that money talks and if you don't have it, you get kicked to the curb.
"Are you a pretender... or a thoroughbred?!" - Professor Matt Miller
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Crew
Posts: 11828
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: LAX Doubles Rent For Airlines.

Wed Nov 22, 2006 10:09 am

Quoting Gmcc (Reply 11):
High speed rail will bring everyone in from Palmdale.

And you know how much money those people in Palmcaster have....  Wink

Actually, just some rail to ONT would make a difference. (That is rail from the westside/southbay to ONT.)

Quoting Flybyguy (Reply 13):
This sounds like simple supply and demand...

But there are plans to expand LAX. They are going to put more distance between the runways and upgrade the radars. That will allow 50% more flights. If they let the West terminal be built, that would double terminal capacity.

The only one benifiting from a cap, long term, is NIMBYs.

LA business will suffer. Its not just the little guy.

Quoting Flybyguy (Reply 13):
The only people that will be weeded out of LAX are low yield leisure travelers and airline companies whose clientele out of LAX are comprised of a large number of such people.

e.g., Conventions, bankers, etc. I once read that the conerstone on which a city builds wealth is transportation. LA is cutting off its nose to spite its face here...

Quoting Laxintl (Reply 10):
The airport is a self sustaining entity thats run along a quasi public/private corporation setup.

Is that still in place? If so I withdraw some of my objection. But where is the money being spent? If it was for a new west terminal, I'd be happy!  spin  Runway spacing?  hyper 

Right now LA's economy is effectively subsidized by being the US's trans-pacific hub. But then again, I'm an economic bear. I think we're at 6 months from a downturn. Hopefully I'm wrong. Once business is lost from a city, its far more expensive to attract it back. Constricting air travel is not going to make LA more popular to business...  scratchchin 

Lightsaber
"They did not know it was impossible, so they did it!" - Mark Twain
 
lax44
Posts: 55
Joined: Sat May 21, 2005 9:32 pm

RE: LAX Doubles Rent For Airlines.

Wed Nov 22, 2006 12:17 pm

So when does LAWA estimate LAX will reach 75 million pax per year?

From their own statistics they are nowhere near their 2000 high of 67 million, with 61 million in 2005 and pax totals seeing about the same levels this year.
 
laca773
Posts: 2033
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2004 7:10 am

RE: LAX Doubles Rent For Airlines.

Wed Nov 22, 2006 1:40 pm

Quoting AS739X (Reply 6):
Alaska is furious over this move. We have been working with the airport for over a year on a new facility. Moving to a new terminal, re-designing T-3 to no avail. And now LAX raises or rent a very sub par terminal. The same Alaska that is the largest US carrier internationally (in regards to movement at currently 12 daily) which I wouldnt call one of the weaker airlines. Alaska, the same airline that proposed a complete upgrade on T-3 funding the work itself over 5 years ago. The same airline that can't get any more gates cause ever new carrier into LAX seems to be directed into the time-warp T-3. LAWA continues to make no sense to me and just treats one if its best tenants like crap. IMHO! Just another reason I see Alaska increasing Mexico and other destinations from San Francisco. At least SFO has a modern international terminal

ASLAX

AS739X, I completely agree with everything that you have to say in your posting. It's like damn, man. What are they going to do to us now. AS has handed LAWA a lot of business with their flight increases to Mexico, Canada etc., and while AS has tried on numerous ocasions to negotiate with LAWA to renovate or completely replace T3, they have basically ignored, said they were not interested. Instead of raising your lease/rent fees and the such, they should give AS a substanatial discount for having to use such a diapidated dump of a terminal, and for that amount of rent per month, AS shouldn't have to share the terminal with any more than one carrier.

LACA773
 
LAXintl
Posts: 20183
Joined: Wed May 24, 2000 12:12 pm

RE: LAX Doubles Rent For Airlines.

Wed Nov 22, 2006 2:04 pm

Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 14):
But where is the money being spent? If it was for a new west terminal, I'd be happy!

The new rental rates will be a drop in the bucket generating less then $60 million in annual revenues that will go towards the $6 billion or so of green lighted Master Plan projects including the Midfield Satellite concourse.

Funding for the Master plan is exclusively coming from passenger facility charges, landing fees, airport facility leases, concession fees, airport revenue bonds along with Federal and state grants. The Master Plan will receive no funding from the general fund of the City.

Quoting LACA773 (Reply 16):
they should give AS a substanatial discount for having to use such a diapidated dump of a terminal

They have. Each terminal has been assessed on its own merits. For instance the square footage rental cost of T-3 is approximately 20% lower then T-1.

Quoting LACA773 (Reply 16):
for that amount of rent per month, AS shouldn't have to share the terminal with any more than one carrier.

If that was the case AS would have to pay the entire rental cost of T-3.

Under the new formula which takes into consideration factors such as square footage rented, flight and passenger activity, AS ends up paying for about 55% of the terminals cost. It would actualy be advantageous for AS to have other carriers in the terminal increase activities as it would help offset AS's burden of the total facility cost.
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11002
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: LAX Doubles Rent For Airlines.

Thu Nov 23, 2006 12:26 am

Quoting Laxintl (Reply 10):
Actually none of the revenue's at LAX go to the City general fund, or the other way around either. The airport is a self sustaining entity thats run along a quasi public/private corporation setup. The airport is fully responsible for its own budget profit/loss and has the ability to issue its own bonds along with business dealings outside LA City. (Look at how LAWA manages ONT and PMD which are located far outside LA City boundaries).

There was a little political battle over this a few years ago when the City tried to divert "borrow" airport funding for non airport related budgetary needs that went to court and even got the Federal Government involved.

That is correct, US Federal Law forces airports to be self supporting, and revenue cannot be shared with the owner city/county. The FAA is very strict on this, and watches it very closely.

Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 14):
But there are plans to expand LAX. They are going to put more distance between the runways and upgrade the radars. That will allow 50% more flights.

No, all they are doing is moving the south runway 50' further south. This will not increase capacity at all, it will only bring LAX into compliance (finally) with the FAA directives on runway spacing (minimum is 1200', measured centerline to centerline).

Quoting Lax44 (Reply 15):
So when does LAWA estimate LAX will reach 75 million pax per year?

Raising terminal rent (and the flying public ultimetly paying it) will slow down that goal. I might add that LAX currently handles about 60M-61M passengers per year, well behind ORD, ATL and DFW (all with much lower landing fees and terminal rents).

This is not a smart move by the LAWA Board. I'll be that AA, UA, DL, NW, CO, WN, and AS all challange the new rates in court.
 
tockeyhockey
Posts: 880
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2005 10:57 pm

RE: LAX Doubles Rent For Airlines.

Thu Nov 23, 2006 12:54 am

how long until west coast american cities adopt the japanese/east asia plan of building new airports in the ocean on man-made islands?
 
LAXintl
Posts: 20183
Joined: Wed May 24, 2000 12:12 pm

RE: LAX Doubles Rent For Airlines.

Thu Nov 23, 2006 3:14 am

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 18):
ORD, ATL and DFW (all with much lower landing fees and terminal rents).

Actually LAX comes in rather affordable when compared to the other airports you mentioned with only ATL being potentially cheaper.

Lets compare those airports to LAX.

Landing fee /1000Lbs
LAX - $2.38
ATL - $0.46 (2005)
DFW -$4.29
ORD - $2.63

Terminal Rentals /sq ft
LAX - $17.00 - 21.67 NEW RATES dependant on which facility
ATL - $11.25 - 32.50 (2005) dependant on which facility
DFW -$30.78 - 42.46 dependant on which facility
ORD - $36.44 - 77.33 dependant on which facility

Off course beyond these fees airports charge per passenger terminal fee's and often for parking also, however LAX still remains one of the lowest of the major airports in the country.

As a side note, LAX is often compared to SFO. However that cities landing fees an rentals have for ages been also consistently higher by a wide margin than that of LAX.
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Crew
Posts: 11828
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: LAX Doubles Rent For Airlines.

Thu Nov 23, 2006 4:47 am

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 18):
No, all they are doing is moving the south runway 50' further south. This will not increase capacity at all, it will only bring LAX into compliance (finally) with the FAA directives on runway spacing (minimum is 1200', measured centerline to centerline).

Moving the south runway 50' allows for a taxiway. A taxiway allows for a lot more movements.  Smile

Not to mention the plan to move the northernmost runway 250ft further north. Oh, I realize they aren't acting on it yet. But there is still the plan. That puts the two north runways 1000' apart. Thus heavies on the two northern runways can land or takeoff in clear weather without imposing delays onto operations on the other northern ruway. This, in addition to the radar upgrades, will increase LAX's operation capacity by a third (movements). Or more precisely, from 850 to 1150 landings during the 7am to 9pm "day" per the FAA.  Smile I don't consider 300 landings added trivial... I certainly won't say that it doesn't increase capacity at all.

Not to mention the runway realignment at LAX will cut runway incursions in the United States in HALF (round numbers).

And if you've ever been to LAX, you know the busy "day" doesn't end before midnight. Although it shocking how few movements occur before 7am yet how many aircraft push back within 15 minutes of 7am... Its almost like a lightswitch is turned on...  wideeyed 

And then there are the plans for the West Terminal. Its going to happen some day. The only question is when.  Wink

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 18):
minimum is 1200', measured centerline to centerline).

Then LAX is in trouble. The two southern runways will only be 785 ft centerline to centerline after the current move. Recommended for new runways is 1200'. Recommendation is not the same as a directive... The two northern runways are planned to be 1000 ft centerline to centerline after the move.

Lightsaber
"They did not know it was impossible, so they did it!" - Mark Twain
 
sllevin
Posts: 3312
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 1:57 pm

RE: LAX Doubles Rent For Airlines.

Thu Nov 23, 2006 7:36 am

Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 9):
LAX has been an airport for decades. It should be expanded.

I disagree. What needs to happen is that BUR, LGB, and SNA need to lift their caps to allow increased air traffic to them. Who wants to be forced to drag all the way to LAX when they live 5 or 10 minutes from one of the alternates?

I'm all for higher fees to help pressure the other communities to allow expansion. I want to see more flights into the LA area, but not all at LAX!

Steve
 
visakow
Posts: 121
Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 9:20 am

RE: LAX Doubles Rent For Airlines.

Thu Nov 23, 2006 8:11 am

Quoting DesertFlyer (Reply 7):
Quoting AS739X (Reply 6):
I see Alaska increasing Mexico and other destinations from San Francisco.

I think that would be good. Maybe with such high fees, other airlines would be willing to move routes up to SFO instead of LAX. It is an easier airport to connect at and like you said, the Int. terminal is top notch. In all reality, this is just something I would like to see happen and I have no info on the business side of things and I'm sure there are reasons why this won't happen.

I agree with both of these along with what Iv'e found to be a much higher level of customer service. Well they just seem friendlier, more affable and tolerant from San Fran going north. It is probably just LAX, though, as I've never had a problem in Fresno or San Diego either being that they too have been reasonably pleasurable experiences when I fly.
 
LAXintl
Posts: 20183
Joined: Wed May 24, 2000 12:12 pm

RE: LAX Doubles Rent For Airlines.

Thu Nov 23, 2006 8:41 am

Quoting Sllevin (Reply 22):
I'm all for higher fees to help pressure the other communities to allow expansion. I want to see more flights into the LA area, but not all at LAX!

 checkmark  Agreed.

As much as I'd like to see a much larger and better LAX, the airport and City of LA simply cannot continue support regions air transport needs into the future.

One way or the other, the many community airports must take part in a larger solution. If this means LAWA needs to apply economic pressure to create such impetus I'm all for it.
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
 
gmcc
Posts: 138
Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2006 3:54 am

RE: LAX Doubles Rent For Airlines.

Thu Nov 23, 2006 9:20 am

Quoting Sllevin (Reply 22):
I'm all for higher fees to help pressure the other communities to allow expansion. I want to see more flights into the LA area, but not all at LAX!

Ultimately I think LAWA is trying to implement the terms of the settlement agreement as best they can. It appears from the settlement agreement calls for a reduction in the number of narrow body gates. The first step in that process is to raise rents on narrow body operaters at LAX, eg AS, WN, etc and see who leaves. If flights are not reduced enough to eliminate the gates they will probably introduce a stepped landing fee scale with higher rates for narrow body aircaft and lower rates for wide bodies in an effort to get more carriers to use ONT. In the extreme, you could get to any continent from LAX except the US.

If LAWA is succesful in moving most narrow body flights to ONT I am sure residents around ONT will then take action to limit the number of flights at the airport. Untimately the net result of this will be a reduction in air travel into the LA basin.
 
PanAm747
Posts: 4713
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 4:46 am

RE: LAX Doubles Rent For Airlines.

Thu Nov 23, 2006 11:12 am

Quote:
What needs to happen is that BUR, LGB, and SNA need to lift their caps to allow increased air traffic to them.

You have a better chance of seeing Pope Ellen DeGeneres than you do of EVER seeing BUR, LGB, or SNA expanding significantly. Same with CLD or SAN. That leaves PSP and ONT in southern California.

Scary isn't it? LAX can do the "Told You So!!" dance...
Pan Am:The World's Most Experienced Airline - P(oor) S(ailor's) A(irline): San Diego's Hometown Airline-Catch Our Smile!
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11002
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: LAX Doubles Rent For Airlines.

Thu Nov 23, 2006 4:38 pm

Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 21):
Not to mention the runway realignment at LAX will cut runway incursions in the United States in HALF (round numbers).

That is the primary reason for the work on the south runway complex. LAX is the runway incursion capital of the US, by far. As I said, it is not an increase in capacity.

Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 21):
Then LAX is in trouble. The two southern runways will only be 785 ft centerline to centerline after the current move. Recommended for new runways is 1200'. Recommendation is not the same as a directive... The two northern runways are planned to be 1000 ft centerline to centerline after the move.

Lightsaber

According to AC 150/5300-13, Airport Design, the minimum 700' runway spacing at the south runway complex for LAX, is only allowed during VFR conditions, yes the recommended spacing is 1200'. LAX will still be just out side this requirement, for VFR conditions, only. Under IFR, the requirement increases to 4300' (this could go as low as 3000' seperation, but LAX does not have the upgraded radar systems to support this seperation, yet). The only way LAX meets this requirement is between the north and south complexes. So, LAX can only do duel simultanious IFR approaches. Under the current, and proposed airfield improvements, LAX will never receive approval for triple, or quadruple precision IFR approaches (only DFW has quadruple IFR approach approval, DEN, ATL, and ORD all have triple approach capability). I might add, the northern runway complex work is not even scheduled, yet.

The main problem is LAX is a 1930s designed airport, but has not kept up with the times, like other 1920s and 1930s designed airports (BOS, LGA, SFO, and JFK). LAX could have built out into the water, like these other airports did, but now they are behind the power curve, because LAX is landlocked.

This now leaves the LAWA with almost no choice but to build a new LAX, and close the current one, that will take 20+ years. They should build it at sea. But, LAWA is not talking about building a new airport.

The bottom line here is LAX has long outlived it's usefullness, because it did not keep up with the times. Traffic today is heavier, and will only increase as more time goes by. It is still one of the most unsafe airports in the world, and it has long ago reached and exceeded it's maximum capacity. Currently, diverting traffic to LGB, ONT, and other LAWA airports is the only safe answer to increasing capacity in the LA area.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Crew
Posts: 11828
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: LAX Doubles Rent For Airlines.

Fri Nov 24, 2006 2:22 am

Quoting Sllevin (Reply 22):

I disagree. What needs to happen is that BUR, LGB, and SNA need to lift their caps to allow increased air traffic to them. Who wants to be forced to drag all the way to LAX when they live 5 or 10 minutes from one of the alternates?

I'm all for higher fees to help pressure the other communities to allow expansion. I want to see more flights into the LA area, but not all at LAX!

Oh, I'm all for lifting the caps at the other airports. A friend of mine dug up an old article showing how SNA was planned with two commercial runways!  wideeyed  (won't ever happen...)

My dream: 3rd terminal at SNA (its under consideration). LGB with a more reasonable cap. It was opened as a "new airport in an existing suburb" and thus I believe the residents in that area deserve some consideration. LAX? It was an airport (army base) back when LA was only Santa Monica and downtown.

But international is at LAX. LAX has a plan for more terminals, its time to approve and build them. (Not Hahn's stupid idea, but the previously planned western terminal. Yes.. I know its now not on the plate.)

Quoting PanAm747 (Reply 26):
You have a better chance of seeing Pope Ellen DeGeneres than you do of EVER seeing BUR, LGB, or SNA expanding significantly.

 rotfl  Sad... but true. Except when SNA's cap expires, it will grow. It should be a pure noise cap, not aircraft movements nor passangers limit. Same with LGB.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 27):
As I said, it is not an increase in capacity.

Let's agree to disagree. Every report I've seen notes that LAX was operating at a capacity of 3 runways due to the lack of taxiways. I believe we'll see growth there. I've seen the reports that point out that the new runways will allow 300 more landings from 7am to 9pm.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 27):
This now leaves the LAWA with almost no choice but to build a new LAX, and close the current one, that will take 20+ years. They should build it at sea. But, LAWA is not talking about building a new airport.

An airport at sea just isn't practical either. The only choices are ONT (short term) and Palmdale (with its 6500 acres). Also, SAN2 is required as ~ 1/8th of LAX current utilization is overflow from San Diego. But the issue is transportation to the sub airports. (I hope we can agree LAX is way overdue for a subway *system*.)

Happy Thanksgiving,
Lightsaber
"They did not know it was impossible, so they did it!" - Mark Twain
 
gmcc
Posts: 138
Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2006 3:54 am

RE: LAX Doubles Rent For Airlines.

Fri Nov 24, 2006 3:16 am

Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 28):
Except when SNA's cap expires, it will grow.

Not if the NIMBY groups get their way which they probably will. If they can afford a $14 million house they can probably stop airport expansion.  Angry

Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 28):
A friend of mine dug up an old article showing how SNA was planned with two commercial runways! wideeyed (won't ever happen...)

I remember seeing that. The airport occupied all the land from Redhill street on the west to Jamboree/McArthur on the east with 2 commerical runway. One can dream.
 
hawaiian717
Posts: 3139
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:46 am

RE: LAX Doubles Rent For Airlines.

Sat Nov 25, 2006 5:05 am

Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 28):
LGB with a more reasonable cap. It was opened as a "new airport in an existing suburb" and thus I believe the residents in that area deserve some consideration.

LGB was in the middle of nowhere when it was built.
 
LAXintl
Posts: 20183
Joined: Wed May 24, 2000 12:12 pm

RE: LAX Doubles Rent For Airlines.

Sat Nov 25, 2006 5:44 am

And so was LAX.

The area chosen for what was called Mines Field consisted of all ranches in the late 1920s without any nearby developments, let alone residents.

Only after WWII and following the establishment of many nearby aircraft industries did the area around then Los Angeles Municipal Airport start to become populated.

For those that might not be aware, the primary airports for the Los Angeles region in those early days was what is today Burbank Airport which was named United Airport and later Lockheed Air Terminal and served as home to the days transcon flying and also Grand Central Airport located in Glendale which was the departure point of the first West to East commercial flight which was flown by Charles Lindbergh. Grand Central however was taken over by the military following Pearl Harbor leaving Burbank as the regions main commercial airport.

Only in the early 1950s did LAX really start taking shape having airlines shift operations from Burbank.
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
 
jacobin777
Posts: 12262
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 6:29 pm

RE: LAX Doubles Rent For Airlines.

Sat Nov 25, 2006 8:25 am

Quoting DesertFlyer (Reply 7):
I think that would be good. Maybe with such high fees, other airlines would be willing to move routes up to SFO instead of LAX. It is an easier airport to connect at and like you said, the Int. terminal is top notch. In all reality, this is just something I would like to see happen and I have no info on the business side of things and I'm sure there are reasons why this won't happen.

Got no problems with that...bring 'em our way.... Smile

Quoting Tockeyhockey (Reply 19):
how long until west coast american cities adopt the japanese/east asia plan of building new airports in the ocean on man-made islands?

Some of the alternatives here at SFO are to build runways in the bay (dredging up the water, etc), but right now, their is too much opposition to it from various groups (not to mention, a lack of funds), so the program is on hold now.

That being said..after spotting at SFO more than 50 times the past few years in all weather conditions....including heavy fog, heavy wind, heavy rain, etc....SFO doesn't need to "expand"..it has more than enough capacity...especially once the new terminal re-opens.

I would love to see a LAX runway in the Pacific Ocean....(not that it would happen)
"Up the Irons!"
 
LAXintl
Posts: 20183
Joined: Wed May 24, 2000 12:12 pm

RE: LAX Doubles Rent For Airlines.

Mon Nov 27, 2006 1:42 am

To add to this story, a group of T1 & T3 LCC airlines are trying to make public noises about the approved rate increases and are threatening legal action.

The lenghty full article can be read at
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...story?coll=la-headlines-california


LAX dispute could increase airfares
Low-cost airlines say the L.A. airport agency's plan to raise rental rates may cost travelers and delay modernization of the facility.
By Jennifer Oldham, Times Staff Writer
November 26, 2006

An acrimonious dispute between the city's airport agency and low-cost carriers over terminal rents at Los Angeles International Airport could lead to increased fares and force officials to delay long-awaited plans to modernize the aging facility.

The disagreement became public recently when airlines took the unusual step of airing concerns about what they consider to be a major rate increase.

The city's airport agency does not rely on tax dollars but has a separate budget funded primarily by landing and terminal fees from airlines and revenue from airport shops, restaurants and parking.

The feud between the airlines and the agency mirrors a nationwide tug of war between airport operators seeking to raise money to improve their facilities and cash-strapped carriers coping with high fuel prices.
Airlines in Terminals 1 and 3 say the agency's proposal would put them at a competitive disadvantage because airlines with long-term leases would not be subject to the higher rents.

"LAWA's proposal seems designed to create an acrimonious business climate," executives from Southwest, U.S. Airways and Alaska Air Group wrote to Lydia Kennard, the agency's executive director. "We intend to oppose the discriminatory and unlawful rent formula by all legal and regulatory means."

The city's airport agency officials counter that the rate increases would raise airlines' costs only slightly --- by up to $2.85 per boarding passenger at the end of the five-year lease --- and still would leave LAX less expensive than other major airports. They say they are willing to phase in the increases.

"LAWA is hopeful that the minor increase in fares ... will not result in the loss of any passengers," Tubert wrote. "However, we are mindful of the need for regionalization and, to the extent that airlines choose to fly out of [Ontario] or [Palmdale], our regionalization goals will be advanced."

Airlines paid about $6 per boarding passenger to operate at LAX in 2005, compared with $9 at Chicago's O'Hare International Airport, $12.90 at Denver International Airport and $15 at Miami International Airport.

"Six dollars is very competitive," said Douglas J. Kilcommons, a director at Fitch Ratings who follows LAX. "There is flexibility to increase rates. If LAWA is going to move forward with capital improvements, they're going to need to develop these revenue streams."
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
 
SANFan
Posts: 3688
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2006 10:10 am

RE: LAX Doubles Rent For Airlines.

Mon Nov 27, 2006 5:56 am

Will be interesting to see what WN's reaction ultimately is to a hefty rent increase. I think we all know what usually happens (e.g., ELP, SEA, SLC, etc.) but now this is going on in a Top-10 Station (#8 to be exact.) WN will NOT just give up here.

This is just another volley in the Great So Cal Airport Debacle; nothing unexpected or shocking about it, just a matter of when these various steps down into the ever-deepening hole will happen...

bb