Back in the 70s, I can remember there was talk to consider the Hughes Airport (IATA: (CVR) a private airport with an 8,800 feet Rwy owned by Howard Hughes for the Hughes Aircraft Company in Culver City as a fifth runway for LAX link by elevated or subterranean extended light-rail system envisioned in the airport's modernization plan connected to the airport’s northern complex.

At the time, for the hostile neighborhoods of Inglewood to the east and Westchester located north of Runway 6L-24R the loud noise from aircrafts like B-707s, B-720s, B-727s, DC-10s, DC-8s, DC-9s was unbearable late night, resulting in establishing a curfew prohibiting approach from the east over Inglewood while arriving aircraft during night hours from 0000 to 0630 hours becomes Over-Ocean Operations.

As air-traffic into Lax quadruple over the years, the City of Los Angeles and LAX officials now finds themselves in an unescapable dilemma needing additional runways but no land to construct them. With almost zero good options left for expansion, what can we expect to see happen at LAX in the future to mitigate air-traffic congestion?

airbazar wrote:

I didn't think LAX had a runway capacity problem. I thought the biggest capacity problem at LAX is terminal capacity and specifically lack of gates. If LAX can't add any more gates, an additional runway isn't going to help.

Bingo.

LAX can still grow as less capable gates are replaced with more capable gates. I forget what the new "capacity" is, but there's room to grow.

Otherwise LAX is, like many other busy airports in busy metro areas worldwide, has constrained runway capacity. Nothing special here.

Other airports in the area being turned to Los Angeles version of LGW?

I didn't think LAX had a runway capacity problem. I thought the biggest capacity problem at LAX is terminal capacity and specifically lack of gates. If LAX can't add any more gates, an additional runway isn't going to help.

What does the current LAX master plan look like?

Noise wrote:

What does the current LAX master plan look like?

More appropriate to look at what the Stipulated Agreement contains. No new runways, capped gates.

https://www.lawa.org/en/lawa-our-lax/se ... -agreement

LAX still operates below is airfield/ATC capacity.
So even today it does not need a 5th runway, especially one that is 2-3 miles away in another community and on the other side of a cliff.

Bruh it’s got 4 parallel runways and it’s almost always VFR.

Noise wrote:

What does the current LAX master plan look like?

In 2013 LAX's northern-most runway was scheduled be moved 260 feet towards Westchester, and its parallel northern runway would be lengthened towards Sepulveda Boulevard, according to a “final master” LAX plan

Aviano789 wrote:

the City of Los Angeles and LAX officials now finds themselves in an unescapable dilemma needing additional runways but no land to construct them.

What non-sense.

In my 29 years at LAX, never have I attended a meeting where there was even the hint of desire for additional runway capacity, let alone actual studies to even look at the subject.

LAXintl wrote:

Aviano789 wrote:

the City of Los Angeles and LAX officials now finds themselves in an unescapable dilemma needing additional runways but no land to construct them.

What non-sense.

In my 29 years at LAX, never have I attended a meeting where there was even the hint of desire for additional runway capacity, let alone actual studies to even look at the subject.

29 years ago would to around 1989, I said it was the 70s, do you comprehend what your read?

LAX has no options for building additional runways, so all that is worth discussing if how to optimize the existing ones.

I don't think LAX could ever obtain permission for building new runways on landfill on the pacific ocean at the very least due to opposition from people living in El segundo or Marina del rey

Aviano789 wrote:

29 years ago would to around 1989, I said it was the 70s, do you comprehend what your read?

Maybe you don't comprehend what you write....

"City of Los Angeles and LAX officials now finds themselves in an unescapable dilemma needing additional runways but no land to construct them."

There is no dilemma. There is no talk, let alone need for additional runway capacity. The airport in 2018 operates below its FAA designed hourly movement limits.

Matter of fact - LAX movements have not changed as much over the years relative to passenger counts - 631,171 movements in 2007 and 697,138 in 2017 while pax counts have grown from 61mil to nearly 85mil.

LAX doesn’t need another runway... they need more gate space.

Only thing LAX might regret is not being able to realign the two northern runways and add a taxiway between them.

IFlyVeryLittle wrote:

Flame away if you like, but isn't this notion of not enough capacity of LAX (or any other airport) something of a self-regulating phenomenon. Either an airport expands capacity by whatever means possible, if the potential revenue makes the expense worth it, or it just says "sorry, we can handle what we can handle'' and prices to that destination rise via the properties of supply and demand. Either way, problem solved. Right?

Airports don't set airfares so not quite.

If there were a real capacity problem in theory the airlines would likely make network adjustments and eliminate the less profitable flying. All flying is not created equal.

Flame away if you like, but isn't this notion of not enough capacity of LAX (or any other airport) something of a self-regulating phenomenon. Either an airport expands capacity by whatever means possible, if the potential revenue makes the expense worth it, or it just says "sorry, we can handle what we can handle'' and prices to that destination rise via the properties of supply and demand. Either way, problem solved. Right?

As a pilot I cant say I have ever encountered constraints related to runway capacity at LAX except during periods of inclement weather like fog, or when Pacific storms roll through and airport goes into East ops mode.
Any operational issues with LAX are on the ground, simply taxiing around, but not runway related.

Frankly besides heavy traffic density in LA basin with so much other traffic (GA. helicopters, other airports), flying into LAX is rather easy stright forward case, something I cant say for many other large US airports where runway capacity are constant constraints.

As others have said, LAX does not need more runway capacity, so I'm not sure why the OP is saying why LAX needs additional runways?

They need to fix their Gate and Terminal layout before they add another runway. I've lost count on how many times i've arrived at the gate behind schedule because they had to wait for another plane to exit the gate area. LAX is congested when it comes to Terminal space and traffic. One way exit and entry....,terrible design.

If they fix that issue, than they are good.

They still could, but that would mean buying up all the properties to the north and placing in in and around Manchester Ave. Leave the cemetery in place and add either freight/hangers or addition terminal to the west.

Beatyair wrote:

They still could, but that would mean buying up all the properties to the north and placing in in and around Manchester Ave. Leave the cemetery in place and add either freight/hangers or addition terminal to the west.

I seem to remember reading that LAX is buying up properties between Westchester Parkway and Manchester Avenue as they become available for fair market value in a slow-motion version of "Imminent Domain", but I might be wrong about that.

jetero wrote:

Noise wrote:

What does the current LAX master plan look like?

More appropriate to look at what the Stipulated Agreement contains. No new runways, capped gates.

https://www.lawa.org/en/lawa-our-lax/se ... -agreement

I believe this agreement has been modified within the last 3 years. IIRC The gate caps have been removed in exchange for the airport to drop the proposal for the relocation of 24R and the addition of a taxiway between the 24's.

TSS wrote:

Beatyair wrote:

They still could, but that would mean buying up all the properties to the north and placing in in and around Manchester Ave. Leave the cemetery in place and add either freight/hangers or addition terminal to the west.

I seem to remember reading that LAX is buying up properties between Westchester Parkway and Manchester Avenue as they become available for fair market value in a slow-motion version of "Imminent Domain", but I might be wrong about that.

Like the Topic said “Missed Opportunity”
I think the window to purchase private property close to LAX at bargain prize is all gone...A shack built in 40s in the area today can cost up to $1 Mill plus.

c933103 wrote:

Other airports in the area being turned to Los Angeles version of LGW?

Nope.

LGB has restrictions on the number of mainline operations.
BUR has even more relative constraint than LAX does.
SNA has a runway too small (5700ft) to cater to longhaul flights.

ONT is the only one with the runways+facilities to handle a significant pax/ops expansion, but it's too far away (and in the "wrong" direction) from anything that most business and leisure pax would identify with as "Los Angeles." The fortunes of the ONT-TPE flight will be interesting to watch, and if ultimately successful, it may spur some additional international capacity. But thus far, even the likes of Norwegian, XL, Hainan, etc would all just rather use LAX.

Aviano789 wrote:

Like the Topic said “Missed Opportunity”
I think the window to purchase private property close to LAX at bargain price is all gone...A shack built in 40s in the area today can cost up to $1 Mill plus.

More like "Hindsight is 20/20"; The true "Missed Opportunity" was not buying up the area where Westchester is now at the same time that Mines Field became known as Los Angeles Airport.

AAlaxfan wrote:

jetero wrote:

Noise wrote:

What does the current LAX master plan look like?

More appropriate to look at what the Stipulated Agreement contains. No new runways, capped gates.

https://www.lawa.org/en/lawa-our-lax/se ... -agreement

I believe this agreement has been modified within the last 3 years. IIRC The gate caps have been removed in exchange for the airport to drop the proposal for the relocation of 24R and the addition of a taxiway between the 24's.

What a headache to try to decipher.

Yes you're right. The 153-gate cap has been modified and has been ultimately replaced to be whatever can be developed within the T0, T9 and MSC sites.

So a de facto, but not explicit cap.

jetero wrote:

Noise wrote:

What does the current LAX master plan look like?

More appropriate to look at what the Stipulated Agreement contains. No new runways, capped gates.

https://www.lawa.org/en/lawa-our-lax/se ... -agreement

Agreement ends in 2020

There was a more feasible plan to build another runway on the north side of Manchester parkway. If memory serves it was to have gone over the golf course.

flyingcat wrote:

There was a more feasible plan to build another runway on the north side of Manchester parkway. If memory serves it was to have gone over the golf course.

There was never a plan to build another runway. The previous master plan called for moving 24R north by a couple of hundred feet to accommodate a center taxi way like it has been done on 25 L/R. The plan would have required Lincoln Blvd to be realigned and Westchester Parkway to be eliminated, plus taking some homes to create a new buffer area. That plan was dropped as already mentioned in the latest settlement on lawsuits with neighbors to the north. The plan now is to redevelop the vacant land along Westchester Parkway into retail and commercial use and parks.

There is a separate area to the east of the airport that LAWA has been buying properties (someone mentioned this above in the thread as well). The area is called Manchester Square and it is the site of the future consolidated rental car center and APM maintenance yard. Right now, you fly pass this ghost town on your way to land at LAX