Thread on Initial Study of Concourse 0 and Terminal 9, North runway enhancements, etc. -> https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopi ... &t=1419663 (guess we now know what some of those lease agreements with WN and UA cover)

on another subject..

Has Delta finalized the design of the T3 - TBIT connector yet? The last I have I seen was that they were still evaluation options, especially re: passenger circulation and the TBIT core project. Last I saw from the LAWA BOAC is April 2018.

Economy parking lot E is now open and showing up on the parking map at flylax.com. it is next to the proud bird.

gmcc wrote:

Economy parking lot E is now open and showing up on the parking map at flylax.com. it is next to the proud bird.

Technically - Economy Parking Lot E has "Reopened"

Nice picture of a KE 380 landing at LAX in Saturday’s Times (in an otherwise unrelated article):



Doesn’t appear as though the image is on their website.

A look at the midfield satellite concourse progress from May 2019:

https://youtu.be/RkErQxQEerA

And what it is supposed to look like (from 2016):

https://youtu.be/L-YenoF-RD8

[threeid][/threeid]

SBowla wrote:

A look at the midfield satellite concourse progress from May 2019:

https://youtu.be/RkErQxQEerA

And what it is supposed to look like (from 2016):

https://youtu.be/L-YenoF-RD8

Thanks for sharing! Looks like it’s going to be nice.

Once the People Mover is operational, LAX is interested in bringing a hotel on property, and is exploring whether the Theme Building could be part of the project:
https://www.latimes.com/travel/la-tr-tr ... story.html
https://www.latimes.com/travel/la-tr-tr ... story.html

Poor Theme Building. Sad to see the observation lounge is closed indefinitely, but it was next-to-impossible to determine when it was open. E.g. the first two weekends of every month, then only certain months, but WHAT certain months? You'd think once they killed their in-house radio station, they'd replace it with an in-house social media team.

- - -

In other news, FlyAway service continues to shrink, with service ending to UCLA/Westwood.
https://www.latimes.com/travel/la-tr-tr ... story.html

Once upon a time, they served the Irvine Transportation Center -- free parking, $25 each way, and kids were free. Was an awesome deal, shame it never caught on.

compensateme wrote:

Once the People Mover is operational, LAX is interested in bringing a hotel on property, and is exploring whether the Theme Building could be part of the project:
https://www.latimes.com/travel/la-tr-tr ... story.html
https://www.latimes.com/travel/la-tr-tr ... story.html

Poor Theme Building. Sad to see the observation lounge is closed indefinitely, but it was next-to-impossible to determine when it was open. E.g. the first two weekends of every month, then only certain months, but WHAT certain months? You'd think once they killed their in-house radio station, they'd replace it with an in-house social media team.

- - -

In other news, FlyAway service continues to shrink, with service ending to UCLA/Westwood.
https://www.latimes.com/travel/la-tr-tr ... story.html

Once upon a time, they served the Irvine Transportation Center -- free parking, $25 each way, and kids were free. Was an awesome deal, shame it never caught on.

While the theme building was great I think it is pass its use by date. The best thing would be to knock it down and make better use of the space. Maybe they could reverse the flow in the CTA, have everyone come down center way and then peel off to the respective terminals.

According to LAWA flyaway was not competitive with uber/Lyft or other options from Westwood.

gmcc wrote:

While the theme building was great I think it is pass its use by date. The best thing would be to knock it down and make better use of the space. Maybe they could reverse the flow in the CTA, have everyone come down center way and then peel off to the respective terminals.

The Theme Building is too iconic. Even some people who've never been to LAX recognize it, no way should it be demolished. LAX isn't LAX without seeing Hollywood Park on approach, let alone the physical Theme Building .

compensateme wrote:

gmcc wrote:

While the theme building was great I think it is pass its use by date. The best thing would be to knock it down and make better use of the space. Maybe they could reverse the flow in the CTA, have everyone come down center way and then peel off to the respective terminals.

The Theme Building is too iconic. Even some people who've never been to LAX recognize it, no way should it be demolished. LAX isn't LAX without seeing Hollywood Park on approach, let alone the physical Theme Building .

Agree....

No way the theme building gets knocked down. Its been designated by the city as a historic building.

Aceskywalker wrote:

No way the theme building gets knocked down. Its been designated by the city as a historic building.

I know, just saying if they got rid of it, demolished the old control tower and administrative offices you could make the entrance to the CTA flow better.

gmcc wrote:

Aceskywalker wrote:

No way the theme building gets knocked down. Its been designated by the city as a historic building.

I know, just saying if they got rid of it, demolished the old control tower and administrative offices you could make the entrance to the CTA flow better.

How would getting rid of this building improve flow? It takes up relatively little space compared to all the other structures in the CTA, and it isn't even all that close to the entrance. One could double the width of World Way and it would barely skirt the edges of the Theme building's footprint. There are several factors impeding flow through the CTA, but this building isn't one of them.

tcaeyx wrote:

gmcc wrote:

Aceskywalker wrote:

No way the theme building gets knocked down. Its been designated by the city as a historic building.

I know, just saying if they got rid of it, demolished the old control tower and administrative offices you could make the entrance to the CTA flow better.

How would getting rid of this building improve flow? It takes up relatively little space compared to all the other structures in the CTA, and it isn't even all that close to the entrance. One could double the width of World Way and it would barely skirt the edges of the Theme building's footprint. There are several factors impeding flow through the CTA, but this building isn't one of them.

I admit the theme building doesn't restrict flow at the entrance of the airport there are other things that restrict the flow. The problem is access from the terminals doesn't make it easy to get to. I am sure it worked a lot better when the CTA was just a single level parking lot where there was a clear path to get to it. Now it is on its own island surround by multi level parking structures blocking the views that would draw people to it. Until LAX can easy access to the building it won't be able to fulfill its potential

I don’t think access is a problem for the theme building. It is a 5 minute walk from most terminals. Maybe 7 or 8 from TBIT. the problem is that it is outside security. Connecting passengers hate to go landside. Departing passengers want to be able to relax AFTER waiting in TSA queues. Arriving passengers just want to get to their destination. The only real customers for the restaurant were connecting passengers with lots of time to kill. I used it myself when I had a 3-4 hour connect between WN and NZ. it was more or less on the way when NZ was in T2 or TBIT.

Interesting item for consideration at the next LAWA board meeting for July 18. They are proposing making 4 gates at the MSC multi apron ramp system (MARS) gates for either one group V or two group III aircraft at a time. Document says LAWA anticipates 3 international carriers will have most of their operations on group III planes at MSC opening June 2020. Mexican and Central American airlines would be my first guess as to the tenants. Also might help move Air Canada out of T6 so it can be rebuilt by LAWA and AS.

gmcc wrote:

Interesting item for consideration at the next LAWA board meeting for July 18. They are proposing making 4 gates at the MSC multi apron ramp system (MARS) gates for either one group V or two group III aircraft at a time. Document says LAWA anticipates 3 international carriers will have most of their operations on group III planes at MSC opening June 2020. Mexican and Central American airlines would be my first guess as to the tenants. Also might help move Air Canada out of T6 so it can be rebuilt by LAWA and AS.

The more intriguing item is on the agenda of the closed session --- anticipated litigation with Hawaiian Airlines.

This is the second time that item has appeared on the agenda.

As with the Hawaiian litigation, I suspect the MSC change order has more to do with the possibility of moving some T5 airlines to the MSC.

ldvaviation wrote:

gmcc wrote:

Interesting item for consideration at the next LAWA board meeting for July 18. They are proposing making 4 gates at the MSC multi apron ramp system (MARS) gates for either one group V or two group III aircraft at a time. Document says LAWA anticipates 3 international carriers will have most of their operations on group III planes at MSC opening June 2020. Mexican and Central American airlines would be my first guess as to the tenants. Also might help move Air Canada out of T6 so it can be rebuilt by LAWA and AS.

The more intriguing item is on the agenda of the closed session --- anticipated litigation with Hawaiian Airlines.

This is the second time that item has appeared on the agenda.

As with the Hawaiian litigation, I suspect the MSC change order has more to do with the possibility of moving some T5 airlines to the MSC.

You are probably right, however, the agenda item specific states that 3 international airlines would be using the gates at MSC.

As far as Hawaiian goes, LAWA is probably just trying to see how little they can pay Hawaiian to settle and move anyway.

gmcc wrote:

Also might help move Air Canada out of T6 so it can be rebuilt by LAWA and AS.

Have we seen any official / suggestive evidence of a T6 rebuild in the works? Other than T5, it is clearly in need of the most work. With AA set to rebuild T5 I could see LAWA handing the AS the keys to all of T6 in return for a partially AS funded rebuild.

gregn21 wrote:

gmcc wrote:

Also might help move Air Canada out of T6 so it can be rebuilt by LAWA and AS.

Have we seen any official / suggestive evidence of a T6 rebuild in the works? Other than T5, it is clearly in need of the most work. With AA set to rebuild T5 I could see LAWA handing the AS the keys to all of T6 in return for a partially AS funded rebuild.

Yes. Item 14 of the May 2 2019 LAWA board meeting, link below. They restate the lease and on page 3 discuss possible terminal 6 improvements.

https://lawa.granicus.com/MetaViewer.ph ... a_id=37599

Here is the latest on the Midfield Satellite Concourse construction:

https://youtu.be/vGYsvxD1Ot4

They have announced a substantial completion by 2nd quarter 2020 and I have not seen any updates to that time-frame.

Can someone please tell me how many gates at TBIT were shut for this construction, and how many will return to service once the construction is complete? It looks like at least one will be lost to the gateway construction. I hope some of the closed gates will be back in service before the MSC opens. I'm getting very tired of being bussed to and from the remote gates. The people who operate that bus service are easily the most annoying and least customer service oriented people at LAX. In comparison I am pleased to deal with the TSA.

Has there been any construction progress on the APM or CONRAC?

aklrno wrote:

Can someone please tell me how many gates at TBIT were shut for this construction, and how many will return to service once the construction is complete? It looks like at least one will be lost to the gateway construction. I hope some of the closed gates will be back in service before the MSC opens. I'm getting very tired of being bussed to and from the remote gates. The people who operate that bus service are easily the most annoying and least customer service oriented people at LAX. In comparison I am pleased to deal with the TSA.

3 gates are currently out of service due to MSC construction. One question I have is if/when the north end of TBIT will finally be built out once the MSC is done and the bus terminal for the remote gates is no longer needed.

Anyone know what going on with ParkOne next to T1. A lot of construction for something that's being torn up soon.

Flyguy?

wnflyguy wrote:

Anyone know what going on with ParkOne next to T1. A lot of construction for something that's being torn up soon.

Flyguy?

According to the from the control tower blog, see link below it is a new rideshare pick up location


https://fromthecontroltower.blogspot.co ... e.html?m=1

gregn21 wrote:

3 gates are currently out of service due to MSC construction. One question I have is if/when the north end of TBIT will finally be built out once the MSC is done and the bus terminal for the remote gates is no longer needed.

A baggage sorting and storage building was built in its place, the place of the TBIT North extension.

LAWA never finishes what it starts.

On that note, check out the agenda for the upcoming Board meeting. LAWA has changed its mind again, this time on the MSC South.

There's no master plan. It's planning and construction whack-a-mole style.

ldvaviation wrote:

LAWA never finishes what it starts.

On that note, check out the agenda for the upcoming Board meeting. LAWA has changed its mind again, this time on the MSC South.

There's no master plan. It's planning and construction whack-a-mole style.

Wow. 2 story pre-engineered structure. 8 narrowbody gates.

Even with C0 and T9, this seems shortsighted.

carljanderson wrote:

ldvaviation wrote:

LAWA never finishes what it starts.

On that note, check out the agenda for the upcoming Board meeting. LAWA has changed its mind again, this time on the MSC South.

There's no master plan. It's planning and construction whack-a-mole style.

Wow. 2 story pre-engineered structure. 8 narrowbody gates.

Even with C0 and T9, this seems shortsighted.

At first this did seem kind of odd, but after reading over their reasoning it actually sounds like a pretty good idea. They can basically use it as a new home for everyone currently in T5 (Spirit, Jetblue, Allegiant, Hawaiian) which would allow a quicker transfer of the remainder of T5 facilities to AA. Then they can get rid of the eagle's nest and proceed with the T9 build. Plus, when T9 is eventually completed, there will presumably be a surplus of widebody, international optimized gates at LAX, so adding domestic / narrowbody gates rather than more widebody gates to the MSC might make more sense in the long term as well.

Eventually, it does seem like they will get rid of what they are about to build as MSC South and replace it with a more time intensive and costly full expansion of MSC North, but the "temporary" narrowbody-only concourse will allow them to proceed with other construction in a much more timely manner.

My one concern with this decision is that they will be cheap and the new concourse will be visually unappealing.

Link to project: https://lawa.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=4&event_id=1324&meta_id=38379

gregn21 wrote:

At first this did seem kind of odd, but after reading over their reasoning it actually sounds like a pretty good idea. They can basically use it as a new home for everyone currently in T5 (Spirit, Jetblue, Allegiant, Hawaiian) which would allow a quicker transfer of the remainder of T5 facilities to AA. Then they can get rid of the eagle's nest and proceed with the T9 build. Plus, when T9 is eventually completed, there will presumably be a surplus of widebody, international optimized gates at LAX, so adding domestic / narrowbody gates rather than more widebody gates to the MSC might make more sense in the long term as well.

Eventually, it does seem like they will get rid of what they are about to build as MSC South and replace it with a more time intensive and costly full expansion of MSC North, but the "temporary" narrowbody-only concourse will allow them to proceed with other construction in a much more timely manner.

My one concern with this decision is that they will be cheap and the new concourse will be visually unappealing.

Link to project: https://lawa.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=4&event_id=1324&meta_id=38379

Yes, it serves an immediate and practical purpose, but there may be nothing temporary about it. Just look at the history of "temporary facilities" at LAX: The remote gates behind Bradley, still in use, even after TBIT West was completed. The old Bradley gates, still in use. The bus shed at Bradley, still in use because of the remote gates. The United Regional Facility, still in use, now as the American Eagle facility. These temporary facilities are never "temporary".

... Modular, pre-engineered suggests they want to build this thing fast and cheap. They don't have much time or money to waste. How much "design" are they going to get with little time and money and the idea that this might be a "temporary" facility?

... Not that it matters, since Bradley West (Fentress), it's been one bad design choice after another. The canopy in front of Bradley was not good design and it never made its way around the entire airport. Now, it will be torn down to make way for the new Bradley facade/APM core. The MSC North looks like a fancy prison with large sections of its facade blacked-out. ... The more LAWA builds the more it diminishes LA's reputation for great design.

In general, the planning at LAWA is out of whack. After Bradley West, someone should have commissioned another master plan that would have considered alternatives to the current layout and terminal renovations. After LAWA abandoned the plan to move the runways on the North side, the old master plan became obsolete. Since then LAWA has been proceeding with no plan as to how every new terminal element is going to serve the needs of the airport well into the future.

Are they definitely building that horrible temporary facility?
As much money as LAX is spending on this renovation/additions, it still will be nowhere near a world-class airport. The infrastructure in this country is a joke.

It wouldn't surprise me if AA was pushing this. It gets them all of T5 and out of the Eagle's Nest sooner. They may even get a new hanger complex on the west end out of this.

gregn21 wrote:

Eventually, it does seem like they will get rid of what they are about to build as MSC South and replace it with a more time intensive and costly full expansion of MSC North, but the "temporary" narrowbody-only concourse will allow them to proceed with other construction in a much more timely manner.

My one concern with this decision is that they will be cheap and the new concourse will be visually unappealing.

Link to project: https://lawa.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=4&event_id=1324&meta_id=38379

I get the need for new gates quickly, but agree it's not likely be as "temporary" as they're presenting it to be. IAD is still stuck with their "temporary" facilities 35 years after they were opened.

At least they're building it offset from the MSC North, which suggests they could come in and build a proper extension behind it at some point that continues the architecture of the first phase.

Been to SJC lately? They just opened a horrifically cheap-looking extension to Terminal B with corrugated metal walls, concrete floors and exposed ceilings. It has all the ambience and style of a Sam's Club (or worse yet, a British airport...) That's basically what I'm envisioning with this "temporary" extension.

gregn21 wrote:

carljanderson wrote:

ldvaviation wrote:

LAWA never finishes what it starts.

On that note, check out the agenda for the upcoming Board meeting. LAWA has changed its mind again, this time on the MSC South.

There's no master plan. It's planning and construction whack-a-mole style.

Wow. 2 story pre-engineered structure. 8 narrowbody gates.

Even with C0 and T9, this seems shortsighted.

At first this did seem kind of odd, but after reading over their reasoning it actually sounds like a pretty good idea. They can basically use it as a new home for everyone currently in T5 (Spirit, Jetblue, Allegiant, Hawaiian) which would allow a quicker transfer of the remainder of T5 facilities to AA. Then they can get rid of the eagle's nest and proceed with the T9 build. Plus, when T9 is eventually completed, there will presumably be a surplus of widebody, international optimized gates at LAX, so adding domestic / narrowbody gates rather than more widebody gates to the MSC might make more sense in the long term as well.

Eventually, it does seem like they will get rid of what they are about to build as MSC South and replace it with a more time intensive and costly full expansion of MSC North, but the "temporary" narrowbody-only concourse will allow them to proceed with other construction in a much more timely manner.

My one concern with this decision is that they will be cheap and the new concourse will be visually unappealing.

Link to project: https://lawa.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=4&event_id=1324&meta_id=38379

To me, the following statement demonstrates there is a lack of strategic planning and long term vision or grasp of what's happening at LAX. Or the LAWA Board is being extremely hyper-conservative with their growth numbers, and it's lead to many constraints. In my humble opinion, this statement has been spun too positively.

The MSC South Project was originally envisioned to be an extension of the MSC North, with similar architecture, function, and scale. To build to this concept would require significant delivery time and investment, as well as necessitate the demolition of the American Airlines (AA) SuperBay Hangar, for which we have no adequate replacement in the near future. However, due to recent growth in passenger
activity - as well as ongoing renovation efforts throughout LAX that requires the closure of other gates - there is an urgency to deliver more domestic gates in the near term. Moreover, with the planned development of Terminal 9 and Concourse 0, there is no longer the same need to use MSC South as a fully functioning international terminal as was originally envisioned.

I’ve been following LAX/TBIT developments for over 15 years... what the LAWA board is doing is not new.

1. Before the new TBIT was constructed with the addition of TBIT West, LAWA spent $500+ million on renovating and rebuilding parts of the old TBIT concourses due to their congestion and condition. The remaining remnants of that construction is the northern most gates of TBIT. I remember being in shock and awe at the tear down of the renovations within a year or two of completion. Totally wasteful $$. ldvaviation and ikramerica can check me on timing and $$.

2. Regarding projection of passenger numbers, it occurs to me that LAWA may have purposely underestimated passenger growth given political pushback from the cities to the north, south and east. If they had given a projection of 33% growth in a shorter time period, there would have been a lot of pushback from the NIMBYs on redevelopment. Years ago, a settlement had to be made to get to what you see today. I’ll admit it may just be coincidental.

3. There’s been significant turnover in the make up of the Board of Commissioners since the original master plan was created. It could be contributing to the change in approach from visually appealing exterior architecture to a more utilitarian approach.

But what do I know... I sit in my armchair while eating popcorn watching LAX evolve

airlineaddict wrote:

I’ve been following LAX/TBIT developments for over 15 years... what the LAWA board is doing is not new.

1. Before the new TBIT was constructed with the addition of TBIT West, LAWA spent $500+ million on renovating and rebuilding parts of the old TBIT concourses due to their congestion and condition. The remaining remnants of that construction is the northern most gates of TBIT. I remember being in shock and awe at the tear down of the renovations within a year or two of completion. Totally wasteful $$. ldvaviation and ikramerica can check me on timing and $$.

I completely agree on this one. This one particularly frustrated me. While I am not certain it was half a billion dollars plus to renovate two gates for the old TBIT, I do know LAWA spent around 121 million dollars to "enlarge taxiway and runway intersections and building a double-deck gate at the Tom Bradley International Terminal" in 2007.

Reference: https://www.latimes.com/travel/la-trw-a ... story.html

The new TBIT was $1.9 billion dollars, or $1,900 million dollars.

https://www.lawa.org/-/media/lawa-web/p ... C24C4ADC4B

Parking Delays as the people mover and other traffic improvements begin taking place:

https://ktla.com/2019/09/09/delays-expe ... tion-work/

People mover approved by City Council, 2023 projected finish:
https://ktla.com/2018/04/11/city-counci ... e-in-2023/

New rideshare pickup is set to open next week. People complained when they had to lug their baggage from arrivals upstairs to departures. What are they going to do now when they have to take their 4 bags on a shuttle from TBIT to the new rideshare pickup?

Did I miss earlier renderings of the airside look at T4 after the AA project? The CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) review of the plans have some exhibits of the new T4.

https://www.lawa.org/en/lawa-our-lax/en ... on-project -> Click on "Initial Study and Draft Negative Declaration" for the file.

carljanderson wrote:

Did I miss earlier renderings of the airside look at T4 after the AA project? The CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) review of the plans have some exhibits of the new T4.

https://www.lawa.org/en/lawa-our-lax/en ... on-project -> Click on "Initial Study and Draft Negative Declaration" for the file.

No. The link containing the file is the first public look at the T4 airside redevelopment plan. Previous submittals dealt with the landside element of T4 (interfaces with the automated train & combined T4 / T5 headhouse.)

carljanderson wrote:

on another subject..

Has Delta finalized the design of the T3 - TBIT connector yet? The last I have I seen was that they were still evaluation options, especially re: passenger circulation and the TBIT core project. Last I saw from the LAWA BOAC is April 2018.

DL & LAWA came to some sort of agreement whereby LAWA will now construct the connector building.

carljanderson wrote:

ldvaviation wrote:

LAWA never finishes what it starts. On that note, check out the agenda for the upcoming Board meeting. LAWA has changed its mind again, this time on the MSC South. There's no master plan. It's planning and construction whack-a-mole style.

Wow. 2 story pre-engineered structure. 8 narrowbody gates. Even with C0 and T9, this seems shortsighted.

As you read & review the document for the T4 airside redevelopment, you'll notice that there is a provision for a bus gate abutting the ground level of (new) Gate 43. That bus gate will have a dual purpose of serving both LAWA and AA Eagle busing operations.

Unless a change of plan occurs within the next 2 - 3 years, MSC South is where AA Eagle will operate from.

aaway wrote:

As you read & review the document for the T4 airside redevelopment, you'll notice that there is a provision for a bus gate abutting the ground level of (new) Gate 43. That bus gate will have a dual purpose of serving both LAWA and AA Eagle busing operations.

Unless a change of plan occurs within the next 2 - 3 years, MSC South is where AA Eagle will operate from.

Thanks for the update aaway. It seems like this would be slightly better for AA as all of their operations would be closer on the southwest side of the airport. Passenger experience would be marginally better with a shorter bus ride. Do they plan to keep the bus gate at T5 as well?

aaway wrote:

As you read & review the document for the T4 airside redevelopment, you'll notice that there is a provision for a bus gate abutting the ground level of (new) Gate 43. That bus gate will have a dual purpose of serving both LAWA and AA Eagle busing operations.

Unless a change of plan occurs within the next 2 - 3 years, MSC South is where AA Eagle will operate from.

There are going to be a lot of AA tails at MSC and TBIT then. Phase 1 of the Airside project will require the closure of 7 gates.

aaway wrote:

Unless a change of plan occurs within the next 2 - 3 years, MSC South is where AA Eagle will operate from.

AA also proposed more T5 gates (as a replacement for the Eagle facility).

From what I understand, there is no agreement yet. With the proper extension of the MSC South, AA was expecting to get 5 more gates in T5. With the change of plans, that provision of their new lease is ineffective. I expect the new plan to address the T5 gates as well.

ldvaviation wrote:

aaway wrote:

Unless a change of plan occurs within the next 2 - 3 years, MSC South is where AA Eagle will operate from.

AA also proposed more T5 gates (as a replacement for the Eagle facility).

From what I understand, there is no agreement yet. With the proper extension of the MSC South, AA was expecting to get 5 more gates in T5. With the change of plans, that provision of their new lease is ineffective. I expect the new plan to address the T5 gates as well.

As of now, T-5 is not a solution for the Eagle relocation - not until facilities solution is in place for the current non-AA T-5 tenants.. However, I do agree with you that, ultimately, AA gains access to all of T-5, even if on a shared basis.

Please continue your discussion and to post your updates here:

viewtopic.php?t=1438039

Thread will be locked.