I posted a while back about the "what if" scenario if the El Toro MCAS in Orange County had actually become a commercial airport, but for the second largest market in the US and one of the top globally, something has to happen eventually right? Or not? I don't know of what locations could even be available. SNA is strictly limited, BUR is also, LGB has the size? airfield wise but not infrastructure, or agreeable surrounding residents, ONT is in not a convenient alternative and small as well. Something has to happen eventually as LAX can only expand while adding to more congestion for so long, right? Maybe a north of LA option would be more practical like in Ventura Co or somewhere? Sorry for a question full of questions

Probably not until the southern section of the San Andreas Fault has its big earthquake and levels most of the Los Angeles Basin. Before that happens the only possible reliever airport is Ontario

Maybe they could make an artificial airport in the bay or on the beach. That would benefit LAX and maybe even turn into a TNCM senario

I thought El Toro was the best bet to be the counterweight to LAX. What a lost opportunity.

I thought El Toro was the best bet to be the counterweight to LAX. What a lost opportunity.

No.

All community airports - BUR, LGB and SNA have restrictions of their own, while a field like ONT is largely irrelevant distance wise to much of the basin.

Balloonchaser wrote:

Maybe they could make an artificial airport in the bay or on the beach. That would benefit LAX and maybe even turn into a TNCM senario

You've obviously not heard of California environmental regulations.

DCAfan wrote:

I thought El Toro was the best bet to be the counterweight to LAX. What a lost opportunity.

Considering large/heavy jets would be restricted in operations at the airport due terrain clearance issues it was hardly an optimal solution, nor one that would help the broader populace much.

There's still time to take those billions for the "high speed train" between LA and SFO and instead funnel those funds into a truly high speed rail link from Downtown LA, the Valley and Orange County to ONT.

ONT should fit that. If not, Los Angeles Peotone has marketing potential!

The only airport remotely close to LAX that can stand on its own is SAN.

SAN in itself is its own metro area and they've even talked about about other locations than Lindbergh. I was thinking of something like JFK, for example, what could be the LaGuardia or Newark? I guess ONT is the only option but they'd still have to grow A LOT and establish connections to LAX...other than the old EMBs back in the day

BreezyIAH wrote:

I posted a while back about the "what if" scenario if the El Toro MCAS in Orange County had actually become a commercial airport, but for the second largest market in the US and one of the top globally, something has to happen eventually right? Or not? I don't know of what locations could even be available. SNA is strictly limited, BUR is also, LGB has the size? airfield wise but not infrastructure, or agreeable surrounding residents, ONT is in not a convenient alternative and small as well. Something has to happen eventually as LAX can only expand while adding to more congestion for so long, right? Maybe a north of LA option would be more practical like in Ventura Co or somewhere? Sorry for a question full of questions

There is so much wasted space at LAX its not even funny. Open in google maps and take a look. Things could be moved around a bit on the western 2/3 of land (expensive yes) but would be necessary to open up the space. The parking lots on the NE side of the airport that belong to the city could be downsized or stacked elsewhere. If JFK can spend $10 billion plus in the late 90s tearing down the vast majority of Terminals and replacing them, then LAX can embark on a proper 15-25bn improvement no sweat. But no, cause the corruption is massive surrounding LAX. Massive!!

Its a disgrace to build a new 3bn departure lounge at the TBIT and leave the older A380 hanger there. Utter disgrace!. I still like LAX and it works well for me, but its a sad sad sad sad sad place.

I can't see ONT being complimentary. Logistically and demographically, it would be a challenge to say the least. ONT is about 30 minutes away from me, with LAX and LGB being about an hour and a half (which translates to 3-4 hours in LA traffic) and I still have no choice but to fly LGB to the east coast, and LAX for anywhere else. The IE needs more service, for sure, but imho the only thing "LA" about it, is in the name.

Does Los Angeles basin really need another airport?

Airports like BUR and ONT already operate way below their capacity, while both LGB and SNA might have all their air carrier slots fully allocated but aircraft size could always rise if demand required it.

It seems to me there is hardly the need for yet another field when existing ones have room for growth, and that regions demographics($$) and population favors use of LAX anyhow.

janders wrote:

Does Los Angeles basin really need another airport?

Airports like BUR and ONT already operate way below their capacity, while both LGB and SNA might have all their air carrier slots fully allocated but aircraft size could always rise if demand required it.

It seems to me there is hardly the need for yet another field when existing ones have room for growth, and that regions demographics($$) and population favors use of LAX anyhow.

Yes, LAX does not have sufficient infrastructure to handle what they are doing now. It can easily take 30-45 minutes to drive the loop around the airport. I have never rented a car here, but friends have complained about having to allow an extra hour to return cars and get a shuttle to the terminal. Unless you live here, it is hard to comprehend how long it takes to get places certain times of the day. Where I live, it is virtually the same mile distance to SNA and LAX. It can take up to twice as long to get to LAX than SNA. LGB is always my first choice, but limited flights and the fact my carrier of choice (UA) does not even fly there makes it an infrequently used airport for me. SNA is good, but again, limited flights and often quite high ticket prices drive me back to LAX. BUR is not an option. It can take 2-3 hours to get there in the afternoon. ONT is OK, but traffic is horrible getting there. The airfield itself is great and they have a lot of room. It would be the best option for a true reliever, but it is too far from most people.

LAX has made some progress modernizing the airfield - rebuilding terminals, the rebuilding/moving of runway 25L a few years ago, etc. But they have done virtually nothing to upgrade parking or access to the airport since before the 1984 olympics.

The days of new greenfield airports in the US or Europe will likely never be seen. Besides the cost, the social concerns and environmental interest would not allow it. Its hard enough to build new terminals, let alone a new runway.

Los Angeles is already way ahead of much of the world having so many options. Ultimately let market forces work and distribute traffic, but it seems by a huge margin the market prefers LAX still.

LAWA owns Palmdale and a substantial parcel of land around it. That was supposed to be the reliever airport for LAX. Not going to happen. Actual high speed rail to ONT is a pretty good idea. There's a lot of land around there that could be built out- the old terminal complex and the old Lockheed hangars west of the main terminal are just sitting. Could be a rail terminal to both LA and the transit hub in Anaheim.

Ontario, Airport is your best bet.

greg3322 wrote:

Yes, LAX does not have sufficient infrastructure to handle what they are doing now. It can easily take 30-45 minutes to drive the loop around the airport. I have never rented a car here, but friends have complained about having to allow an extra hour to return cars and get a shuttle to the terminal. .

As someone who visits LA a few times a year for work, I will +1 to the ridiculous traffic (rental car mess) in and around the airport. I wonder if they could reroute the airport loop through the Surfridge neighborhood to the West of LAX. If I'm reading the internets correctly, LAX/LAWA/LA used eminent domain to take over it decades ago. Could they put a tunnel/loop in/out there to relieve traffic? Or perhaps make a consolidated rental car facility there (optimally with a train)?

Not just LAX, but Los Angeles generally, is currently treading water because of policy choices. First, the city is just too big and populous for everyone to drive private cars everywhere. They just take up too much room. The transit system is growing rapidly but is still mostly seen as an option only for the poor. It needs to become an alternative for everyone. Second, both LA itself and surrounding cities refuse to build any more housing, mostly because of fears about traffic. This is creating a housing price crisis and strangling growth.

There is plenty of space for passenger capacity growth at LAX. Terminals can be expanded and average aircraft size on domestic flights can increase. There isn't really more room for car access, though -- more people will have to take shared rides, buses, or trains to access the airport, either from off-airport parking or directly from other parts of the metro area.

LGB is the best candidate to serve as a reliever airport except for the local NIMBYs. I think they should be bulldozed, but they have a lot of political power. It will be easier to grow LAX.

LAXLHR wrote:

BreezyIAH wrote:

I posted a while back about the "what if" scenario if the El Toro MCAS in Orange County had actually become a commercial airport, but for the second largest market in the US and one of the top globally, something has to happen eventually right? Or not? I don't know of what locations could even be available. SNA is strictly limited, BUR is also, LGB has the size? airfield wise but not infrastructure, or agreeable surrounding residents, ONT is in not a convenient alternative and small as well. Something has to happen eventually as LAX can only expand while adding to more congestion for so long, right? Maybe a north of LA option would be more practical like in Ventura Co or somewhere? Sorry for a question full of questions

There is so much wasted space at LAX its not even funny. Open in google maps and take a look. Things could be moved around a bit on the western 2/3 of land (expensive yes) but would be necessary to open up the space. The parking lots on the NE side of the airport that belong to the city could be downsized or stacked elsewhere. If JFK can spend $10 billion plus in the late 90s tearing down the vast majority of Terminals and replacing them, then LAX can embark on a proper 15-25bn improvement no sweat. But no, cause the corruption is massive surrounding LAX. Massive!!

Its a disgrace to build a new 3bn departure lounge at the TBIT and leave the older A380 hanger there. Utter disgrace!. I still like LAX and it works well for me, but its a sad sad sad sad sad place.

At JFK, most of that was spent by airlines themselves, or Schipol Airports (master lessor of T4). The issue in LA is sprawl upon sprawl, whereas NYC had its airfields by 1948 before massive sprawl occurred.

Why this again? The travel and commute times in LA preclude the need for another major airport. The region has closer in airports like SNA, BUR, ONT, LGB and of course edge airports like SBA and PSP and future potentials like SBD, while those further south in the LA metro area can even leverage SAN

Building another airport or re-designating one for larger traffic flows if even a possibility would forget the fact that a commute to such an airport would be 2+ hours in peak and 1hr+ in non peak. The status quo works and considering how LARGE the distance is East to West and North to South in the LA metro area the push by some to consolidate doesn't take into account reality. El Toro was HARDLY an option no matter what the supporters thought - believe me I would have been all for it but the runway alignment, terrain, reality of what was needed to take that facility to usable was immense. It was not a Bergstrom / Austin opportunity - had MANY issues people glossed over.

Also the comments on LAX car/street traffic flows - WAIT - this improves greatly with the landside modernization - construction for this has been in planning for some time and major parts of actual construction start in 2018 and will continue through 2023. This will address most of the major choke point issues and give other alternatives to drop/pick passengers avoiding the loop entirely and move rental cars well away from the core airport traffic plus bring newer mass transit options in. This isn't pie in the sky - it's in pre-build now and will be built: http://connectinglax.com/solution.html

dc10lover wrote:

Ontario, Airport is your best bet.

ONT has fewer destinations than they did 10-20 years ago. Delta used to fly 763's there when they had a hub at DFW. It's too far away for many. Southwest dominates. The fact CI is commencing service there astounds me. I've flown in there 2-3 times in the last couple of years, at different times each day. There was never more than one or two other a/c on the ground and those were always WN..

Apparently large slot constrained hub airports like LAX are a thing of the past, everyone is flying point to point in 787s.....

zeke wrote:

Apparently large slot constrained hub airports like LAX are a thing of the past, everyone is flying point to point in 787s.....

LAX has no slots.

janders wrote:

zeke wrote:

Apparently large slot constrained hub airports like LAX are a thing of the past, everyone is flying point to point in 787s.....

LAX has no slots.

It does if you use the WSG definition but not the FAA definition. LAX is a Level 2 FAA airport, but in reality you cannot operate there unless you have approval at the time you wish to.

I have a contrarian view, thus an outlier versus the responses logged thus far. Should something occur such as a base realignment effort, or perhaps merely a relinquishment of the facility, Joint Reserve Base - Los Alamitos (KSLI) would be an ideal site for a joint County of Orange / City of Long Beach commercial facility.

Positives:
Excellent freeway access.
Potential rail access via nearby existing freight spur and/or abandoned freight/public transit line.
Zoning isn't too bad. Residential neighborhood that partially consists of base housing is immediately north & would have to be razed. But north of that lies a fairly wide strip of light industrial that parallels the entire length of the northern property line. South of the airfield is the open space of the Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station.

Current ATC departure procedures for prevailing wind runway 22 have flights turn south over Seal Beach NAWS. That could remain as a noise abatement departure procedure.
Possible redevelopment of some/all of LGB & SNA.

Negatives: The obvious - copious amounts of residential in the eastern/western/northern quadrants. Portions of the western quad are currently exposed to the 65dB noise contour for LGB 30 arrivals / 12 departures (of course the exposure increases greatly with a commercial ops scenario at KSLI).

zeke wrote:

janders wrote:

zeke wrote:

Apparently large slot constrained hub airports like LAX are a thing of the past, everyone is flying point to point in 787s.....

LAX has no slots.

It does if you use the WSG definition but not the FAA definition. LAX is a Level 2 FAA airport, but in reality you cannot operate there unless you have approval at the time you wish to.

No sir. No formal "approval" needed. There is no program for landing or take off slot management by the airport.

FAA Level-2 designation simply provides the legal cover for FAA to review schedules and allows airlines the legal ability to coordinate timings without being charged for collusion.

For foreign carriers, only real barrier is getting CBP landing rights within designated FIS hours and their willingness to work your flight at your preferred terminal.

In 26-years at the airport including schedule management, never recall airline schedules requiring adjustment due FAA. CBP on the other hand on plenty of times has forced airlines to reschedule, but their staffing and processing limitations is not runway movement related obviously.

Per FAA latest 2014 national capacity analysis, LAX hourly aircraft operations don't even reach 85% during peak periods, with much of the day in the 60-70% range.

Even operationally disaster SFO does not have slots. Only FAA managed slot airports in US are DCA, LGA and JFK. EWR was removed in 2016.

FAA several years ago designated airports like ORD, LAX, SFO, (and EWR still) level-2 airports which as posted above allows airlines to coordinate schedules without fear of legal violations, and allows the FAA to come to the table and share overall traffic activity of other airlines with each other.
This does not mean the airports are slot controlled or have formal slot programs in place. Its simply an advisory, or consultation process that is protected legally. The FAA has built this into a review and approval process, and by defacto, nothing is denied by the FAA as its not in the place to do so, as airports dont rise to the levels of needing formal slot programs.

zeke wrote:

Apparently large slot constrained hub airports like LAX are a thing of the past, everyone is flying point to point in 787s.....

Ontario is near to the major population growth in the LA region. It’s only about 4 miles from the LA County Line and will work great for those in North OC too. I live close to ONT and would love to fly from there more often. However I always find myself trekking to LAX to get god flights.

zeke wrote:

Apparently large slot constrained hub airports like LAX are a thing of the past, everyone is flying point to point in 787s.....

The key problems with LAX aren't due to airfield capacity; they're more a function of terminal capacity (which is being addressed by projects under construction and in the pipeline) as well as congestion on World Way. LAX can potentially handle significant growth in passengers by simply having its airlines increase average narrowbody gauge.

N62NA wrote:

There's still time to take those billions for the "high speed train" between LA and SFO and instead funnel those funds into a truly high speed rail link from Downtown LA, the Valley and Orange County to ONT.

High speed rail to the airport(s) simply isn't a solution for congestion/capacity problems at Southern California airports. Passengers still have to make their way to the high speed rail stations (and will do so primarily by automobile) and the California NIMBYs aren't going to be any happier about high-speed trains running by their houses than they are about the airports expanding.

Yes, ONT is a good relief airport as CI will fly to TPE.

LAXLHR wrote:

BreezyIAH wrote:

I posted a while back about the "what if" scenario if the El Toro MCAS in Orange County had actually become a commercial airport, but for the second largest market in the US and one of the top globally, something has to happen eventually right? Or not? I don't know of what locations could even be available. SNA is strictly limited, BUR is also, LGB has the size? airfield wise but not infrastructure, or agreeable surrounding residents, ONT is in not a convenient alternative and small as well. Something has to happen eventually as LAX can only expand while adding to more congestion for so long, right? Maybe a north of LA option would be more practical like in Ventura Co or somewhere? Sorry for a question full of questions

There is so much wasted space at LAX its not even funny. Open in google maps and take a look. Things could be moved around a bit on the western 2/3 of land (expensive yes) but would be necessary to open up the space. The parking lots on the NE side of the airport that belong to the city could be downsized or stacked elsewhere. If JFK can spend $10 billion plus in the late 90s tearing down the vast majority of Terminals and replacing them, then LAX can embark on a proper 15-25bn improvement no sweat. But no, cause the corruption is massive surrounding LAX. Massive!!

Its a disgrace to build a new 3bn departure lounge at the TBIT and leave the older A380 hanger there. Utter disgrace!. I still like LAX and it works well for me, but its a sad sad sad sad sad place.

Ummm, isn't building the new TBIT gates taking advantage of western space....after all, it's west of the current terminals. And isn't the older A380 hangar coming down or gone by now? The new Qantas hangar is...further west, using land out that direction. They can go only so far before hitting the hills. Some operations out there have to remain...after all, space is needed for maintenance, etc.

janders wrote:

FAA several years ago designated airports like ORD, LAX, SFO, (and EWR still) level-2 airports which as posted above allows airlines to coordinate schedules without fear of legal violations, and allows the FAA to come to the table and share overall traffic activity of other airlines with each other.
This does not mean the airports are slot controlled or have formal slot programs in place. Its simply an advisory, or consultation process that is protected legally. The FAA has built this into a review and approval process, and by defacto, nothing is denied by the FAA as its not in the place to do so, as airports dont rise to the levels of needing formal slot programs.

LAXintl wrote:

In 26-years at the airport including schedule management, never recall airline schedules requiring adjustment due FAA. CBP on the other hand on plenty of times has forced airlines to reschedule, but their staffing and processing limitations is not runway movement related obviously.

Per FAA latest 2014 national capacity analysis, LAX hourly aircraft operations don't even reach 85% during peak periods, with much of the day in the 60-70% range.

LAX was designated Level 2 in winter 2015 as a result of the mid-year 2016 construction-related closure of 7L/25R. It was correctly anticipated that the then planned schedule additions by both AA & DL (as well as others) would negatively impact the airport. Not only would runway capacity be reduced, but ground movement bottlenecks would hamper efficient transitions between runway-taxiway-gates areas and v.v.

This did indeed occur, particularly during the hellish summer of 2016. The evening peak from 20:00 - 00:00 was particularly bad - even in VMC. AA & DL operations received the most (bad) publicity - both being the largest & most visible at LAX. However, ALL carriers were impacted.

Now, the following is how the "spirit" of FAA coordination in a Level 2 environment can differ from "reality". Coming out of summer, 2016, the FAA threatened to implement Level 3 guidelines at LAX as carriers (AA, DL, et. al.) had been unrelenting in adding capacity in the lead up to summer 2016. Summer 2015, LAX averaged approx 1850 movements p/day. Summer 2016, LAX averaged approx 2050 movements p/day. The initial Summer 2017 schedules, submitted to the FAA in Fall 2016, showed 2200 average day/peak month ops.

The actual y-o-y comparison (2016 vs. 2017) shows flat to slightly negative movement growth at LAX.

Left to their own devices, carriers have little incentive to throttle capacity in a highly competitive environment. Very active 'jawboning' by the FAA saved the carriers from themselves, avoiding the implementation of Level 3 at LAX.

As a reference, Level 2 guidelines & implementation info can be found https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/10/02/2017-21045/notice-of-submission-deadline-for-schedule-information-for-chicago-ohare-international-airport-john and https://www.iata.org/policy/slots/Documents/wsg-8-english.pdf

greg3322 wrote:

janders wrote:

Does Los Angeles basin really need another airport?

Airports like BUR and ONT already operate way below their capacity, while both LGB and SNA might have all their air carrier slots fully allocated but aircraft size could always rise if demand required it.

It seems to me there is hardly the need for yet another field when existing ones have room for growth, and that regions demographics($$) and population favors use of LAX anyhow.

Yes, LAX does not have sufficient infrastructure to handle what they are doing now. It can easily take 30-45 minutes to drive the loop around the airport. I have never rented a car here, but friends have complained about having to allow an extra hour to return cars and get a shuttle to the terminal. Unless you live here, it is hard to comprehend how long it takes to get places certain times of the day. Where I live, it is virtually the same mile distance to SNA and LAX. It can take up to twice as long to get to LAX than SNA. LGB is always my first choice, but limited flights and the fact my carrier of choice (UA) does not even fly there makes it an infrequently used airport for me. SNA is good, but again, limited flights and often quite high ticket prices drive me back to LAX. BUR is not an option. It can take 2-3 hours to get there in the afternoon. ONT is OK, but traffic is horrible getting there. The airfield itself is great and they have a lot of room. It would be the best option for a true reliever, but it is too far from most people.

LAX has made some progress modernizing the airfield - rebuilding terminals, the rebuilding/moving of runway 25L a few years ago, etc. But they have done virtually nothing to upgrade parking or access to the airport since before the 1984 olympics.

Those issues already have the RFPs issued. The APM and new rental car facility/parking garage will fix a lot of that.

RDUDDJI wrote:

greg3322 wrote:

Or perhaps make a consolidated rental car facility there (optimally with a train)?

This is literally the plan. Look up the LAX Automated People Mover

The rental facility plan is literally called the "consolidated rental car facility"

BreezyIAH wrote:

I posted a while back about the "what if" scenario if the El Toro MCAS in Orange County had actually become a commercial airport, but for the second largest market in the US and one of the top globally, something has to happen eventually right? Or not? I don't know of what locations could even be available. SNA is strictly limited, BUR is also, LGB has the size? airfield wise but not infrastructure, or agreeable surrounding residents, ONT is in not a convenient alternative and small as well. Something has to happen eventually as LAX can only expand while adding to more congestion for so long, right? Maybe a north of LA option would be more practical like in Ventura Co or somewhere? Sorry for a question full of questions

I'm not taking a stance on the need for relief at LAX (or the merits of any particular option), but Miramar Marine Corps Air Station KNKX was once considered and rejected by San Diego County voters:
http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sdut-board-picks-miramar-as-future-airport-site-2006jun06-story.html
http://www.smartvoter.org/2006/11/07/ca/sd/prop/A/

There will never be a relief airport in the LAX basin. There is way too much money driving keeping the facility right where it is. Those forces are why the 'green line' does not run to the airport, but instead is south and stops over a mile away. This way you have to pay for a ride to the airport; thank Super Shuttle and their friends for that since they fought for this.

I agree with 727200.....never. But let me offer my idiotic idea of Camp Pendleton. There is open space. I wonder if runways parallel to I5 might work. At least you wouldn’t get complaints from residents. if you could just send the Marines to the desert there would be no one around.

While I don't think LAX is going far enough (or fast enough), the major issues are being addressed. I 5-10 years, they will need to look at extending the Sepulveda tunnel or something similar, and likely in that same time frame there will be pressure to address the uninhabitable zone between the 110 and 710 north of the 105, as the space is too valuable to the community to waste away as is forever.

JHwk wrote:

While I don't think LAX is going far enough (or fast enough), the major issues are being addressed. I 5-10 years, they will need to look at extending the Sepulveda tunnel or something similar, and likely in that same time frame there will be pressure to address the uninhabitable zone between the 110 and 710 north of the 105, as the space is too valuable to the community to waste away as is forever.

What are you talking about? Where is this uninhabitable zone you are talking about?

CHI2DFW wrote:

ONT should fit that. If not, Los Angeles Peotone has marketing potential!

Peotone?? The "proposed" airport south of Chicago?? Are you Kidding??

strfyr51 wrote:

CHI2DFW wrote:

ONT should fit that. If not, Los Angeles Peotone has marketing potential!

Peotone?? The "proposed" airport south of Chicago?? Are you Kidding??

if you're going there? Then why not the old George AFB??

Short Answer: Most likely not.

Hopefully/Long Answer: If ONT was to get an express train directly to the terminal or a shuttle from a metrolink station, maybe some passengers would consider ONT more. Especially since getting to LAX is only half the battle thanks to the hell that is LA traffic, let alone getting down Century to the terminals. That is a hell beyond hell. Even the flyaway bus can't force its way through the terminals. I pray the hurry up with the people mover, because I would love nothing more than to not have to wait forever for the Flyaway to shove its way to my terminal, or force a friend or Uber to do the same. However, getting to ONT is a hell in itself. The I-10 doesn't get better until East LA, and then you have another half hour to ONT. It's a shame because ONT tends to have cheap fares, but its much easier/cheaper to get to LAX even with its traffic nightmare. I believe a well advertised express to from Union Station to ONT, or one day (which seems like a VERY FAR DAY) the high speed rail somehow gets built, we could see ONT becoming a solid relief airport. Until then, even with its obvious flaws, LAX will probably never get a real relief airport. BUR is constrained by its runways, and the 14 gate max at its new terminal, SNA is maxed out, LGB will have the NIMBYs killing every move it makes, and ONT is just too far and relatively unknown to much of LA's population.

After moving to LA, the major problem with LAX is just the car traffic. My personal idea would be to build a large car park for employees and travelers next to where the new stadium is going up in Inglewood. Build a people mover system, and limit LAX to only commercial buses and rideshare for pickup and drop Off. Maybe even not allow any vehicles into LAX, except for busses.

mcogator wrote:

After moving to LA, the major problem with LAX is just the car traffic. My personal idea would be to build a large car park for employees and travelers next to where the new stadium is going up in Inglewood. Build a people mover system, and limit LAX to only commercial buses and rideshare for pickup and drop Off. Maybe even not allow any vehicles into LAX, except for busses.

People don’t understand!! Nobody is saying for people from Downtown LA and West should be forced to get to ONT. If only the people that live closer to ONT were able to use it more, then ONT would be successful. However we need to keep going to LAX because of the sparse connections from ONT.

LAXintl wrote:

No sir. No formal "approval" needed. There is no program for landing or take off slot management by the airport.
.

Sorry you are wrong, being slot constrained by IATA definitions (WSG which I mentioned above) does not only relate to takeoff or landing movements reaching capacity.

It also includes other ground infrastructure and passenger processing limitations. If you were just to commence a service into a level 2 airport and that pushes it into level 3 that service will get denied.

This is the latest list of worldwide slot constrained airports last updated December 1st, ORD, LAX, JFK, SEA, EWR, and MCO are on the list.

You will notice DCA is not on the list despite being FAA level 3.

http://www.iata.org/policy/slots/Docume ... -11.6.xlsx

People need to learn LAX isn't the only airport to fly from.

When Flying Domestic, Avoid LAX And Fly From BUR, LGB, ONT & SNA Instead. As people avoid LAX, there will be more air service, more competition and lower fares at the other airports.

Just rebuild LAX and configure it in a more efficient manner. That should be the solution.

What kind of quality of life can there be around LA with that traffic? I just can't imagine spending so many hours a day in the car.

This thread talking about new regional LA basin airports when LGB is withering on the vine due to lack of community support and people not wiling to pay a premium to avoid hours in traffic to LAX.

Newest "rumor": B6 is going back to its old truncated LGB schedule despite WN's threat of grabbing the unused slots. Enjoy those drives to LAX.