IcelandairMSP
Posts: 77
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2005 5:50 am

Re: LAX moves forward with plans for Terminal 0 and 9

Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:02 pm

Since people are bringing up what the airport SHOULD do (or have done many years ago), why didn't the airport build the west airfield terminal that was a proposed alternative 15-20 years ago? Of the many problems LAX has, the one that is the most egregious is the traffic getting to/from the terminals on the departure level. Not only because of limited room, but because negotiating traffic to get there from Sepulveda, the 105, the PCH, Century, etc. requires so many routes to merge that, at peak times, it can take an hour just to get to Terminal 1, let alone crawl through to TBIT. It appears that a west airfield terminal would have had an easy loop on/off the 105 to redistribute a lot of the traffic.

Was this canned because of the old gate/capacity restriction agreement with Westchester? Or money? Or was it simply an oversight because no one foresaw a 150% jump in traffic in a relatively short period?
 
ldvaviation
Posts: 1241
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 7:21 pm

Re: LAX moves forward with plans for Terminal 0 and 9

Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:10 pm

Boof02671 wrote:

“An American spokesman says the airline is working with LAWA on plans to relocate its regional facility that would be demolished to make room for terminal”

“The 12-gate Terminal 9 would rise east of Sepulveda Boulevard on land occupied by hangars and a regional concourse used by American. The 109,440m2 terminal would be connected by a bridge over the road to terminal 8, and include a new station on the airport's under construction automated people mover”

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ns-457251/



... You just proved yourself wrong. Remember your initial claim was that AA had to vacate the Eagle's Nest by 2024.

What do you provide to make it appear as if you were right all along? An article with a quote from an AA spokesperson saying "the airline is working with LAWA on plans."
 
carljanderson
Posts: 145
Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2015 5:29 pm

Re: LAX moves forward with plans for Terminal 0 and 9

Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:18 pm

Didn't LAWA masterfully eliminate the gate cap when they eliminated the project to move 6L/24R north? Something about more gates in the CTA area if they remove the west remote gates.. Can't look it up right now.
 
blockski
Posts: 511
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 8:30 pm

Re: LAX moves forward with plans for Terminal 0 and 9

Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:27 pm

carljanderson wrote:
Didn't LAWA masterfully eliminate the gate cap when they eliminated the project to move 6L/24R north? Something about more gates in the CTA area if they remove the west remote gates.. Can't look it up right now.


Yes, the terms of the settlement eliminated the gate cap in exchange for LAWA dropping the plan to shift the runway to the north.

https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la- ... story.html
 
User avatar
LAXintl
Topic Author
Posts: 23717
Joined: Wed May 24, 2000 12:12 pm

Re: LAX moves forward with plans for Terminal 0 and 9

Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:31 pm

carljanderson wrote:
Didn't LAWA masterfully eliminate the gate cap when they eliminated the project to move 6L/24R north? Something about more gates in the CTA area if they remove the west remote gates.. Can't look it up right now.


Gate cap was removed in agreement with the community per the updated settlement plan.

The airport, however, is largely not increasing gate count, as it will eliminating the West Remote gates as part of the C-0 and T-9 plans.
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
 
User avatar
intotheair
Posts: 1725
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 12:49 pm

Re: LAX moves forward with plans for Terminal 0 and 9

Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:33 pm

The LA Times has a story on the new project. Nothing we don’t know, though there’s a new quote in it from the mayor of El Segundo who (shockingly!) opposes the project.

https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la- ... story.html
300 319 320 321 332 333 345 346 380 717 733 734 735 73G 738 739 744 752 753 762 763 772 77W 788 789 CR2 CR7 CR9 Q400 E175 DC10 MD82 MD90
AA AF AS AY AZ B6 BA BR DL F9 FI GA HA KF LH MI QX SK SN SQ UA US VY WN
 
cschleic
Posts: 1675
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2002 10:47 pm

Re: LAX moves forward with plans for Terminal 0 and 9

Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:42 pm

LAXintl wrote:
carljanderson wrote:
Didn't LAWA masterfully eliminate the gate cap when they eliminated the project to move 6L/24R north? Something about more gates in the CTA area if they remove the west remote gates.. Can't look it up right now.


Gate cap was removed in agreement with the community per the updated settlement plan.

The airport, however, is largely not increasing gate count, as it will eliminating the West Remote gates as part of the C-0 and T-9 plans.


And, most importantly for some, keeps the In 'n Out park area for spotters. :mrgreen:
 
ldvaviation
Posts: 1241
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 7:21 pm

Re: LAX moves forward with plans for Terminal 0 and 9

Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:47 pm

janders wrote:
Flight Global has story with a bit more detail.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ns-457251/

LAWA spokesperson says both new facilities would be operational prior to 2028 Olympics.


Show me the money. Show me the the time.

Terminal projects take about 5 years from formal Board approval. We don't have an EIR yet. There are also a number of enabling projects that have to be planned, approved, and completed. As we know from the arguments above, one of those is the removal of the Eagle terminal. There is still no firm date for vacating the Eagle terminal. LAWA and AA have been negotiating for what seems an eternity or more.

There's also the high demand for construction services in the LA area. Add more time for that. See the AA project which started construction last year but which may still not be complete by 2028.

As to the money, there are capital spending limits which LAWA reported last December. Even if it decided to exceed those, a precedent was set by the Delta lease. It is pay to play. Which means that the main tenant of either terminal is going to have to finance the project upfront and it looks from these plans that Delta got quite a bargain. As I said above, the terminal element of the T9 project alone looks like $1.5B-Plus project with the enabling projects. Delta paid for the major enabling projects at T2/T3 (the airline relocation and modification of TBIT gates). Will United pay to relocate American? When do those negotiations begin? The parking lot probably pays for itself, but who pays for the roadways. The other airlines? How long will those negotiations take?

As for T0, it may be a case of going to the well once too often. Southwest just completed a $600 million renovation of T1. Soon after they started construction of T1.5. That's another $700 million. So, if Southwest wants a T0, they now have to pony up another billion over what they have already spent over the last 5 years. When do those negotiations begin?

... Sadly, LAWA seems to be repeating the mistakes of the LAWA Board in the last run-up to the Olympics. Last time they did something this fast and with little forethought we got the original Bradley. The saving grace of the original Bradley was that it offered the possibility in the future of a more efficient layout (parallel concourses). This plan basically spends billions to foreclose any possibility and what is worse it shows again that LAWA never finishes what it starts. There is no provision in this plan for redoing the facades of T7/8 to match the renovated facades of T1 and T1.5, 2/3, Bradley, T4/T5 and even T6. In 2028, just in time for the Olympics, they will look like just like they do today, a derelict strip mall.
 
FromCDGtoSYD
Posts: 310
Joined: Sat Mar 11, 2017 9:29 am

Re: LAX moves forward with plans for Terminal 0 and 9

Fri Apr 05, 2019 6:09 pm

On a side note, are there any plans to finish the northern part of TBIT ? Feels kind of wierd stepping out of the "new" terminal and ending up in what is effectively a shed.
 
gregn21
Posts: 239
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2016 10:27 pm

Re: LAX moves forward with plans for Terminal 0 and 9

Fri Apr 05, 2019 6:26 pm

FromCDGtoSYD wrote:
On a side note, are there any plans to finish the northern part of TBIT ? Feels kind of wierd stepping out of the "new" terminal and ending up in what is effectively a shed.


I believe the original reason for ending it where they did was the project to shorten all of the terminals on the north side to open an additional E-W taxiway parallel to the north runways (correct me if I’m wrong). Now that they aren’t going to be shortening terminals 1,2,3 (they have all been / are currently being renovated or rebuilt as of now), it seems like they would just extend TBIT to it’s full length on the north side. On a side notes, I’m pretty sure the MSC is being built similarly short.
Last edited by gregn21 on Fri Apr 05, 2019 6:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
ScottB
Posts: 6610
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2000 1:25 am

Re: LAX moves forward with plans for Terminal 0 and 9

Fri Apr 05, 2019 6:26 pm

carljanderson wrote:
Is LAX great for connections? I - D, probably not, especially TBIT to another carrier. But for D-D, I can't see how it's horrible as you are more than likely in the same terminal, and none are all that huge. (Eagle's Nest not withstanding). However, LAX is an O&D airport.


Honestly, LAX isn't even that bad for I-D connections. You have to re-clear TSA no matter what, so the lack of sterile connectors between the terminals isn't much of a hassle; the weather is usually nice in L.A. as well so walking outside wouldn't be that terrible apart from the choking exhaust fumes from all the traffic on World Way. And even the longest walk is comparable to something like a connection between G20 and D3 at MSP.

IcelandairMSP wrote:
It appears that a west airfield terminal would have had an easy loop on/off the 105 to redistribute a lot of the traffic.


And you are dreaming if you think El Segundo wouldn't have tied up a plan like that in court for the next 50 years.

ldvaviation wrote:
WN and UA are not getting that many gates.

LAWA awards additional gates in proportion to current market share and revenue ops. UA's market share does not justify having as many gates as AA or DL.

...

As to AA and DL, they have already signed new leases which grant them new gates. If I remember correctly, DL up to 28 (shared with partners) and AA up to 33. In both cases, the award of new gates is contingent on their spending over $1.5B on terminal renovations. Both expect to complete their renovations and have most of their new gates by 2028.


If that's the case, WN could make a claim to most of the new gates in C0. They had 11.4% market share in 2018 and 12 or 13 gates. AA had 18.8% share in 2018. If AA gets up to 33 gates, by market share WN should be granted ~20 gates ((18.8/11.4)*12 = 19.8) and the enlarged T1 will apparently have 22 or 23 gates in total.

As WN has been constrained by gate availability at LAX for years and also ran recently-completed the T1 renovation, I'd be unsurprised if they offered to fund and build C0.

ldvaviation wrote:
As for T0, it may be a case of going to the well once too often. Southwest just completed a $600 million renovation of T1. Soon after they started construction of T1.5. That's another $700 million. So, if Southwest wants a T0, they now have to pony up another billion over what they have already spent over the last 5 years. When do those negotiations begin?


I think WN understands the cost and opportunity provided by additional real estate at LAX. We're basically talking about the same scenario which led to AS paying $2.6 billion for what amounted to gate leases at LAX & SFO as well as several dozen leased Airbuses. If they want to grow at LAX and stay relevant, they're going to need more gates, and an enlarged facility with integrated FIS will be a far superior customer experience than having customers connect between TBIT and T1.
 
blockski
Posts: 511
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 8:30 pm

Re: LAX moves forward with plans for Terminal 0 and 9

Fri Apr 05, 2019 6:40 pm

ldvaviation wrote:
As to the money, there are capital spending limits which LAWA reported last December. Even if it decided to exceed those, a precedent was set by the Delta lease. It is pay to play. Which means that the main tenant of either terminal is going to have to finance the project upfront and it looks from these plans that Delta got quite a bargain. As I said above, the terminal element of the T9 project alone looks like $1.5B-Plus project with the enabling projects. Delta paid for the major enabling projects at T2/T3 (the airline relocation and modification of TBIT gates). Will United pay to relocate American? When do those negotiations begin? The parking lot probably pays for itself, but who pays for the roadways. The other airlines? How long will those negotiations take?

As for T0, it may be a case of going to the well once too often. Southwest just completed a $600 million renovation of T1. Soon after they started construction of T1.5. That's another $700 million. So, if Southwest wants a T0, they now have to pony up another billion over what they have already spent over the last 5 years. When do those negotiations begin?


I am positive the conversations with the airlines have already begun. United has been quite clear about their desire for T9, after all.

Same think with Southwest and T0. They're clearly showing Southwest planes in the renderings - they wouldn't be doing that if they weren't already having conversations about Southwest's role in a new facility.

... Sadly, LAWA seems to be repeating the mistakes of the LAWA Board in the last run-up to the Olympics. Last time they did something this fast and with little forethought we got the original Bradley. The saving grace of the original Bradley was that it offered the possibility in the future of a more efficient layout (parallel concourses). This plan basically spends billions to foreclose any possibility and what is worse it shows again that LAWA never finishes what it starts. There is no provision in this plan for redoing the facades of T7/8 to match the renovated facades of T1 and T1.5, 2/3, Bradley, T4/T5 and even T6. In 2028, just in time for the Olympics, they will look like just like they do today, a derelict strip mall.


What does this plan foreclose, exactly?

And what do you mean by 'more efficient layout'? There's more to the airport's operation than just the taxiways. In particular, adding more gates to eliminate the remote gates; adding facilities with a FIS to eliminate some towing, potentially unifying alliances in adjacent and connected terminals - these all seem more efficient to me.

LAX isn't going to be an ATL form with the amount of O&D traffic they have.
 
wnflyguy
Posts: 1675
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2011 7:58 pm

Re: LAX moves forward with plans for Terminal 0 and 9

Fri Apr 05, 2019 6:49 pm

WN will easily pony up for terminal Zero. It's secured the rights to Park one years ago in future developing More gates at LAX.
Prior to the LAWA Delta deal for T2/T3 WN was in the planning of taking over 5 gates on the east side of T2. These were in going to be it's Mix use International/Domestic gates.
With the gate cap eliminated And the assurance from LAWA WN didn't fight the Delta deal knowing Terminal Zero planning was forthcoming. Remember California is WN biggest and most lucrative market so it's definitely going to keep expansion going at LAX.

Flyguy
my post are my opinion only and not those of southwest airlines and or airtran airlines.
 
tphuang
Posts: 3104
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:04 pm

Re: LAX moves forward with plans for Terminal 0 and 9

Fri Apr 05, 2019 7:02 pm

Given that LAX is a huge bloodbath for all carriers involved. Compare the west coast yields to east cost stuff, it's quite startling. Why are carriers to eager to sink money into LAX and how much is each gate worth to the big 4 airlines?

btw, California is definitely not WN's biggest and most lucrative market. That would be Texas+area around there and it's not close.
 
ScottB
Posts: 6610
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2000 1:25 am

Re: LAX moves forward with plans for Terminal 0 and 9

Fri Apr 05, 2019 9:26 pm

tphuang wrote:
btw, California is definitely not WN's biggest and most lucrative market. That would be Texas+area around there and it's not close.


Nope. California is by far their largest market. While the two largest stations in Texas (DAL & HOU) are bigger than the largest in California (LAX), #3 in Texas (AUS) is smaller than OAK, SAN, SJC, and SMF. WN's operation at relatively small ONT is bigger than MAF, LBB, AMA, HRL, and CRP combined.

WN used to disclose regional breakdowns for their traffic; the last one I can find is from 2009 and their "West" region (CA/NV/AZ/UT/CO) accounted for 38% of their business that year. The "Southwest" region (Texas and bordering states) was 14% of capacity. And this was before DEN had grown as large as it is today.

Going by the BTS numbers for 2018, WN had 55.2 million passengers at its 10 California airports. At their 10 Texas airports, they had 39.4 million passengers. Adding in the adjacent states (LA, AR, OK, NM) would only be another 10.2 million so even with those included, the WN "Heartland" is still smaller than California alone.
 
JHwk
Posts: 560
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2013 2:11 am

Re: LAX moves forward with plans for Terminal 0 and 9

Fri Apr 05, 2019 11:48 pm

aklrno wrote:
3. The fill required to turn the parking lot next to T1 into the T0 ramp boggles my mind. Not hundred of truckload, not thousands. Maybe 100,000 truckloads done over a year or so? My rough guess is between 200,000 and 300,000 cubic yards (for the rest of the world that's 152,000-230,000 cubic meters). Where do they get that much fill nearby? Usually projects this size are done in concert with another project that has excess dirt to get rid of. My first guess would be the hills west of the runways, but that is protected butterfly habitat. Maybe the commercial project scheduled north of RWY 24R? The EIR will be interesting where it describes the construction impact on nearby roads. Hope they don't plan on using Sepulveda Blvd. or I-415 to move that dirt! Maybe they should put part of the new rental car and transportation hubs slightly underground to reduce the visual impact and provide the fill.

There is a big pile of sand on the northwest corner of Chevron from the Hyperion re-powering, and there is some excess on the airport property in various corners. But, I imagine they are going to ultimately need to do something with extending the Sepulveda tunnel which should give back quite a bit of dirt...
 
tphuang
Posts: 3104
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:04 pm

Re: LAX moves forward with plans for Terminal 0 and 9

Sat Apr 06, 2019 1:13 am

ScottB wrote:
tphuang wrote:
btw, California is definitely not WN's biggest and most lucrative market. That would be Texas+area around there and it's not close.


Nope. California is by far their largest market. While the two largest stations in Texas (DAL & HOU) are bigger than the largest in California (LAX), #3 in Texas (AUS) is smaller than OAK, SAN, SJC, and SMF. WN's operation at relatively small ONT is bigger than MAF, LBB, AMA, HRL, and CRP combined.

WN used to disclose regional breakdowns for their traffic; the last one I can find is from 2009 and their "West" region (CA/NV/AZ/UT/CO) accounted for 38% of their business that year. The "Southwest" region (Texas and bordering states) was 14% of capacity. And this was before DEN had grown as large as it is today.

Going by the BTS numbers for 2018, WN had 55.2 million passengers at its 10 California airports. At their 10 Texas airports, they had 39.4 million passengers. Adding in the adjacent states (LA, AR, OK, NM) would only be another 10.2 million so even with those included, the WN "Heartland" is still smaller than California alone.


I wasn't referring to the largest part, but the lucrative part. The intra-texas stuff makes more money than the entire California operation. No joke here.
 
ScottB
Posts: 6610
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2000 1:25 am

Re: LAX moves forward with plans for Terminal 0 and 9

Sat Apr 06, 2019 2:30 am

tphuang wrote:
I wasn't referring to the largest part, but the lucrative part. The intra-texas stuff makes more money than the entire California operation. No joke here.


I agree that intra-Texas O&D margins, at least in markets they serve non-stop, are higher. But the O&D traffic numbers are much, much lower in Texas. WN carries more O&D passengers between SAN & SMF than in any of their Texas markets and they're very nicely profitable at a yield north of $0.25/mile. The Texas markets rely on more connecting traffic and that's lower-yield.
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 12400
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: LAX moves forward with plans for Terminal 0 and 9

Sat Apr 06, 2019 4:39 am

B747forever wrote:
LAX772LR wrote:
B747forever wrote:
If you want to compare only true metal flights, then DL as 2nd doesn't have a stronger long haul network with CDG, AMS, SYD, HND and PVG. Note the glaring lack of flights to LHR.

What are you talking about? VS operates 2-3 daily (depending on season) metal neutral flights to LHR with DL at LAX.

DL and metal-neutral j/v partners serve CDG, LHR, AMS, FCO, SYD, MEL, BNE, HND, PVG, ICN and soon MAN from LAX.... the same number as what you listed for UA, et al.

Read my whole post again and I am sure you will figure it out.

I'm aware you're talking about DL in a vacuum in terms of LHR, but such is not the real world... hence, again, what are you talking about with such a pointless comparison?



tphuang wrote:
Given that LAX is a huge bloodbath for all carriers involved. Compare the west coast yields to east cost stuff, it's quite startling. Why are carriers to eager to sink money into LAX and how much is each gate worth to the big 4 airlines?

Because you're only looking at it from one direction:
"is it worth it to compete so aggressively there?"

The answer is from the opposite angle:
"can they afford to NOT compete aggressively there?"
...and by the airlines' actions, you see that the answer is a resounding "no."

The heart of the southern California business market is so intertwined into that one gateway (quite unlike New York, but similar to New England) and to not be competitive for corporate traffic there has a knock-on effect for airlines' entire network.

That goes for even the LoCos and ULCCs too:
even in its strictest days of avoiding large gateways, WN never dreamed of deserting LAX as its primary west coast gateway, in favor of their buildups of the peripheral gateways.

B6 tried that, via LGB, yet had to build their LAX presence once they decided to be a greater force in the transcon market. NK and SY, similar.


tphuang wrote:
btw, California is definitely not WN's biggest and most lucrative market. That would be Texas+area around there and it's not close.

That would be 100% incorrect.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
dampfnudel
Posts: 412
Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2006 9:42 am

Re: LAX moves forward with plans for Terminal 0 and 9

Sat Apr 06, 2019 4:49 am

I can’t imagine them calling it terminal 0.
A313 332 343 B703 712 722 732 73G 738 739 741 742 744 752 762 76E 764 772 AT5 CR9 D10 DHH DHT F27 GRM L10 M83 TU5

AA AI CO CL DE DL EA HA KL LH N7 PA PQ SK RO TW UA YR
 
User avatar
UPlog
Posts: 379
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2018 5:45 am

Re: LAX moves forward with plans for Terminal 0 and 9

Sat Apr 06, 2019 5:01 am

tphuang wrote:
Given that LAX is a huge bloodbath for all carriers involved. Compare the west coast yields to east cost stuff, it's quite startling. Why are carriers to eager to sink money into LAX and how much is each gate worth to the big 4 airlines?


Airlines can’t afford not to have a decent presence in SoCal, the second largest US travel market, and LAX is the heart of this as the worlds biggest O&D airport.

As I once heard Delta exec speak about LA following one of their many failures and cutbacks, not serving LAX with a relative decent offering of flights hurt DL in other markets as now all of a sudden they did not have a competitive offering for corporate customers and consumers that wanted to access LA.
Being something at LAX was critical for them even if they might never win over LA locals for sake of serving their customers in other key markets.
 
B747forever
Posts: 13770
Joined: Mon May 21, 2007 9:50 pm

Re: LAX moves forward with plans for Terminal 0 and 9

Sat Apr 06, 2019 7:20 am

LAX772LR wrote:
B747forever wrote:
LAX772LR wrote:
What are you talking about? VS operates 2-3 daily (depending on season) metal neutral flights to LHR with DL at LAX.

DL and metal-neutral j/v partners serve CDG, LHR, AMS, FCO, SYD, MEL, BNE, HND, PVG, ICN and soon MAN from LAX.... the same number as what you listed for UA, et al.

Read my whole post again and I am sure you will figure it out.

I'm aware you're talking about DL in a vacuum in terms of LHR, but such is not the real world... hence, again, what are you talking about with such a pointless comparison?



Again, this is what I wrote in my post

UA serve PVG and not PEK. Anyway, you can add AKL, HND, FRA, MUC, ZRH and VIE to those 5. The JV partner flights with NZ, ANA and LH group are metal neutral, so UA does serve those destinations. Quite a respectable long haul operation by UA at LAX.


If you want to compare only true metal flights, then DL as 2nd doesn't have a stronger long haul network with CDG, AMS, SYD, HND and PVG. Note the glaring lack of flights to LHR.


So what is it that you don't get? In the first paragraph I try to point out that UA's long haul network is not weak from LAX when one considers all JV destinations, which in my opinion should always be considered. Then, in the second paragraph I just compare the long haul destinations served with one's own metal between DL and UA to show that UA is not THAT weak at LAX when DL as 2nd largest carrier by market share has the same amount of destinations as UA (5), and arguably UA serve more important destinations with especially LHR in their LAX network which is not operated by DL metal. And no, you dont have to point out the existing metal neutral JV flights with VS, as I compare destinations operated by each carriers own metal.

Hope it is clearer for you now. Oh, and try to tell pilots/cabin crew at respective carrier that the whole counting of true own metal operated flights is pointless.
Work Hard, Fly Right
 
mantistobogn
Posts: 24
Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2016 9:13 am

Re: LAX moves forward with plans for Terminal 0 and 9

Sat Apr 06, 2019 8:11 am

ScottB wrote:
Honestly, LAX isn't even that bad for I-D connections. You have to re-clear TSA no matter what, so the lack of sterile connectors between the terminals isn't much of a hassle; the weather is usually nice in L.A. as well so walking outside wouldn't be that terrible apart from the choking exhaust fumes from all the traffic on World Way. And even the longest walk is comparable to something like a connection between G20 and D3 at MSP.


You mean the 3' wide sidewalks, all while trying to dodge clueless passengers that are buried in their phones?

LAX is not a bad airport if you don't have to leave your terminal to catch a connection or if you have to leave the airport entirely (and not return). Otherwise, it's a complete monstrosity that LAWA keeps applying lipstick to.
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 12400
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: LAX moves forward with plans for Terminal 0 and 9

Sat Apr 06, 2019 8:32 am

B747forever wrote:
So what is it that you don't get?

The exact part that was communicated to you:
What you present is not a representation of breath of (either) airline's command of the traffic partners for that market, thus what is the point in pretending that there's some comparative variance between the two.


B747forever wrote:
Oh, and try to tell pilots/cabin crew at respective carrier that the whole counting of true own metal operated flights is pointless.

...why bother, when the clauses in the airlines' j/v agreements do that for me.


mantistobogn wrote:
LAX is not a bad airport if you don't have to leave your terminal to catch a connection

Which only actually applies to T1, as all of the other terminals now have airside connection options to the entirety of the airport; with most offering a motorized shuttle or reasonable-length tunnel-walk to TBIT, as well.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
blockski
Posts: 511
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 8:30 pm

Re: LAX moves forward with plans for Terminal 0 and 9

Sat Apr 06, 2019 11:38 am

dampfnudel wrote:
I can’t imagine them calling it terminal 0.


None of the documents call it “Terminal 0,” they all refer to Concourse 0, which would expand the facilities of Terminal 1. The concourse wouldn’t have any new curbside space.
 
tphuang
Posts: 3104
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:04 pm

Re: LAX moves forward with plans for Terminal 0 and 9

Sat Apr 06, 2019 12:04 pm

ScottB wrote:
tphuang wrote:
I wasn't referring to the largest part, but the lucrative part. The intra-texas stuff makes more money than the entire California operation. No joke here.


I agree that intra-Texas O&D margins, at least in markets they serve non-stop, are higher. But the O&D traffic numbers are much, much lower in Texas. WN carries more O&D passengers between SAN & SMF than in any of their Texas markets and they're very nicely profitable at a yield north of $0.25/mile. The Texas markets rely on more connecting traffic and that's lower-yield.


I don't know where you got your profit number for SAN-SMF. From Q1-Q3 of this year, that route has average non-stop fare of $125 with 82% LF. That's definitely below system average for WN even when factor in mostly O&D. Based on my model, the 3 most money loosing route for WN from Q1 to Q3 were LAX-SFO/SJC/OAK and LAX-LAS/SMF are not too far behind in losses. Not a joke. West coast market is significantly lower yielding than Texas for WN. It's not close. DAL/HOU/AUS/SAT is a huge money making machine. It's as high margin as anything we have domestically.

Airlines can’t afford not to have a decent presence in SoCal, the second largest US travel market, and LAX is the heart of this as the worlds biggest O&D airport.

As I once heard Delta exec speak about LA following one of their many failures and cutbacks, not serving LAX with a relative decent offering of flights hurt DL in other markets as now all of a sudden they did not have a competitive offering for corporate customers and consumers that wanted to access LA.
Being something at LAX was critical for them even if they might never win over LA locals for sake of serving their customers in other key markets.

That's fine. I don't think airlines that are sinking money into LAX expect to be profitable short term there on just flights themselves. But the question is how much is too much. Given that it is very expensive to get additional gates at LAX, what is too much for real estate that is basically added to keep up with everyone else?

At what point, does one of the big 4 say this is not worth it anymore. I'm happy with my x% market share, I will let other airlines to keep adding.
 
AirFiero
Posts: 1323
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2013 11:43 pm

Re: LAX moves forward with plans for Terminal 0 and 9

Sat Apr 06, 2019 4:43 pm

tphuang wrote:
I don't know where you got your profit number for SAN-SMF. From Q1-Q3 of this year, that route has average non-stop fare of $125 with 82% LF. That's definitely below system average for WN even when factor in mostly O&D. Based on my model, the 3 most money loosing route for WN from Q1 to Q3 were LAX-SFO/SJC/OAK and LAX-LAS/SMF are not too far behind in losses. Not a joke. West coast market is significantly lower yielding than Texas for WN. It's not close. DAL/HOU/AUS/SAT is a huge money making machine. It's as high margin as anything we have domestically.


So your numbers tell you that all those routes are not simply low profit, but actual money *losers*?
 
red66mustang
Posts: 43
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2016 3:49 am

Re: LAX moves forward with plans for Terminal 0 and 9

Sat Apr 06, 2019 5:06 pm

tphuang wrote:

I don't know where you got your profit number for SAN-SMF. From Q1-Q3 of this year, that route has average non-stop fare of $125 with 82% LF. That's definitely below system average for WN even when factor in mostly O&D.


When you consider that the frequency on SAN-SMF is +12x (currently 14x) daily with multiple frequencies on a 73H and 82% BLF at that average fare is respectable even if it’s below the system average. There is clearly tons of demand for that market and WN seems to be feeding it.
 
dampfnudel
Posts: 412
Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2006 9:42 am

Re: LAX moves forward with plans for Terminal 0 and 9

Sat Apr 06, 2019 5:50 pm

blockski wrote:
dampfnudel wrote:
I can’t imagine them calling it terminal 0.


None of the documents call it “Terminal 0,” they all refer to Concourse 0, which would expand the facilities of Terminal 1. The concourse wouldn’t have any new curbside space.

That makes sense. Thanks.
A313 332 343 B703 712 722 732 73G 738 739 741 742 744 752 762 76E 764 772 AT5 CR9 D10 DHH DHT F27 GRM L10 M83 TU5

AA AI CO CL DE DL EA HA KL LH N7 PA PQ SK RO TW UA YR
 
questions
Posts: 1984
Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2011 4:51 am

Re: LAX moves forward with plans for Terminal 0 and 9

Sat Apr 06, 2019 6:50 pm

LAXintl wrote:
Renderings

Terminal 9

Image
.
Image


T9 looks like the Star Alliance International Terminal (SAIT).
 
MSPNWA
Posts: 3338
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 2:48 am

Re: LAX moves forward with plans for Terminal 0 and 9

Sat Apr 06, 2019 7:50 pm

I'm very torn on the announcement. More room and a new T9 is nice, but it won't fix the inherent issues LAX brings to the O&D and connecting passenger. We'll still deal with congested, inefficient facilities. I know it would be a lot of work, but it's disappointing that the midfield route isn't the long-term plan.

ScottB wrote:
Honestly, LAX isn't even that bad for I-D connections. You have to re-clear TSA no matter what, so the lack of sterile connectors between the terminals isn't much of a hassle; the weather is usually nice in L.A. as well so walking outside wouldn't be that terrible apart from the choking exhaust fumes from all the traffic on World Way. And even the longest walk is comparable to something like a connection between G20 and D3 at MSP.

It's about the same walk length (plus short tram ride) from G20 to D3 as it is from about the entrance of TBIT and the rotunda in T4 (about as good as it gets at LAX).

In other words, I-D at LAX is bad. Very bad.
 
tphuang
Posts: 3104
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:04 pm

Re: LAX moves forward with plans for Terminal 0 and 9

Sat Apr 06, 2019 8:53 pm

AirFiero wrote:
tphuang wrote:
I don't know where you got your profit number for SAN-SMF. From Q1-Q3 of this year, that route has average non-stop fare of $125 with 82% LF. That's definitely below system average for WN even when factor in mostly O&D. Based on my model, the 3 most money loosing route for WN from Q1 to Q3 were LAX-SFO/SJC/OAK and LAX-LAS/SMF are not too far behind in losses. Not a joke. West coast market is significantly lower yielding than Texas for WN. It's not close. DAL/HOU/AUS/SAT is a huge money making machine. It's as high margin as anything we have domestically.


So your numbers tell you that all those routes are not simply low profit, but actual money *losers*?


I basically have yield, I adjust for the aircraft used, so 700 vs 800 would be different obviously. And then I do some estimate based on distance and yield for other routes, what the expected yield for a system average route is. And then I further adjust based on the overall WN margin to get a sense of the margin of the route and then I can get the profitability based on capacity from that. LAX routes have a lot of capacity, so that's why they show up badly in some cases.
 
User avatar
Aisak
Posts: 850
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 10:56 pm

Re: LAX moves forward with plans for Terminal 0 and 9

Sat Apr 06, 2019 9:46 pm

MSPNWA wrote:
I'm very torn on the announcement. More room and a new T9 is nice, but it won't fix the inherent issues LAX brings to the O&D and connecting passenger. We'll still deal with congested, inefficient facilities.


Well, I have only used LAX as an arrival passenger, but I was shocked about how bad traffic was just outside of TBIT. Let’s hope the new people mover will improve things a little by taking large chunks of people AWAY from the most congested area of the U-shaped road connecting the terminals. That’s what a public mass transport should do but who knows.

About connecting passengers, I remember how horrible LHR was about a decade ago. The opening of new T5 allowed to have enough free space to move airlines around, bring alliances (not just OW, Star, Sky) close together so connecting passengers (and baggage, let's not forget) did not have to walk longer changing terminals than flying. Numbers of missing connections and mishandled baggage have improved greatly since then, even more since the unification os Star carriers from T1/T3 wholly into a new T2.

Having TBIT north for Intl Skyteam and DL T2-3 so close and those building connected airside, means domestic passengers connecting won’t have to reclear security, meaning less time involved, less TSA workload at the checkpoint, less security lines, less cost, and less chance of missed connections as distances are shortened (and baggage would arrive at the departing plane earlier)

Same on AA and oneworld with TBIT south and T4-5. Previous distances ( and procedures) from Eagle Nest to T6, T4 and TBIT were something hard to dealt with.

As TBIT can’t have a third side then it makes sense UA, the smaller domestic partner of all three global alliances, to be “cornered” at T7-8 with its own FIS for them and all Star partners physically fitting there.

LAX might be a messy airport right now, but at least LAWA is following the path towards making it better.
Last edited by Aisak on Sat Apr 06, 2019 9:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
airplaneboy
Posts: 678
Joined: Sat May 15, 2004 11:59 am

Re: LAX moves forward with plans for Terminal 0 and 9

Sat Apr 06, 2019 9:47 pm

Although LAX is a saturated market on the domestic side, I imagine WN will try and secure as many of the new gates in concourse 0 as possible. Real estate is limited in this market, and there may not be an opportunity to expand real estate here for decades to come. As the number 4 domestic carrier at LAX, I think WN’s turn to gain additional gates has come (considering the Big 3 have all gained additional gates in the last few years). Fingers crossed that they are successful in securing preferential/exclusive access to all of concourse 0.
 
jplatts
Posts: 2712
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2017 6:42 pm

Re: LAX moves forward with plans for Terminal 0 and 9

Sat Apr 06, 2019 9:51 pm

airplaneboy wrote:
Although LAX is a saturated market on the domestic side, I imagine WN will try and secure as many of the new gates in concourse 0 as possible. Real estate is limited in this market, and there may not be an opportunity to expand real estate here for decades to come. As the number 4 domestic carrier at LAX, I think WN’s turn to gain additional gates has come (considering the Big 3 have all gained additional gates in the last few years). Fingers crossed that they are successful in securing preferential/exclusive access to all of concourse 0.


There are some more nonstop routes such as LAX-CLE, LAX-CMH, LAX-HNL, LAX-OGG, LAX-KOA, LAX-MCO, LAX-RDU, LAX-SEA, and LAX-IAD that could be added by WN at LAX.
 
User avatar
janders
Moderator
Posts: 845
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2017 4:27 pm

Re: LAX moves forward with plans for Terminal 0 and 9

Sat Apr 06, 2019 10:00 pm

tphuang wrote:
That's fine. I don't think airlines that are sinking money into LAX expect to be profitable short term there on just flights themselves. But the question is how much is too much. Given that it is very expensive to get additional gates at LAX, what is too much for real estate that is basically added to keep up with everyone else?

At what point, does one of the big 4 say this is not worth it anymore. I'm happy with my x% market share, I will let other airlines to keep adding.


Airlines will continue sinking money into LAX so long as their competitors do.

As previously mentioned by a few posters, an airline cannot afford to ignore the market not only because of the large pool of local demand within the region, but its also a very important inbound market for both business and leisure demand from other portions of their network.

LA basin is after all one of the worlds top economic centers. (On GDP basis its the worlds 3rd largest in 2017 https://financesonline.com/10-wealthies ... t-the-top/ )
Last edited by janders on Sat Apr 06, 2019 10:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"We make war that we may live in peace." -- Aristotle
 
User avatar
VirginFlyer
Posts: 5241
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2000 12:27 pm

Re: LAX moves forward with plans for Terminal 0 and 9

Sat Apr 06, 2019 10:05 pm

Noise wrote:
I think an ideal design for LAX would be one of these two:
1) a SIN style design, with two linear and parallel terminals
2) an ATL/new SLC design with parallel concourses leading to the main terminal.

In many ways though they are transforming it into something akin to SIN, which is two linear parallel terminals with some piers (2 and 3) with a third terminal (1) at the end of the road. Granted, LAX will be less polished and more of a hodge-podge than SIN, but effectively you will end up a couple of terminals either side (1 and 2/3 on the north, 4/5/6 and 7/8/9 on the south) with one at the end (TBIT). As in SIN, it appears it will eventually be possible to transit airside between all the concourses. Perhaps in future an automated airside transit system (perhaps using the same technology as the landside automated people mover) could be added to further increase connectivity, though given the amount of transit traffic between the terminal groups may not be great, perhaps that won’t be necessary.

V/F
It is not for him to pride himself who loveth his own country, but rather for him who loveth the whole world. The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens. —Bahá'u'lláh
 
grbauc
Posts: 1424
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2015 9:05 pm

Re: LAX moves forward with plans for Terminal 0 and 9

Sat Apr 06, 2019 10:17 pm

tphuang wrote:
sounds like good news to WN and UA unless I'm missing something here.


Good for all not just wn an ua. All airlines will most likely benifit from these additions if they happen and when they finally do.
 
grbauc
Posts: 1424
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2015 9:05 pm

Re: LAX moves forward with plans for Terminal 0 and 9

Sat Apr 06, 2019 10:19 pm

9w748capt wrote:
Oh great - as if traffic at LAX could get any worse! Are they really going to call it concourse 0? That just sounds funny.



LAX is always seemingly underconstruction of some sort and traffic is always bad, so yea any improvements are welcomed are should be.
 
User avatar
UPlog
Posts: 379
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2018 5:45 am

Re: LAX moves forward with plans for Terminal 0 and 9

Sat Apr 06, 2019 10:21 pm

Growth at LAX surprised regional planners and forcing them to update their projections.



LAX expectations outpaced by gains

Passenger traffic at Los Angeles International Airport has grown so fast over the last few years that it caught regional planning organization off guard and requiring them to substantially up projections, saying the facility could add more than 20 million annual passengers over the next decade.
The Southern California Association of Governments is set to release later this year a new forecast that projects the airport located in the City of Los Angeles will handle 106 million annual passengers by 2027 - one year before the Summer Olympic Games.



http://labusinessjournal.com/accounts/l ... ced-gains/
 
grbauc
Posts: 1424
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2015 9:05 pm

Re: LAX moves forward with plans for Terminal 0 and 9

Sat Apr 06, 2019 10:31 pm

dcaproducer wrote:
NorthernPyro wrote:
IMO LAX really needs a complete rebuild with less/larger terminals. But I understand that there just isn't the money for it.


I agree. Bulldoze the entire thing and rebuild. But since that isn't going to happen...
LAX is going to remain a very space constrained airport. The terminals are tight. The roadways are packed. I echo the other comments about the traffic around the airport being impacted by this construction.



It's always impacted and bad at busy times. All these improvments keep helping a bit at a time. Since Southern Ca has decided that LAX is going to be the one main airport and not others, improve it all we can under the constraints we have.
 
grbauc
Posts: 1424
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2015 9:05 pm

Re: LAX moves forward with plans for Terminal 0 and 9

Sat Apr 06, 2019 10:38 pm

727200 wrote:
So both AA and Dl cannot be too happy that WN and UA are getting 11 and 12 gates added to their existing ones. Now that this is out, I would imagine that both will be complaining they are geographically restricted from additional expansion and need more gates to compete. 3...2....1


How does everyone know there getting WN/UA all the new gates?

Jumping the gun here maybe? These gates will help with all the musical chairs that are and will continue to happen at LAX and until it's announced its not likely imop. Unless there footing the full bill (and it's possible) we won't know.
 
grbauc
Posts: 1424
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2015 9:05 pm

Re: LAX moves forward with plans for Terminal 0 and 9

Sun Apr 07, 2019 12:10 am

ldvaviation wrote:
727200 wrote:
So both AA and Dl cannot be too happy that WN and UA are getting 11 and 12 gates added to their existing ones. Now that this is out, I would imagine that both will be complaining they are geographically restricted from additional expansion and need more gates to compete. 3...2....1


WN and UA are not getting that many gates.

LAWA awards additional gates in proportion to current market share and revenue ops. UA's market share does not justify having as many gates as AA or DL.

What appeared today were conceptual studies. There are no specific airlines associated with these facilities. Let's wait and see how much it all costs. T9 itself looks like a $1B + project. United has been reluctant to spend that kind of money at IAD.

Once the true costs are known, let's see who lines up to pay for the construction. Financially and operationally, T9 may only make sense as a common use facility (United+partners or United+other airlines).

As to AA and DL, they have already signed new leases which grant them new gates. If I remember correctly, DL up to 28 (shared with partners) and AA up to 33. In both cases, the award of new gates is contingent on their spending over $1.5B on terminal renovations. Both expect to complete their renovations and have most of their new gates by 2028.

On the other hand, I doubt construction begins on T0 or T9 before 2024 or even 2028. If it stays within its current capital spending limits, LAWA has about $1.8B left to spend between now and 2028. Given the facts on the ground, it makes more sense for LAWA to move forward now with the MSC South Concourse.



thank you for this post I should’ve waited and read this first before I replied to others. I see this project far off and I definitely agree that there is no way that Southwest and United are getting all those gates.
 
727200
Posts: 633
Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2017 5:31 pm

Re: LAX moves forward with plans for Terminal 0 and 9

Sun Apr 07, 2019 12:14 am

Uh, unless the smaller airlines can afford to shoulder the cost of T0 and T9, along with all their other debt obligations, it will be SW and UA.
 
grbauc
Posts: 1424
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2015 9:05 pm

Re: LAX moves forward with plans for Terminal 0 and 9

Sun Apr 07, 2019 12:17 am

DL717 wrote:
NorthernPyro wrote:
IMO LAX really needs a complete rebuild with less/larger terminals. But I understand that there just isn't the money for it.


This, but they killed it when they put the TBIT expansion where it is. They should have built fully to the west with tunnels to get there with a central core around the old tower and gone full Atlanta on the layout. Start with the fuel fart at the far west and work back. They’re stuck now with billions sunk in bandaids on old facilities that choke efficiency.

A lot of airports have been handicapped with poor layouts from a different era and only a few are getting new layouts that overcome the decisions of the past, like La Guardia. Yes, it’s expensive as hell to basically start over, but the life cycle of a Terminal is about 50-years and compounding 50-year old problems with new problems will get you nowhere.



I 100% agree Atlanta like would probably of been the best. I believe it was the runways that needed to be moved what’s the issue with the NIMBYs
 
grbauc
Posts: 1424
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2015 9:05 pm

Re: LAX moves forward with plans for Terminal 0 and 9

Sun Apr 07, 2019 12:45 am

PSAatSAN4Ever wrote:
Image

The LAX In & Out is safe.

I imagine that ambulance-chasing attorneys are already salivating at the thought of "Citizens for Responsible Airport Planning" (CRAP, or whatever name they want to call themselves) lining up at their doors to represent them in their 'noble' attempt to save their neighborhoods from the evil LAX and its expansion plans that will destroy their way of life and kill of their children. I know the agreement that has limited LAX to a certain number of gates will have to be modified, and then the court - and media - battles will begin.


The Olympics are the reasoning and hope for political capital to get this done it seems.
 
AirFiero
Posts: 1323
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2013 11:43 pm

Re: LAX moves forward with plans for Terminal 0 and 9

Sun Apr 07, 2019 5:31 am

tphuang wrote:
AirFiero wrote:
tphuang wrote:
I don't know where you got your profit number for SAN-SMF. From Q1-Q3 of this year, that route has average non-stop fare of $125 with 82% LF. That's definitely below system average for WN even when factor in mostly O&D. Based on my model, the 3 most money loosing route for WN from Q1 to Q3 were LAX-SFO/SJC/OAK and LAX-LAS/SMF are not too far behind in losses. Not a joke. West coast market is significantly lower yielding than Texas for WN. It's not close. DAL/HOU/AUS/SAT is a huge money making machine. It's as high margin as anything we have domestically.


So your numbers tell you that all those routes are not simply low profit, but actual money *losers*?


I basically have yield, I adjust for the aircraft used, so 700 vs 800 would be different obviously. And then I do some estimate based on distance and yield for other routes, what the expected yield for a system average route is. And then I further adjust based on the overall WN margin to get a sense of the margin of the route and then I can get the profitability based on capacity from that. LAX routes have a lot of capacity, so that's why they show up badly in some cases.


Thanks for the detailed explanation. Your work is appreciated.

I’m just astonished.
 
golfingboy
Posts: 46
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2008 5:03 pm

Re: LAX moves forward with plans for Terminal 0 and 9

Sun Apr 07, 2019 1:52 pm

As someone who used to call LAX my home airport - I am very disappointed with this plan. I had high hopes with the direction LAX was going with TBIT and MSC hopeful that they will continue the trend of building out more parallel terminals out to the west (a la ATL) and once they have enough built out they would start rebuilding the core terminals from the ground up. Yes this would be expensive and take several decades to achieve, but this was really the best long term solution IMHO.

Methinks this move has more to do with preparing for the 2028 Olympics than building out LAX for the long term.
 
User avatar
spinotter
Posts: 561
Joined: Wed May 27, 2015 1:37 am

Re: LAX moves forward with plans for Terminal 0 and 9

Sun Apr 07, 2019 3:43 pm

dampfnudel wrote:
I can’t imagine them calling it terminal 0.


I wish they would name it T0 - after all zero if a perfectly good number. But why is it that some of the abbreviations in this thread are T9, but C0 instead of T0? Does that mean Concourse Zero of Terminal 1?
 
User avatar
malaysia
Posts: 2642
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 1999 3:26 am

Re: LAX moves forward with plans for Terminal 0 and 9

Sun Apr 07, 2019 7:47 pm

I fly out of LAX a bit on Southwest, They renovated T1 and even the outside, but I hear that UA did renovate its terminal inside and a new club, but they never bothered with the exterior? looks likw the same old terminal and does not blend well with the club building. T6 looks same age too. What are those extended bars for on the sides of the old concourses? were they originally lights? why do they keep them if they are never on? looks like an eyesore. I would cut them out to make the old terminals at least look a little smoother?
There Are Those Who Believe That There May Yet Be Other Airlines Who Even Now Fight To Survive Beyond The Heavens

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos