Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
Newark727
Posts: 2358
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 6:42 pm

Re: Why is LAX so dominant in the LA Region?

Sun May 09, 2021 1:35 am

flyPIT wrote:
A few comments were made about the Palmdale jetport idea from the 1960s. Here is a basic rendering from that proposal.

Image


Interesting, I had no idea they wanted a whole new set of runways. Also that for all the new construction in Southern California since then, that whole area is still pretty empty.
 
cynlb
Posts: 107
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2018 3:49 pm

Re: Why is LAX so dominant in the LA Region?

Sun May 09, 2021 1:39 am

LCDFlight wrote:
1. The Californians SNL skit is what this reminds me of .

Here you go -
https://youtu.be/zIklKPzND20

I'd say for many areas east of the 605 freeway (i.e. the eastern San Gabriel Valley) then ONT is a comparable distance to LAX. It would definitely help if the Metro L line (gold line) was extended ONT.
Something else to think about is when traffic going into LAX returns to pre-pandemic levels. I remember it could take as much as 45 minutes from the time you exited the 105 to the time you finally get to your terminal during peak traffic
Last edited by cynlb on Sun May 09, 2021 1:55 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
airplaneboy
Posts: 786
Joined: Sat May 15, 2004 11:59 am

Re: Why is LAX so dominant in the LA Region?

Sun May 09, 2021 1:52 am

cynlb wrote:
LCDFlight wrote:
1. The Californians SNL skit is what this reminds me of .

Here you go -
https://youtu.be/zIklKPzND20

I'd say for many areas east of the 605 freeway (i.e. the eastern San Gabriel Valley) then ONT is a comparable distance to LAX.
Something else to think about is when traffic going into LAX returns to pre-pandemic levels. I remember it could take as much as 45 minutes from the time you exited the 105 to the time you finally get to your terminal during peak traffic


Pre-pandemic LAX traffic has returned during peak times. There are times when Sepulveda is bumper to bumper from the 105 — and Century — all the way to the horseshoe.
 
cynlb
Posts: 107
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2018 3:49 pm

Re: Why is LAX so dominant in the LA Region?

Sun May 09, 2021 2:01 am

airplaneboy wrote:
cynlb wrote:
LCDFlight wrote:
1. The Californians SNL skit is what this reminds me of .

Here you go -
https://youtu.be/zIklKPzND20

I'd say for many areas east of the 605 freeway (i.e. the eastern San Gabriel Valley) then ONT is a comparable distance to LAX.
Something else to think about is when traffic going into LAX returns to pre-pandemic levels. I remember it could take as much as 45 minutes from the time you exited the 105 to the time you finally get to your terminal during peak traffic


Pre-pandemic LAX traffic has returned during peak times. There are times when Sepulveda is bumper to bumper from the 105 — and Century — all the way to the horseshoe.


Yikes, often referred to as the "horseshoe of hell" and for good reason
Last edited by cynlb on Sun May 09, 2021 2:15 am, edited 5 times in total.
 
N649DL
Posts: 1143
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2018 10:21 pm

Re: Why is LAX so dominant in the LA Region?

Sun May 09, 2021 2:03 am

LAXLHR wrote:
DCA350 wrote:
Before I'm lambasted, I'm generally curious. LA is the second largest Metro in the country, but LAX completely dwarfs all the other regional airports combined.. I look at places like NYC which spreads traffic across three airports in a more condensed airspace, same with my home area of DC. Even in South Florida where MIA is the major player, FLL handles a good chunk of the area's demand. LA traffic is a nightmare, yet people seemingly have no problem coming from all over the region to LAX.

I guess my question is why none of the other airports developed into a real viable secondary option.. LGB would seemingly be the perfect FLL/BWI style airport with proper investment. Is it regulations or are people simply satisfied with the status quo?


LAWA (LA World Airports) use to own ONT. Based upon many articles that I have ready, in a similar move played by (LHR's BAA which use to own LGW - London's second busiest airport)... they plowed all the money and prestige into the premiere airport. Here being, LAX.

Overall it made it less desirable in numerous ways for carriers to operate from ONT. ONT was sort of left to rot (thanks to LAWA). The carriers quickly accepted this actually made more economical sense for them to operate primarily and sometimes solely from LAX over ONT.

Now to the average person living in the Inland Empire, with a population of over 5 million people (10% approx of the CA population). ...then add in 4-6 million more East of Downtown LA.. ONT should have a massive operation at least domestically. Surely more than one carrier should be flying to Asia (and this was VERY recent, and not daily). The vast majority of the Asian population in LA is East and South of Downtown. I would not expect European carriers to desire such an airport, but Central America should work for sure.

The answer: LAWA

BUR, LGB and SNA speak for themselves. Infrastructure, slots, curfews etc.


I've clocked it driving to Vegas: ONT really isn't close unless you're really inland in L.A. County. Even so, much like BUR or LGB, it requires connections when traveling to the Midwest or East Coast.
 
cynlb
Posts: 107
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2018 3:49 pm

Re: Why is LAX so dominant in the LA Region?

Sun May 09, 2021 2:04 am

cynlb wrote:
Pre-pandemic LAX traffic has returned during peak times. There are times when Sepulveda is bumper to bumper from the 105 — and Century — all the way to the horseshoe.


That's why I prefer LGB
 
atcdan
Posts: 84
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2017 6:52 am

Re: Why is LAX so dominant in the LA Region?

Sun May 09, 2021 2:36 am

Honestly I may be biased since I commute to LAX every day, know how to generally navigate the traffic, and can park for free right at the tower.

All that being true, I think a lot of people coming to and from LA love the location, right by the beach. Within ten minutes driving you’re in Manhattan Beach or Venice, and there are still many companies, studios, etc. located on the west side or closer to LAX than any of the reliever airports. I also, having been flying for 15 years or so,
prefer to fly nonstop, and due to the infrastructure between terminals, runways, and catchment, LAX offers that in spades where reliever airports cannnot.
LAX ATC

All posts are my own opinions and do not represent my employer or any government entity in any way.
 
slcdeltarumd11
Posts: 5114
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2004 7:30 am

Re: Why is LAX so dominant in the LA Region?

Sun May 09, 2021 6:22 am

SNA and LGB have been restricted airports with all slots used (pre covid). LAX is the airport airlines had room to grow at. Also Iax doenst have the space limitations and curfews. LAX because of competition is usually cheaper.
 
rbavfan
Posts: 3781
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2015 5:53 am

Re: Why is LAX so dominant in the LA Region?

Sun May 09, 2021 7:14 am

Brickell305 wrote:
Midwestindy wrote:
DCA350 wrote:
Before I'm lambasted, I'm generally curious. LA is the second largest Metro in the country, but LAX completely dwarfs all the other regional airports combined.. I look at places like NYC which spreads traffic across three airports in a more condensed airspace, same with my home area of DC. Even in South Florida where MIA is the major player, FLL handles a good chunk of the area's demand. LA traffic is a nightmare, yet people seemingly have no problem coming from all over the region to LAX.

I guess my question is why none of the other airports developed into a real viable secondary option.. LGB would seemingly be the perfect FLL/BWI style airport with proper investment. Is it regulations or are people simply satisfied with the status quo?


One random piece with regards to LAX, and I am speaking generally here, but a lot of the business traffic from east of the Mississippi is near LAX.

LAX is close to Century City, Beverly Hills, & Downtown LA where most of the east coast Banking, Real-Estate, Law, e.t.c. have their offices, also all the major aerospace companies including Raytheon, Boeing, Northrop, Space X, e.t.c have large LA offices right next to the airport in El Segundo.

Again speaking generally, I'd say more of the business traffic from west of the Mississippi is more spread out across the LA area, so even ignoring other dynamics at play, I'd say LAX would still receive a lions share of the TransCon & TransOceanic traffic.

With regards to FLL & MIA, FLL & MIA are very close to each other, but you could make a good argument that they are completely different markets.

I think the difference with MIA/FLL and the LA situation has a lot more to do with FLL being a good substitute for MIA as opposed to it being a separate market. FLL has no slot restrictions, no noise restrictions, no perimeter rule, is fairly close to Miami and by being just off I-95 makes Dade county readily accessible for those willing to face a bit more traffic in return for lower fares. That allowed LCCs to flood FLL and make the airport into what it is now. No alternative airport in the LA checks that many boxes. So no, it’s not because FLL and MIA are different markets, it’s because they are indeed fairly interchangeable that makes FLL such a draw.


Good points except that Miami also had no perimeter rule, nor does SNA, ONT, LGB or BUR. They have range limits due to fuel to weight needed.
 
rbavfan
Posts: 3781
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2015 5:53 am

Re: Why is LAX so dominant in the LA Region?

Sun May 09, 2021 7:22 am

Ishrion wrote:
DCA350 wrote:
I guess my question is why none of the other airports developed into a real viable secondary option.. LGB would seemingly be the perfect FLL/BWI style airport with proper investment. Is it regulations or are people simply satisfied with the status quo?


LGB is slot restricted. JetBlue wanted to launch international flights out of LGB, but the city council rejected the plans to create a customs facility at LGB. JetBlue ended up leaving LGB last year and shifted its LA focus city to LAX. Southwest took over most of JetBlue's slots and added new routes to DAL/HNL/OGG and more.

As for other airports near LAX:

- SNA is slot restricted and its short runway can limit some routes.
- BUR is proposing a new terminal, which could lead growth. Currently they're receiving new flights with Avelo.
- ONT a few years ago landed flights on China Airlines to Taipei and they'll soon have flights on Avianca to San Salvador, so they're seeing some international expansion.
- SBD was supposed to have flights on Volaris to Mexico, but nothing actually happened?

LAX on the other hand has the infrastructure and isn't restricted compared to other airports in the area. LAX is starting to become gate restricted, but they're expanding with renovations and the new Midfield Concourse.


BUR would still be limited to only 14 gates. No expansion or gates limits it to the old max capacities.
 
Chemist
Posts: 875
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 4:46 am

Re: Why is LAX so dominant in the LA Region?

Sun May 09, 2021 7:29 am

To correct earlier comments, BUR is closer to downtown Los Angeles than LAX is.
BUR is planning a new terminal, but due to NIMBYs, it is still limited to the 14 gates contained in the old terminal. That limits the BUR commercial traffic opportunities, along with the relatively short runways.

I'm nearer to BUR and always choose it if the fare differences are not too great. Parking at BUR is half the price of LAX and it's a far easier airport to get in and out of.
 
rbavfan
Posts: 3781
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2015 5:53 am

Re: Why is LAX so dominant in the LA Region?

Sun May 09, 2021 8:03 am

UPlog wrote:
PatrickZ80 wrote:
Why can't Ontario be to Los Angeles what Gatwick or Stansted is to London? LAX can free up space by pushing away the ULCCs, that space can then be used for the expansion of legacy airlines who pay better. And the ULCCs can set up shop in Ontario. That's how it works in London, why would Los Angeles be any different?


Because unlike LHR which has extremely limited entry opportunities, LAX is wide-open for anyone to show up and operate. There are no slot issues, gates can be had, and further expansion is taking place.

The money leads to LAX, so airlines opt for it. LA does not need a second choice fallback airports as London has since the primary airport is still very much viable option for anyone that wants to serve - Just look at how JetBlue moved its LGB hub up the road to LAX.


JetBlue moved it's hub due to restrictions at the airport. They would have stayed if they had gotten an FIS facility for international service. The other reason was the fines for flights that arrived late fter hours on their trans con routes. LGB's problem is mostly 1 person on the council that has always hated airlines the queen of the NIMBLY's.
 
rbavfan
Posts: 3781
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2015 5:53 am

Re: Why is LAX so dominant in the LA Region?

Sun May 09, 2021 8:12 am

vhtje wrote:
Cubsrule wrote:
vhtje wrote:
Um... surely Government policy has something to do with this? Even in the US, airports are not entirely free-market driven, after all, despite what some posters on airliners.net would have you believe.


Which government policies exactly?


How the hell should I know? I am not American, nor do I live there. But the fact that Los Angeles World Airports is owned by the City of Los Angeles, tells us that the Government sector is active in airport and traffic policy in the LA area.

Here in the UK, where airports are largely privatised, they are heavily regulated and any expansion or redevelopment is subject to government scrutiny and approval, as well as planning approval. Government has a huge say in how airports can operate. Gatwick, for example, couldn’t, under its own steam, just decide to double in size and overtake Heathrow’s traffic through commercial forces. It would require Government actively making that decision.


Until recently ONT airport was owned by Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA). As they also own LAX. They made sure ONT airport fee's were kept high so it would not siphen off their cash cow fee control at LAX. Leaving ONT as mainly a cargo facility as there are huge warehouse facilities connected to the train lines near ONT airport.
 
rbavfan
Posts: 3781
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2015 5:53 am

Re: Why is LAX so dominant in the LA Region?

Sun May 09, 2021 8:44 am

Chemist wrote:
To correct earlier comments, BUR is closer to downtown Los Angeles than LAX is.
BUR is planning a new terminal, but due to NIMBYs, it is still limited to the 14 gates contained in the old terminal. That limits the BUR commercial traffic opportunities, along with the relatively short runways.

I'm nearer to BUR and always choose it if the fare differences are not too great. Parking at BUR is half the price of LAX and it's a far easier airport to get in and out of.


I'll still pay higher fares to fly into BUR.
 
User avatar
PatrickZ80
Posts: 4524
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:33 am

Re: Why is LAX so dominant in the LA Region?

Sun May 09, 2021 9:25 am

HowardDGA wrote:
The real cultural difference is that, in Manhattan, all but the very richest tend to take the subway. In Los Angeles, all but the very poorest tend to drive. The availability of rail transport is not going to make ONT or Palmdale popular IMHO.


As far as the locals go, that might be true. However at an airport you also got to keep in mind the non-locals, the people for who your city is the destination. Los Angeles sees a significant number of visitors from elsewhere, both tourists and business travelers.

As a matter of fact, a few years ago I visited Los Angeles myself. I live in the Netherlands, all the way in Europe. Los Angeles is not local for me, I had never been there before and I knew nobody there. As a tourist I chose to travel by public transport which appeared to be very convenient in Los Angeles, I still have my tap card. For my stay I had a week unlimited travel pass for $25, this turned out to be the best option.

For me, it wouldn't have made any difference if I would have flown into LAX or Ontario. However the airline happened to fly to LAX, so that's where I went. In a way this was inconvenient because LAX is a way too large airport. As a foreigner with no special status except for ESTA, I spent about 2 hours clearing immigration at TBIT. I guess it's very convenient if you have global entry, however it sucks if you don't. I got the feeling clearing immigration at Ontario would have gone much faster. Then I had to get on the FlyAway bus to get to Union Station which also took about an hour, not really convenient and it added to the cost of the trip. At Union Station I bought the tap card which I used for the remainder of my stay in Los Angeles.

Should my airline have flown into Ontario instead of LAX, I would have cleared immigration much faster. Then I would have taken the shuttle bus to East Ontario Metrolink station and from there on the train to Union Station. In the end, it might even have saved me some time. For the way back I would have taken the same route, only in reverse. Now instead of taking the FlyAway bus, which is not included in the unlimited travel pass from Metro, I decided to take the long route. First the gold line from Heritage Square (near where I stayed) to Union Station, then the red line to 7th Street/Metro Center. From there on the blue line to Willowbrook/Rosa Parks and finally the green line to Aviation/LAX. And last but not least the shuttle bus to the airport. Unlike the FlyAway bus, which would have cost me extra money, this was all included in my unlimited travel pass, but that many changes just to get to the airport is not exactly desirable. I could have gotten to Ontario Airport with fewer changes, however my flight happened to go from LAX. It wasn't my choice, it was the airline's choice and I just had to comply with it.

Renting a car has never been an option, I didn't drive at all during my stay in Los Angeles. Why would I? I guess it's different for locals but like I said, on average about half the passengers at an airport aren't local.
 
WNagent310
Posts: 82
Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2019 12:11 am

Re: Why is LAX so dominant in the LA Region?

Sun May 09, 2021 11:33 am

airplaneboy wrote:
cynlb wrote:
LCDFlight wrote:
1. The Californians SNL skit is what this reminds me of .

Here you go -
https://youtu.be/zIklKPzND20

I'd say for many areas east of the 605 freeway (i.e. the eastern San Gabriel Valley) then ONT is a comparable distance to LAX.
Something else to think about is when traffic going into LAX returns to pre-pandemic levels. I remember it could take as much as 45 minutes from the time you exited the 105 to the time you finally get to your terminal during peak traffic


Pre-pandemic LAX traffic has returned during peak times. There are times when Sepulveda is bumper to bumper from the 105 — and Century — all the way to the horseshoe.


Can confirm this. Work in T1. Get off at 2230 pm and the lower level arrivals horseshoe has been bumper to bumper for weeks now and of recent days the backup has been reaching all the way to the 105 off ramp and into the Sepulveda Tunnel.
 
Cubsrule
Posts: 15050
Joined: Sat May 15, 2004 12:13 pm

Re: Why is LAX so dominant in the LA Region?

Sun May 09, 2021 1:32 pm

rbavfan wrote:
vhtje wrote:
Cubsrule wrote:

Which government policies exactly?


How the hell should I know? I am not American, nor do I live there. But the fact that Los Angeles World Airports is owned by the City of Los Angeles, tells us that the Government sector is active in airport and traffic policy in the LA area.

Here in the UK, where airports are largely privatised, they are heavily regulated and any expansion or redevelopment is subject to government scrutiny and approval, as well as planning approval. Government has a huge say in how airports can operate. Gatwick, for example, couldn’t, under its own steam, just decide to double in size and overtake Heathrow’s traffic through commercial forces. It would require Government actively making that decision.


Until recently ONT airport was owned by Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA). As they also own LAX. They made sure ONT airport fee's were kept high so it would not siphen off their cash cow fee control at LAX. Leaving ONT as mainly a cargo facility as there are huge warehouse facilities connected to the train lines near ONT airport.


Other things being equal, ONT's fees will be higher because there are (many) fewer flights to cover the fixed costs. Do you have some evidence that the fee structure was an effort to prop up LAX?
I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
 
User avatar
janders
Moderator
Posts: 1197
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2017 4:27 pm

Re: Why is LAX so dominant in the LA Region?

Sun May 09, 2021 3:39 pm

A big reason LAX is king is because the other airports (BUR/LGB/SNA) for decades have purposely decided to remain small.

Politicians and voters across the LA basin have repeatedly looked to LAX as the regions air transport hub and rejected growth options at other fields, or concepts like the El Toro conversion in OC.

As far as ONT, lets remember LAWA ended up with the airport by default in the 1960s when City of Ontario defaulted and FAA assumed control. The FAA needed someone to run the field and then created a joint powers authority wth City of LA. Ultimately in 1985 the authority was dissolved and LA City gained "ownership" of the field.

I also believe it's wrong to blame LAWA about the lack of success at ONT. They spent much time (and money) in marketing the airport including the construction of the shiny new terminals over the years. Traffic activity rose steadily, but the 2008-2009 recession which Inland Empire was ground zero for in California knocked the airport down with passenger volumes plunging that had yet to recover pre-COVID.
Instead of LAWA siphoning money away from ONT in favor of LAX, its was really the other way, that the authority had to put more money into ONT than it was generating on its own.

Imo, ONT struggle as a passenger airport has more to do with the population and economic realities that surround it. Its turned out to be a great location for freight thanks to the IEs booming warehouse and industrial activity instead.

Anyhow, personally, I feel LAX does great for the volume of traffic it experiences (4th busiest globally pre-pandemic). It serves the LA basin very well, its operationally efficient with 4 runways, good weather and minimal ATC issues, and unlike many other airports you don't have endless long concourses. Its pretty simple to get on and off your flight from the curb.
"We make war that we may live in peace." -- Aristotle
 
User avatar
PatrickZ80
Posts: 4524
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:33 am

Re: Why is LAX so dominant in the LA Region?

Sun May 09, 2021 4:03 pm

Cubsrule wrote:
Other things being equal, ONT's fees will be higher because there are (many) fewer flights to cover the fixed costs. Do you have some evidence that the fee structure was an effort to prop up LAX?


Isn't that kind of opposite thinking? I mean, as an airport if you want to attract airlines one way to do so is to lower the fees. That way you might earn less per flight, however you get more flights so you can make up for that. See those discounted fees as an investment that pays itself back.

You're acting as if the number of flights is something airports don't have any influence on, however they do. The height of the fees is one of the factors airlines look at when deciding where to fly, those secondary airports have to compete on price as it's often the only marketing instrument they got. Right now the reason they have so few flights is because the fees are so high.
 
User avatar
Midwestindy
Posts: 6076
Joined: Sun Mar 12, 2017 3:56 am

Re: Why is LAX so dominant in the LA Region?

Sun May 09, 2021 4:21 pm

Brickell305 wrote:
Midwestindy wrote:
DCA350 wrote:
Before I'm lambasted, I'm generally curious. LA is the second largest Metro in the country, but LAX completely dwarfs all the other regional airports combined.. I look at places like NYC which spreads traffic across three airports in a more condensed airspace, same with my home area of DC. Even in South Florida where MIA is the major player, FLL handles a good chunk of the area's demand. LA traffic is a nightmare, yet people seemingly have no problem coming from all over the region to LAX.

I guess my question is why none of the other airports developed into a real viable secondary option.. LGB would seemingly be the perfect FLL/BWI style airport with proper investment. Is it regulations or are people simply satisfied with the status quo?


One random piece with regards to LAX, and I am speaking generally here, but a lot of the business traffic from east of the Mississippi is near LAX.

LAX is close to Century City, Beverly Hills, & Downtown LA where most of the east coast Banking, Real-Estate, Law, e.t.c. have their offices, also all the major aerospace companies including Raytheon, Boeing, Northrop, Space X, e.t.c have large LA offices right next to the airport in El Segundo.

Again speaking generally, I'd say more of the business traffic from west of the Mississippi is more spread out across the LA area, so even ignoring other dynamics at play, I'd say LAX would still receive a lions share of the TransCon & TransOceanic traffic.

With regards to FLL & MIA, FLL & MIA are very close to each other, but you could make a good argument that they are completely different markets.

I think the difference with MIA/FLL and the LA situation has a lot more to do with FLL being a good substitute for MIA as opposed to it being a separate market. FLL has no slot restrictions, no noise restrictions, no perimeter rule, is fairly close to Miami and by being just off I-95 makes Dade county readily accessible for those willing to face a bit more traffic in return for lower fares. That allowed LCCs to flood FLL and make the airport into what it is now. No alternative airport in the LA checks that many boxes. So no, it’s not because FLL and MIA are different markets, it’s because they are indeed fairly interchangeable that makes FLL such a draw.


Eh that wasn't really my argument but I'll bite, I never said FLL was a draw because it is a completely different market, but I said there is an argument to be made (as has been made many times anytime a carrier adds FLL service).

I personally have flown into FLL multiple times to get into Miami, and actually a couple times during the pandemic alone since traffic has been lighter on I-95. And I have said on this site before, that I personally would largely classify FLL & MIA as part of one broad market. Although, that doesn't mean there isn't an argument for them serving different markets. I'd say there really isn't a similar pair of airports in the US other than maybe OAK/SJC & SFO.

The demographics and business activity surrounding FLL and MIA are somewhat different, Miami for example has much more business activity. Although I wouldn't consider FLL a secondary/alternative airport to MIA, in the sense that LGB is a secondary/alternative airport to LAX. Even if MIA didn't exist to its south, FLL would be a big draw, especially from the Midwest and Central US, & you can see this in the O&D numbers. Even going back a few years before ULCCs & LCCs expanded their networks from FLL and subsequently lowered fares, FLL was normally 2-3x higher O&D than MIA from lots of central destinations.

PatrickZ80 wrote:
HowardDGA wrote:
The real cultural difference is that, in Manhattan, all but the very richest tend to take the subway. In Los Angeles, all but the very poorest tend to drive. The availability of rail transport is not going to make ONT or Palmdale popular IMHO.


As far as the locals go, that might be true. However at an airport you also got to keep in mind the non-locals, the people for who your city is the destination. Los Angeles sees a significant number of visitors from elsewhere, both tourists and business travelers.

As a matter of fact, a few years ago I visited Los Angeles myself. I live in the Netherlands, all the way in Europe. Los Angeles is not local for me, I had never been there before and I knew nobody there. As a tourist I chose to travel by public transport which appeared to be very convenient in Los Angeles, I still have my tap card. For my stay I had a week unlimited travel pass for $25, this turned out to be the best option.

Should my airline have flown into Ontario instead of LAX, I would have cleared immigration much faster. Then I would have taken the shuttle bus to East Ontario Metrolink station and from there on the train to Union Station. In the end, it might even have saved me some time. For the way back I would have taken the same route, only in reverse. Now instead of taking the FlyAway bus, which is not included in the unlimited travel pass from Metro, I decided to take the long route. First the gold line from Heritage Square (near where I stayed) to Union Station, then the red line to 7th Street/Metro Center. From there on the blue line to Willowbrook/Rosa Parks and finally the green line to Aviation/LAX. And last but not least the shuttle bus to the airport. Unlike the FlyAway bus, which would have cost me extra money, this was all included in my unlimited travel pass, but that many changes just to get to the airport is not exactly desirable. I could have gotten to Ontario Airport with fewer changes, however my flight happened to go from LAX. It wasn't my choice, it was the airline's choice and I just had to comply with it.

Renting a car has never been an option, I didn't drive at all during my stay in Los Angeles. Why would I? I guess it's different for locals but like I said, on average about half the passengers at an airport aren't local.


Public transport is not really a viable option for most people visiting Los Angeles, I haven't taken public transport once in Los Angeles. It would be extremely inconvenient when you are visiting friends/family.

LA's rapid transit network only allows you to reach around 5% of the population within 60 minutes.

https://www.itdp.org/2020/06/23/not-eve ... es-drives/
ORD & IND

AA & DL
 
2travel2know2
Posts: 3006
Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2010 3:01 pm

Re: Why is LAX so dominant in the LA Region?

Sun May 09, 2021 4:32 pm

Direct Metrollnk between ONT and Union Station could give ONT a boost, but as long as getting to/from ONT is a challenge for many in L.A., ONT passenger steady growth will a bit more than minimal at best.
Wish list for ONT, even if seasonal: NYC, IAD, YVR, London, Tokyo.
I'm not on CM's payroll.
 
User avatar
UPlog
Posts: 716
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2018 5:45 am

Re: Why is LAX so dominant in the LA Region?

Sun May 09, 2021 4:38 pm

PatrickZ80 wrote:
As a matter of fact, a few years ago I visited Los Angeles myself. I live in the Netherlands, all the way in Europe. Los Angeles is not local for me, I had never been there before and I knew nobody there. As a tourist I chose to travel by public transport which appeared to be very convenient in Los Angeles, I still have my tap card. For my stay I had a week unlimited travel pass for $25, this turned out to be the best option.

Renting a car has never been an option, I didn't drive at all during my stay in Los Angeles. Why would I? I guess it's different for locals but like I said, on average about half the passengers at an airport aren't local.


The car is king in LA. Public transit use is on a steady decline in L.A. and mostly used by the economically lower-income segment. Considering some of the areas you said you traveled through I would call you brave, and not the typical visitor at all.

To put things in perspective, per LAWA statistics in 2019, only 4% of LAX passengers used some form of public transit to/from the airport, while over 1mil cars were rented monthly at the airport.

PatrickZ80 wrote:
Cubsrule wrote:
Other things being equal, ONT's fees will be higher because there are (many) fewer flights to cover the fixed costs. Do you have some evidence that the fee structure was an effort to prop up LAX?


Isn't that kind of opposite thinking? I mean, as an airport if you want to attract airlines one way to do so is to lower the fees. That way you might earn less per flight, however you get more flights so you can make up for that. See those discounted fees as an investment that pays itself back.

You're acting as if the number of flights is something airports don't have any influence on, however they do. The height of the fees is one of the factors airlines look at when deciding where to fly, those secondary airports have to compete on price as it's often the only marketing instrument they got. Right now the reason they have so few flights is because the fees are so high.


In the U.S. there are rules that govern incentive programs that airports can offer. Airports cant really throw money at airlines that easily, beyond limited incentives that must be transparent and available for all.
Also, there is the guidance of how airport finances must operate- airports basically break even. Money cannot be diverted to other uses.

In simplistic terms as Cubsrule eludes to, when passenger volume goes down, the fees good up unless airport is able to reduce its overhead cost.

With COVID related massive decline in traffic what is saving most U.S. airports from having to increase charges massively is the billions Federal funds that airports can receive to keep their balance sheets in tack.
I fly your boxes
 
ikramerica
Posts: 15136
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

Re: Why is LAX so dominant in the LA Region?

Sun May 09, 2021 4:40 pm

Noshow wrote:
The logical location for some big 24/7 LA airport would be the high desert away from the coast. Like Palmdale, Victorville or similar. Cheap space, no noise concerns and good weather. This would be where some hyper fast train would make sense. Sell LAX land and move inland.

Said no average resident of LA County, ever.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
mcogator
Posts: 593
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2007 11:51 am

Re: Why is LAX so dominant in the LA Region?

Sun May 09, 2021 4:46 pm

continental004 wrote:
I live in Southern California, closer to ONT than LAX.

My family and I fly out of ONT whenever possible, but the reality is that airfares are almost always significantly higher and destination choices limited.

LAX is easily reachable by public transit with the FlyAway bus which helps avoid the high parking fees there.

Use the parkwhiz or way.com apps, and parking is significantly cheaper than a round-trip rideshare trip. I live in dtla, and I park at one of the surrounding hotels or parking structures for as low as $5/day.
“Traveling – it leaves you speechless, then turns you into a storyteller.” – Ibn Battuta
 
washingtonflyer
Posts: 1717
Joined: Sun Sep 08, 2013 9:45 pm

Re: Why is LAX so dominant in the LA Region?

Sun May 09, 2021 5:37 pm

I think a couple of people have mentioned this - not as many as should - airports serve the community of residents but also serve people flying to the area for business. From a business perspective, non-stop service is a major driver. LAX has gobs of it. BUR, SNA, and LGB not nearly as much.
 
DTWLAX
Posts: 1182
Joined: Sun Aug 16, 2009 4:19 pm

Re: Why is LAX so dominant in the LA Region?

Sun May 09, 2021 6:12 pm

mcogator wrote:
Use the parkwhiz or way.com apps, and parking is significantly cheaper than a round-trip rideshare trip. I live in dtla, and I park at one of the surrounding hotels or parking structures for as low as $5/day.

Those hotels and other parking lots do not offer fixed parking rates. They are dynamic rates... cheaper if you reserve well in advance of your travel or can go as high as $40+ each day if you reserve closer to travel dates or during holiday time.
So unless you know you are traveling more than a month in advance, those hotels or parking structures are not really that cheap. The long-term Lot E owned by LAX/LAWA, which is currently closed due to Covid, has a fixed rate of $12 each day and is the only reasonably priced fixed rate parking lot around the airport.
 
User avatar
hawaiian717
Posts: 3528
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:46 am

Re: Why is LAX so dominant in the LA Region?

Sun May 09, 2021 7:15 pm

rbavfan wrote:
Good points except that Miami also had no perimeter rule, nor does SNA, ONT, LGB or BUR. They have range limits due to fuel to weight needed.


True that SNA and BUR have range limits based on how much weight you can get off a short runway, but ONT and LGB have no such limit. Both airports have long runways without terrain issues. ONT gets lots of freight traffic plus the China Airlines nonstop to TPE using either 777-300ER or A350-900. I’ve seen UPS 767s at LGB, and the airport has been known to host the An-124, plus was the place where every MD-11 and C-17 were built.
 
continental004
Posts: 455
Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2014 11:53 pm

Re: Why is LAX so dominant in the LA Region?

Sun May 09, 2021 8:03 pm

mcogator wrote:
continental004 wrote:
I live in Southern California, closer to ONT than LAX.

My family and I fly out of ONT whenever possible, but the reality is that airfares are almost always significantly higher and destination choices limited.

LAX is easily reachable by public transit with the FlyAway bus which helps avoid the high parking fees there.

Use the parkwhiz or way.com apps, and parking is significantly cheaper than a round-trip rideshare trip. I live in dtla, and I park at one of the surrounding hotels or parking structures for as low as $5/day.


The FlyAway bus costs $9.75 each way.
 
Brickell305
Posts: 1356
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2017 2:07 pm

Re: Why is LAX so dominant in the LA Region?

Sun May 09, 2021 8:31 pm

Midwestindy wrote:
Brickell305 wrote:
Midwestindy wrote:

One random piece with regards to LAX, and I am speaking generally here, but a lot of the business traffic from east of the Mississippi is near LAX.

LAX is close to Century City, Beverly Hills, & Downtown LA where most of the east coast Banking, Real-Estate, Law, e.t.c. have their offices, also all the major aerospace companies including Raytheon, Boeing, Northrop, Space X, e.t.c have large LA offices right next to the airport in El Segundo.

Again speaking generally, I'd say more of the business traffic from west of the Mississippi is more spread out across the LA area, so even ignoring other dynamics at play, I'd say LAX would still receive a lions share of the TransCon & TransOceanic traffic.

With regards to FLL & MIA, FLL & MIA are very close to each other, but you could make a good argument that they are completely different markets.

I think the difference with MIA/FLL and the LA situation has a lot more to do with FLL being a good substitute for MIA as opposed to it being a separate market. FLL has no slot restrictions, no noise restrictions, no perimeter rule, is fairly close to Miami and by being just off I-95 makes Dade county readily accessible for those willing to face a bit more traffic in return for lower fares. That allowed LCCs to flood FLL and make the airport into what it is now. No alternative airport in the LA checks that many boxes. So no, it’s not because FLL and MIA are different markets, it’s because they are indeed fairly interchangeable that makes FLL such a draw.


Eh that wasn't really my argument but I'll bite, I never said FLL was a draw because it is a completely different market, but I said there is an argument to be made (as has been made many times anytime a carrier adds FLL service).

I personally have flown into FLL multiple times to get into Miami, and actually a couple times during the pandemic alone since traffic has been lighter on I-95. And I have said on this site before, that I personally would largely classify FLL & MIA as part of one broad market. Although, that doesn't mean there isn't an argument for them serving different markets. I'd say there really isn't a similar pair of airports in the US other than maybe OAK/SJC & SFO.

The demographics and business activity surrounding FLL and MIA are somewhat different, Miami for example has much more business activity. Although I wouldn't consider FLL a secondary/alternative airport to MIA, in the sense that LGB is a secondary/alternative airport to LAX. Even if MIA didn't exist to its south, FLL would be a big draw, especially from the Midwest and Central US, & you can see this in the O&D numbers. Even going back a few years before ULCCs & LCCs expanded their networks from FLL and subsequently lowered fares, FLL was normally 2-3x higher O&D than MIA from lots of central destinations.

PatrickZ80 wrote:
HowardDGA wrote:
The real cultural difference is that, in Manhattan, all but the very richest tend to take the subway. In Los Angeles, all but the very poorest tend to drive. The availability of rail transport is not going to make ONT or Palmdale popular IMHO.


As far as the locals go, that might be true. However at an airport you also got to keep in mind the non-locals, the people for who your city is the destination. Los Angeles sees a significant number of visitors from elsewhere, both tourists and business travelers.

As a matter of fact, a few years ago I visited Los Angeles myself. I live in the Netherlands, all the way in Europe. Los Angeles is not local for me, I had never been there before and I knew nobody there. As a tourist I chose to travel by public transport which appeared to be very convenient in Los Angeles, I still have my tap card. For my stay I had a week unlimited travel pass for $25, this turned out to be the best option.

Should my airline have flown into Ontario instead of LAX, I would have cleared immigration much faster. Then I would have taken the shuttle bus to East Ontario Metrolink station and from there on the train to Union Station. In the end, it might even have saved me some time. For the way back I would have taken the same route, only in reverse. Now instead of taking the FlyAway bus, which is not included in the unlimited travel pass from Metro, I decided to take the long route. First the gold line from Heritage Square (near where I stayed) to Union Station, then the red line to 7th Street/Metro Center. From there on the blue line to Willowbrook/Rosa Parks and finally the green line to Aviation/LAX. And last but not least the shuttle bus to the airport. Unlike the FlyAway bus, which would have cost me extra money, this was all included in my unlimited travel pass, but that many changes just to get to the airport is not exactly desirable. I could have gotten to Ontario Airport with fewer changes, however my flight happened to go from LAX. It wasn't my choice, it was the airline's choice and I just had to comply with it.

Renting a car has never been an option, I didn't drive at all during my stay in Los Angeles. Why would I? I guess it's different for locals but like I said, on average about half the passengers at an airport aren't local.


Public transport is not really a viable option for most people visiting Los Angeles, I haven't taken public transport once in Los Angeles. It would be extremely inconvenient when you are visiting friends/family.

LA's rapid transit network only allows you to reach around 5% of the population within 60 minutes.

https://www.itdp.org/2020/06/23/not-eve ... es-drives/

I do get your point re FLL. Maybe I should clarify what I'm saying. In essence, my point is that if everyone who was destined for or originated in Miami-Date county flew out of MIA and everyone destined for or originating from Broward flew out from FLL, MIA would have notably more domestic travel and FLL would have notably less. It does draw people in its own right but a significant portion of FLL traffic is people using it as a secondary airport to MIA whereas the reverse occurs significantly less. You can see the numbers on pages 20 and 26 of this report. A full 36% of domestic overnight visitors and 17% of international overnight visitors to Miami-Dade in 2019 (not using 2020 for obvious reasons) flew in to FLL: https://www.miamiandbeaches.com/getmedi ... 0.pdf.aspx

Those numbers do not account for the people living in Miami-Dade that opt to fly out of FLL which I'm sure is significant as well. So yes, FLL does have its own draw but benefits significantly from being a secondary airport to MIA.
 
NickLAX
Posts: 276
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2013 8:48 pm

Re: Why is LAX so dominant in the LA Region?

Sun May 09, 2021 10:57 pm

I live closer to SNA, but work has me at LAX and my travel for work has me preferring LAX even on the days I'm nowhere near work. Right now during the pandemic I'm mostly grounded but before then for me and many others I know, SNA means a connection or a nonstop that is limited for either AM or PM curfews. I can get on a ~6AM flight and drive up to to LAX in 35 min at 4:15AM no issues vs SNA means an early morning meeting I need to get in the night before and spend extra hotel costs, etc, etc. Plus meetings cut early I get home on more options than out of SNA.

I WILL use SNA a lot where I'm not time sensitive - however the frequency of flights out of LAX, the nonstop convenience always overshadows the negatives. Even on a bad traffic day, my drive back home is LESS than the timing and ground time of a connection to get into SNA. Generally though I time my LAX arrivals to be late morning or late evening and avoid traffic overall. I know a dozen people near where I live who also do the same early AM and late PM flights into/out of LAX vs SNA where you will incur leaving a day earlier or coming home a day later to deal with limited early/late flights.

What about ONT: I can get there in the same time aprox as LAX - for some early AM short flights to the bay area I will use it, like I do LGB for the same, 90% of the time it's using WN from both and rarely any other carriers as flight selections and frequencies are low.
 
dstblj52
Posts: 642
Joined: Tue Nov 19, 2019 8:38 pm

Re: Why is LAX so dominant in the LA Region?

Mon May 10, 2021 2:29 am

PatrickZ80 wrote:
Cubsrule wrote:
Other things being equal, ONT's fees will be higher because there are (many) fewer flights to cover the fixed costs. Do you have some evidence that the fee structure was an effort to prop up LAX?


Isn't that kind of opposite thinking? I mean, as an airport if you want to attract airlines one way to do so is to lower the fees. That way you might earn less per flight, however you get more flights so you can make up for that. See those discounted fees as an investment that pays itself back.

You're acting as if the number of flights is something airports don't have any influence on, however they do. The height of the fees is one of the factors airlines look at when deciding where to fly, those secondary airports have to compete on price as it's often the only marketing instrument they got. Right now the reason they have so few flights is because the fees are so high.

Airport in the US are operated on a cost-recovery framework, they can't slash fees if they have excess they can use it to pay down debt, or return it to airlines, but they can't run in the red to slash fees to grow traffic
 
WidebodyPTV
Posts: 438
Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2019 9:06 pm

Re: Why is LAX so dominant in the LA Region?

Mon May 10, 2021 3:49 am

LAX is dominate because its location is central to the region's population base, especially taking into consideration that the region is home to one of the most comprehensive freeway networks in the country. A multitude of airlines were unsuccessful at LGB for decades -- mainly because LAX was a short drive away, and offered thousands of flights to hundreds of destinations at competitive airfares. ONT has tried desperately to build up service for decades, but a lack of business traffic (the Inland Empire's commercial base is primarily warehousing/distribution) and among the lowest discretionary income in the country has hurt its prospects.

If anything, the renewed interest in LGB, BUR and ONT in recent years is a derivative of the region's worsening traffic problem (in the 2010s, the average household added 0.7 cars, which is near the top nationally) coupled with horrific congestion at LAX. But alas, this thread seems to be built upon a.net's false narrative that every major city needs at least two large airports (forgetting that DAL, MDW, etc. were suppose to be closed to commercial traffic, but LCC fought against it).
 
Lootess
Posts: 611
Joined: Sun May 13, 2018 6:15 am

Re: Why is LAX so dominant in the LA Region?

Mon May 10, 2021 4:14 am

LAX is simply closest to the $$$ in Los Angeles, the easiest to get to in the basin because of the freeways. Convenience. You cannot compare LA to the DFW/DAL situation, it's not even close.

You aren't driving out to LGB unless you really work or live out there.

BUR has a lot of private flights because of being near motion pictures, and connections to the major hubs. I used to fly over there sometimes when i had to connect in SLC, but it's just much easier to fly ATL-LAX on a widebody on the first flight of the day.
 
LAXdude1023
Posts: 6352
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 3:16 pm

Re: Why is LAX so dominant in the LA Region?

Mon May 10, 2021 5:30 am

LAX was my home airport for years.

The honest answer is location. ONT isn’t close to anything businessmen or tourists would want to go to. There are a lot of people who live around ONT so there’s value from a residential perspective, but not from a business or tourist one.

BUR and LGB are close to things a businessman or tourist would be interested in but they dont have the infrastructure.

SNA has tourism value, but its biggest selling point is that a lot of people with money live close to it.

LAX is much closer to all of that and it has the infrastructure.
FOR THE LOVE OF GOD BRING BACK THE PAYWALL!!!!
 
JFKCMILAXFLL
Posts: 117
Joined: Sat Nov 28, 2015 12:45 pm

Re: Why is LAX so dominant in the LA Region?

Mon May 10, 2021 12:42 pm

Brickell305 wrote:
Midwestindy wrote:
DCA350 wrote:
Before I'm lambasted, I'm generally curious. LA is the second largest Metro in the country, but LAX completely dwarfs all the other regional airports combined.. I look at places like NYC which spreads traffic across three airports in a more condensed airspace, same with my home area of DC. Even in South Florida where MIA is the major player, FLL handles a good chunk of the area's demand. LA traffic is a nightmare, yet people seemingly have no problem coming from all over the region to LAX.

I guess my question is why none of the other airports developed into a real viable secondary option.. LGB would seemingly be the perfect FLL/BWI style airport with proper investment. Is it regulations or are people simply satisfied with the status quo?


One random piece with regards to LAX, and I am speaking generally here, but a lot of the business traffic from east of the Mississippi is near LAX.

LAX is close to Century City, Beverly Hills, & Downtown LA where most of the east coast Banking, Real-Estate, Law, e.t.c. have their offices, also all the major aerospace companies including Raytheon, Boeing, Northrop, Space X, e.t.c have large LA offices right next to the airport in El Segundo.

Again speaking generally, I'd say more of the business traffic from west of the Mississippi is more spread out across the LA area, so even ignoring other dynamics at play, I'd say LAX would still receive a lions share of the TransCon & TransOceanic traffic.

With regards to FLL & MIA, FLL & MIA are very close to each other, but you could make a good argument that they are completely different markets.

I think the difference with MIA/FLL and the LA situation has a lot more to do with FLL being a good substitute for MIA as opposed to it being a separate market. FLL has no slot restrictions, no noise restrictions, no perimeter rule, is fairly close to Miami and by being just off I-95 makes Dade county readily accessible for those willing to face a bit more traffic in return for lower fares. That allowed LCCs to flood FLL and make the airport into what it is now. No alternative airport in the LA checks that many boxes. So no, it’s not because FLL and MIA are different markets, it’s because they are indeed fairly interchangeable that makes FLL such a draw.


FLL also draws from southern Palm Beach county as well. Palm Beach county is "tall" (north-south) and it's main city/county seat (West Palm Beach) is about 2/3 of the way up. So for folks in the southern part of PBC (Boca Raton/Delray Beach/Boynton Beach), FLL may actually be just as close or even closer, plus a large presence by LCCs (WN, B6) and ULCCs (NK) doesn't hurt. On a personal note, I have taken several day trips or two day trips out of FLL, and so parked in the long-term structure on the property. Almost every time, I have seen a car with Palm Beach license plates parked there (and that's not even counting possible Palm Beach residents who may have the generic "Sunshine State" license plate).
 
DoctorVenkman
Posts: 252
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2016 10:10 pm

Re: Why is LAX so dominant in the LA Region?

Mon May 10, 2021 1:33 pm

Lootess wrote:
LAX is simply closest to the $$$ in Los Angeles, the easiest to get to in the basin because of the freeways. Convenience. You cannot compare LA to the DFW/DAL situation, it's not even close.


Small correction to this, it's more convenient to get one mile outside of LAX because of the freeways. However, that last mile to LAX can easily take an hour to get through on a busy day.

In terms of total travel time, I'd say about half the money is closer to BUR and half is closer to LAX. In my experience Beverly Hills / Larchmont area is about the halfway point in between LAX and BUR in terms of travel time. Plenty of money exists north and east of those neighborhoods that would prefer BUR if it had more flight options. With typical traffic from DTLA it's about 20-30 mins to BUR and about 45-90 mins to LAX. And that's not even counting the time it takes to get from curb to gate.

I'm convinced that if BUR had a more capable airfield it would be closer to EWR or LGW in size, rather than just a small regional airport.
 
User avatar
STT757
Posts: 14343
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 1:14 am

Re: Why is LAX so dominant in the LA Region?

Mon May 10, 2021 2:02 pm

DCA350 wrote:
Before I'm lambasted, I'm generally curious. LA is the second largest Metro in the country, but LAX completely dwarfs all the other regional airports combined.. I look at places like NYC which spreads traffic across three airports in a more condensed airspace, same with my home area of DC. Even in South Florida where MIA is the major player, FLL handles a good chunk of the area's demand. LA traffic is a nightmare, yet people seemingly have no problem coming from all over the region to LAX.

I guess my question is why none of the other airports developed into a real viable secondary option.. LGB would seemingly be the perfect FLL/BWI style airport with proper investment. Is it regulations or are people simply satisfied with the status quo?


You also have to throw PHL into the equation for those of us West of the Hudson, from where I live in Central Jersey the airport choices I have are:

EWR 35 miles, 45 minute drive in current traffic
LGA 59 miles, 1.23 hour drive in current traffic
JFK 60 miles, 1.25 hour drive in current traffic
PHL 67 miles, 1.10 hour drive in current traffic.

PHL is the furthest mileage wise, yet it's the second quickest driving. I can also drive to PHL from where I live without paying a single toll. The one way toll to JFK is $24.40, the toll one way to LGA is $27.50.
Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 22075
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Why is LAX so dominant in the LA Region?

Mon May 10, 2021 2:09 pm

Lootess wrote:
LAX is simply closest to the $$$ in Los Angeles, the easiest to get to in the basin because of the freeways. Convenience. You cannot compare LA to the DFW/DAL situation, it's not even close.

You aren't driving out to LGB unless you really work or live out there.

BUR has a lot of private flights because of being near motion pictures, and connections to the major hubs. I used to fly over there sometimes when i had to connect in SLC, but it's just much easier to fly ATL-LAX on a widebody on the first flight of the day.

It is how close to the money. If you have money, you want to live near the ocean here. LAX connects to a lot of cities, so people who fly must occasionally fly out if there and thus move to be close to LAX.

Lightsaber
6 months without TV. The best decision of my life.
 
Cubsrule
Posts: 15050
Joined: Sat May 15, 2004 12:13 pm

Re: Why is LAX so dominant in the LA Region?

Mon May 10, 2021 2:19 pm

DoctorVenkman wrote:
Lootess wrote:
LAX is simply closest to the $$$ in Los Angeles, the easiest to get to in the basin because of the freeways. Convenience. You cannot compare LA to the DFW/DAL situation, it's not even close.


Small correction to this, it's more convenient to get one mile outside of LAX because of the freeways. However, that last mile to LAX can easily take an hour to get through on a busy day.


For me this is really the crux of the issue. I used to do a ton of business travel to Torrance, more or less equidistant from LGB and LAX. The question was whether a connection to get to LGB was sufficiently short that the ease of getting in and out of LGB made up the time savings of a nonstop to LAX (and LGB also has much shorter taxi times, so it's not just a landside difference). The time calculus generally - but not always - favored LAX.
I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 26123
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Why is LAX so dominant in the LA Region?

Mon May 10, 2021 2:44 pm

hpff wrote:
In NYC, JFK, LGA, and EWR all have specific catchment areas...

I think this points out that geography plays a role. NYC has catchment areas largely shaped by rivers and the need to cross them. LA is a pretty convenient basin shape, of course limited in some ways by being coastal, but if it wasn't coastal and didn't have rivers and nearby harbors it would not have developed the way it did. Goods move from land or river transport to sea transport and vice versa so goods get offloaded and money changes hands. That's why so many places that have good harbors are major financial centers.

rbavfan wrote:
JetBlue moved it's hub due to restrictions at the airport. They would have stayed if they had gotten an FIS facility for international service. The other reason was the fines for flights that arrived late fter hours on their trans con routes. LGB's problem is mostly 1 person on the council that has always hated airlines the queen of the NIMBLY's.

Yeah, no big surprise on the outcome when you have one airport where noise is accepted and is open to growth vs one airport where noise is resisted and growth is constrained.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
blockski
Posts: 756
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 8:30 pm

Re: Why is LAX so dominant in the LA Region?

Mon May 10, 2021 3:13 pm

DCA350 wrote:
Before I'm lambasted, I'm generally curious. LA is the second largest Metro in the country, but LAX completely dwarfs all the other regional airports combined.. I look at places like NYC which spreads traffic across three airports in a more condensed airspace, same with my home area of DC. Even in South Florida where MIA is the major player, FLL handles a good chunk of the area's demand. LA traffic is a nightmare, yet people seemingly have no problem coming from all over the region to LAX.

I guess my question is why none of the other airports developed into a real viable secondary option.. LGB would seemingly be the perfect FLL/BWI style airport with proper investment. Is it regulations or are people simply satisfied with the status quo?


To answer your question: none of the other airports developed in a true secondary hub because LAX had sufficient room to grow.

If you look at cities in the US with multiple airports, there are a couple of obvious patterns. You have lots of cases with small, dawn-of-aviation airports that were eventually replaced as we moved into the jet age. Think Houston (HOU to IAH), Dallas (DAL to DFW), Chicago (MDW to ORD), DC (DCA to IAD) as examples. All of those places traded a smaller, older, closer airport for bigger one further away - but they kept both airports operating.

The other examples are places like MSP, ATL, MIA, BOS, PHL, and others where the original airport sites picked in the 1920s and 1930s have been incrementally expanded over time. LAX fits into this category - they've managed to expand sufficiently at the same location.

All airports deal with political and policy constraints in urban areas, but LAX has managed to provide enough room to grow to serve the market. It's a great location for that market, too. There's little need to find an alternative since they have sufficient space and any alternative would be an inferior location.

The comparison to FLL and BWI is interesting, because it shows another factor in places with multiple airports - friendly competition from neighboring jurisdictions. Baltimore and Fort Lauderdale are of sufficient size to command a decent air travel market themselves, plus via location they can compete for local traffic in their neighboring areas. What makes them different from the minor LA-area airports is the combo of market power and capacity.

For example, LGB and SNA have the market, but not the capacity. ONT has the capacity, but not the market. Had Orange County wanted to create a new airport at El Toro, there was an opportunity there - but the politics of building a new airport are challenging to say the least.
 
cledaybuck
Posts: 1891
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2016 6:07 pm

Re: Why is LAX so dominant in the LA Region?

Mon May 10, 2021 3:33 pm

Because LAX has the best combination of location and infrastructure in greater LA.
As we celebrate mediocrity, all the boys upstairs want to see, how much you'll pay for what you used to get for free.
 
AirMatt
Posts: 75
Joined: Sun Sep 21, 2003 6:51 pm

Re: Why is LAX so dominant in the LA Region?

Mon May 10, 2021 6:16 pm

I believe one way ONT can be greater utilized would be as follows:

Add a train/monorail system from the two terminals to connect with the rental car facility, and continue to the Metrolink station south of the airport. Of course, service at that Metrolink station would have to greatly increased for that to be effective.

That's my idea.
 
WidebodyPTV
Posts: 438
Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2019 9:06 pm

Re: Why is LAX so dominant in the LA Region?

Mon May 10, 2021 8:15 pm

AirMatt wrote:
I believe one way ONT can be greater utilized would be as follows:

Add a train/monorail system from the two terminals to connect with the rental car facility, and continue to the Metrolink station south of the airport. Of course, service at that Metrolink station would have to greatly increased for that to be effective.

That's my idea.


There’s very little business traffic within the Inland Empire — the region is heavily reliant on warehousing and distribution.

Nor are the demographics favorable. Much of the Inland Empire is poor, with amongst the lowest discretionary income in the county due to high rent and high taxes. The more affluent communities are the ones closest to LA, and residents have shown a willingness to drive to LAX for greater options and competitive fares.

Alas, expanding the Metrolink would have minimal impact. The volume just isn’t there.
 
dtremit
Posts: 169
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 1:08 am

Re: Why is LAX so dominant in the LA Region?

Mon May 10, 2021 9:26 pm

blockski wrote:
To answer your question: none of the other airports developed in a true secondary hub because LAX had sufficient room to grow.

If you look at cities in the US with multiple airports, there are a couple of obvious patterns. You have lots of cases with small, dawn-of-aviation airports that were eventually replaced as we moved into the jet age. Think Houston (HOU to IAH), Dallas (DAL to DFW), Chicago (MDW to ORD), DC (DCA to IAD) as examples. All of those places traded a smaller, older, closer airport for bigger one further away - but they kept both airports operating.

The other examples are places like MSP, ATL, MIA, BOS, PHL, and others where the original airport sites picked in the 1920s and 1930s have been incrementally expanded over time. LAX fits into this category - they've managed to expand sufficiently at the same location.


Agree with your other analysis, but as others have pointed out above — LAX fits the first pattern better. There was an airport there earlier, but commercial service didn't start until 1946.
 
usa330300
Posts: 73
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 2:29 pm

Re: Why is LAX so dominant in the LA Region?

Mon May 10, 2021 10:16 pm

PSA727 wrote:
continental004 wrote:
I live in Southern California, closer to ONT than LAX.

My family and I fly out of ONT whenever possible, but the reality is that airfares are almost always significantly higher and destination choices limited.

LAX is easily reachable by public transit with the FlyAway bus which helps avoid the high parking fees there.


My home airport is SAN. I use LAX more than I do SAN. Mainly because my travel is mostly longhaul intl, and such airfares tend to be hundreds of dollars less to/from LAX than SAN, in many cases. I take the train up to Union Station, and then the FlyAway bus to LAX. Not exactlly time saving. However, that is made up somewhat by the numerous flight options throughout the day into/out of LAX, giving me more flexibilty.

As for the OP's original point about LAX versus other regions and their airports...

The NYC area (tri-state) has millions of more people in a much smaller land area than the Los Angeles cachement. LGA, JFK, and EWR all have some form of slot restrictions. While LGA has additional flight perimeter rules, as well as curfews. So, each of those airports can only be so big operationally. LAX has no such type of restrictions. And ONT is the only other LA area aiprort without such limitations, so-to-speak. However, it is the furthest away from the greater concentration of population, as opposed to BUR/SNA/LGB (and which do have operational limitations).


That is about as nonsensical as I have ever heard.
 
mcogator
Posts: 593
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2007 11:51 am

Re: Why is LAX so dominant in the LA Region?

Mon May 10, 2021 10:49 pm

DTWLAX wrote:
mcogator wrote:
Use the parkwhiz or way.com apps, and parking is significantly cheaper than a round-trip rideshare trip. I live in dtla, and I park at one of the surrounding hotels or parking structures for as low as $5/day.

Those hotels and other parking lots do not offer fixed parking rates. They are dynamic rates... cheaper if you reserve well in advance of your travel or can go as high as $40+ each day if you reserve closer to travel dates or during holiday time.
So unless you know you are traveling more than a month in advance, those hotels or parking structures are not really that cheap. The long-term Lot E owned by LAX/LAWA, which is currently closed due to Covid, has a fixed rate of $12 each day and is the only reasonably priced fixed rate parking lot around the airport.

Yes, their rates are dynamic, but not accurate that you need to reserve a month ahead. I had multiple options $60 or less with taxes and fees for a 5 day trip. I booked my parking yesterday at the Marriott LAX for my flight today. I usually always do that, except for when I travel during holiday weekends.
“Traveling – it leaves you speechless, then turns you into a storyteller.” – Ibn Battuta
 
mcogator
Posts: 593
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2007 11:51 am

Re: Why is LAX so dominant in the LA Region?

Mon May 10, 2021 10:56 pm

Chemist wrote:
To correct earlier comments, BUR is closer to downtown Los Angeles than LAX is.
BUR is planning a new terminal, but due to NIMBYs, it is still limited to the 14 gates contained in the old terminal. That limits the BUR commercial traffic opportunities, along with the relatively short runways.

I'm nearer to BUR and always choose it if the fare differences are not too great. Parking at BUR is half the price of LAX and it's a far easier airport to get in and out of.

I live in dtla and I can get to LAX in 15 minutes with no traffic and 25-30 minutes with traffic, thanks to the express lanes. Good luck making it to BUR in less than 30 minutes with light traffic. Rush-hour it's over an hour. Plus, as I mentioned it above, parking via secondary apps is cheaper than parking at any other airport in the area.
“Traveling – it leaves you speechless, then turns you into a storyteller.” – Ibn Battuta
 
mcogator
Posts: 593
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2007 11:51 am

Re: Why is LAX so dominant in the LA Region?

Mon May 10, 2021 11:06 pm

DoctorVenkman wrote:
Lootess wrote:
LAX is simply closest to the $$$ in Los Angeles, the easiest to get to in the basin because of the freeways. Convenience. You cannot compare LA to the DFW/DAL situation, it's not even close.


Small correction to this, it's more convenient to get one mile outside of LAX because of the freeways. However, that last mile to LAX can easily take an hour to get through on a busy day.

In terms of total travel time, I'd say about half the money is closer to BUR and half is closer to LAX. In my experience Beverly Hills / Larchmont area is about the halfway point in between LAX and BUR in terms of travel time. Plenty of money exists north and east of those neighborhoods that would prefer BUR if it had more flight options. With typical traffic from DTLA it's about 20-30 mins to BUR and about 45-90 mins to LAX. And that's not even counting the time it takes to get from curb to gate.

I'm convinced that if BUR had a more capable airfield it would be closer to EWR or LGW in size, rather than just a small regional airport.

This isn't accurate at all. DTLA-LAX is 15-30 minutes max. Unless you're talking about the time to get to the curb on the Sunday after Thanksgiving.
“Traveling – it leaves you speechless, then turns you into a storyteller.” – Ibn Battuta
 
WidebodyPTV
Posts: 438
Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2019 9:06 pm

Re: Why is LAX so dominant in the LA Region?

Mon May 10, 2021 11:41 pm

mcogator wrote:
DoctorVenkman wrote:
Lootess wrote:
LAX is simply closest to the $$$ in Los Angeles, the easiest to get to in the basin because of the freeways. Convenience. You cannot compare LA to the DFW/DAL situation, it's not even close.


Small correction to this, it's more convenient to get one mile outside of LAX because of the freeways. However, that last mile to LAX can easily take an hour to get through on a busy day.

In terms of total travel time, I'd say about half the money is closer to BUR and half is closer to LAX. In my experience Beverly Hills / Larchmont area is about the halfway point in between LAX and BUR in terms of travel time. Plenty of money exists north and east of those neighborhoods that would prefer BUR if it had more flight options. With typical traffic from DTLA it's about 20-30 mins to BUR and about 45-90 mins to LAX. And that's not even counting the time it takes to get from curb to gate.

I'm convinced that if BUR had a more capable airfield it would be closer to EWR or LGW in size, rather than just a small regional airport.

This isn't accurate at all. DTLA-LAX is 15-30 minutes max. Unless you're talking about the time to get to the curb on the Sunday after Thanksgiving.


Google Maps is showing the drive between LAX and DTLA — right now, during the height of rush hour - at 45-60 minutes, depending on the route. And per the Times, as of two weeks ago, less than 25% of downtown office workers had returned to the office.

You may be able to shave some time by taking the express lane’s, but they’re hardly cheap during rush hour, and an option most people won’t utilize.

Alas, the notion that LAX / DTLA is “25-30 minutes max” is just silly. Rush hour is absolutely brutal.

Who is online

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