LAX T1 Gate Renumbering

barney captain · Sat May 23, 2015 6:57 pm

The title says it all. Does anyone know what the logic is in the new numbering? The previous ones seemed to make sense, the new ones, not so much. I know it is related to the construction, but I'm having a hard time with the logic.

raddek · Sat May 23, 2015 7:02 pm

Ok, there is very little information here you provided in the OP.

Not all of us live and fly our of LAX on a daily basis, so most of us need some extra juicy details on what they
are going to, gate numbers wise, to what they have had currently. I know gates in T1 are just numbered 1-3-10 etc.

CONTACREW · Sat May 23, 2015 7:19 pm

Quoting raddek (Reply 1):

Gates in T1 are now numbered 12A, 13, 14, 15, 16A, 16B, 17A, 17B, 18A, 18B as opposed to the previous format of 1 - 13.

barney captain · Sat May 23, 2015 7:21 pm

Quoting raddek (Reply 1):
Ok, there is very little information here you provided in the OP.

Not all of us live and fly our of LAX on a daily basis, so most of us need some extra juicy details on what they
are going to, gate numbers wise, to what they have had currently. I know gates in T1 are just numbered 1-3-10 etc.

My apologies, I didn't mean to leave you hanging. CONTACREW did a nice job of filling the blanks for me - thank you.

Do you see what I mean? Odd selection of numbers/letters wouldn't you say?

[Edited 2015-05-23 12:41:46]

msp747 · Sat May 23, 2015 7:24 pm

Does this have something to do with the planned Terminal 0 Expansion? Or is that proposal not moving forward?

barney captain · Sat May 23, 2015 7:32 pm

Here is the new layout - starting at Gate 9? Strange. And why the A/B numbering split?

[Edited 2015-05-23 12:33:08]

[Edited 2015-05-23 12:33:48]

ty97 · Sat May 23, 2015 7:43 pm

This is how the numbering for all of the other non-TBIT terminals work so I assume T1 gates were renumbered to conform. Gate numbers (except for TBIT) are two digit numbers where the first digit is the terminal number. If more than 10 gates numbers are needed in a given terminal, letters (A, B) are added to created more gates numbers.

See for example American's T4 (*this does not include the remote Eagle terminal which uses 44A, 44B, 44C, etc)
http://cdn.nerdwallet.com/travel/air...standard/lax_terminal_4_360_wl.png

And Delta's T5 (which also feature some similarly numbered Alaska gates in T6)
http://www.delta.com/content/www/en_...aircraft/airports/los-angeles.html

TBIT uses three digit gate numbers.

strfyr51 · Sat May 23, 2015 7:49 pm

I'll bet it was to keep the gate numbers under #100

LAXintl · Sat May 23, 2015 7:50 pm

Here is the new numbering.

Project is not final and there will be an additional round of renumber once gates are fully reconfigured.

But simple logic is T1 = 1x gates, T2 = 2x gates, etc. TBIT will use 1xx and remote gates 2xx

.

=

ikramerica · Sat May 23, 2015 7:55 pm

Because T1 was not consistent with the airport.

The rest of LAX is numbered so that the first number indicates Terminal, and the second number indicates side of terminal (odd v. even). The Second number also must be between 0 and 9. A and B used to indicate a wide body gate split into two smaller gates (where one is disabled when the wide body is docked) but now it's just a way to fit 13 gates in a system that can't fit it.

And TBIT gates are all 1XX.

So...

If you are in gate 17 you know it's T1. Before if it was gate 7, it could confuse you into thinking it's T7.

It may be more for the benefit of security and ground personnel.

azjubilee · Sat May 23, 2015 8:06 pm

Quoting ty97 (Reply 6):

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 9):

That all makes great sense, but how in the world do you explain gate 9? And if they wanted to align with T2-T8, shouldn't they have started with 11?

LAXintl · Sat May 23, 2015 8:26 pm

Quoting azjubilee (Reply 10):
That all makes great sense, but how in the world do you explain gate 9?

As I explained...

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 8):
Project is not final and there will be an additional round of renumber once gates are fully reconfigured.

Modernized terminal will actually have fewer gates than current facility does once all the reconfiguration is complete.

azjubilee · Sat May 23, 2015 8:38 pm

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 11):

Sorry, missed that part. But that begs to question... why bother doing an interim renumbering and just do it once the project is complete?

On a side note... how on earth is it taking the T2 refurbishing so long? And what happened to the men's room? It was complete and last time I was in T2 half of it was closed, with the open half, partially working. It actually was worse that the old restrooms when they were across the hall.

usflyguy · Sat May 23, 2015 8:51 pm

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 11):
Modernized terminal will actually have fewer gates than current facility does once all the reconfiguration is complete.

Why is WN getting rid of gates if they use all of them currently?

aklrno · Sat May 23, 2015 9:15 pm

Quoting usflyguy (Reply 13):
Why is WN getting rid of gates if they use all of them currently?

Something about 737-800 being bigger than other 737s.

goosebayguy · Sat May 23, 2015 9:47 pm

I passed through terminal 1 a couple of years ago. The queue reached out of the door. I only just managed to check in in time then the security line was equally long. Clearly the terminal wasn't large enough to cope with the number of passengers. Is this being addressed at all?

phllax · Sat May 23, 2015 9:56 pm

Quoting usflyguy (Reply 13):
Why is WN getting rid of gates if they use all of them currently?

Because the 800's couldn't fit into any of the odd numbered gates except maybe 13, in addition to gate 2 and 14.

[Edited 2015-05-23 15:30:34]

afcjets · Sat May 23, 2015 10:12 pm

Expansion plans call for a new Terminal 0 just east of T1. This will allow for those gates to be numbered 1-8 followed by a letter if necessary. That is the only reason I can figure out.

[Edited 2015-05-23 15:13:01]

afcjets · Sat May 23, 2015 10:16 pm

Quoting goosebayguy (Reply 15):
I passed through terminal 1 a couple of years ago. The queue reached out of the door. I only just managed to check in in time then the security line was equally long. Clearly the terminal wasn't large enough to cope with the number of passengers. Is this being addressed at all?

In addition to a new terminal, they are going to also relocate the doors at T1 further west so cars will pull further ahead to relieve roadway congestion. This will likely result in a complete redesign of the ticketing and TSA areas, where the lines can queue inside instead of outside. Part of the problem now is the TSA checkpoint is just steps from the front door.

[Edited 2015-05-23 15:17:53]

phllax · Sat May 23, 2015 10:35 pm

Quoting afcjets (Reply 18):
In addition to a new terminal, they are going to also relocate the doors at T1 further west so cars will pull further ahead to relieve roadway congestion. This will likely result in a complete redesign of the ticketing and TSA areas, where the lines can queue inside instead of outside. Part of the problem now is the TSA checkpoint is just steps from the front door.

The plan is to re-locate the check-in counters to the former US/HP side, and have security screening be on the current WN ticketing hall side.

All non-private vehicle drop-offs are now down on the former US/HP side.

I have heard that the current overflow security checkpoint near gate 1 is to become the FIS/customs area, but I can't quite picture how the logistics would work.

LAXintl · Sat May 23, 2015 10:48 pm

SWA previous T-1 configuration gave it only 3 737-800 capable gates without impacting adjacent gates. After the remodel SWA will have use of 12 737-800 capable gates.

barney captain · Sat May 23, 2015 11:23 pm

Quoting afcjets (Reply 17):
xpansion plans call for a new Terminal 0 just east of T1. This will allow for those gates to be numbered 1-8 followed by a letter if necessary. That is the only reason I can figure out.

I've heard of this plan, but it begs the question - how? Are they going to close the road immediately East of T1 or possibly just cover it up and make it into a tunnel?

afcjets · Sat May 23, 2015 11:31 pm

Quoting barney captain (Reply 21):
I've heard of this plan, but it begs the question - how? Are they going to close the road immediately East of T1 or possibly just cover it up and make it into a tunnel?

IIRC the plans call for the rerouting of Sepulveda Blvd.

EDIT: There are so many plans in the works it is very confusing, one even calls for another terminal across Sepulveda Blvd, (not relocating it) yet further out they want to demolish T1-T3 and build a linear one-sided concourse parallel to the runways. Here though is a link with pictures of what T1 will look like and construction has already begun.

http://la.curbed.com/archives/2014/0...over_coming_to_laxs_terminal_1.php

[Edited 2015-05-23 16:48:41]

QANTAS747-438 · Sun May 24, 2015 4:25 am

Why is there no gate 19 but there's a 17A and 17B??! Previously, paxs were confused with gates 11 and 13. They couldn't figure out which was which for some bizarre reason. Now... they're both 17 and it's mayhem in that corner.

jfklganyc · Sun May 24, 2015 12:57 pm

Talk about morons in a conference room convincing themselves they have a good idea!

1-1
1-2

So I (John Q Public Traveler) am supposed to know that all gates in T1 start with a 1...and since there are more gates than 10 allotted, I will throw an A or B on 4 of the gates?

What a pitifully stupid idea!

How about you start at 1 at T1 and just keep going throughout the airport?

Or how about saying to yourselves...In terms of airport design...you and JFK are alone in your "terminal city" concept...so what is JFK doing? Each terminal has their own numbering system. Which is fine because each terminal (with the exception of DL T2/4) operate as their own entity.

ScottB · Sun May 24, 2015 2:09 pm

Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 24):
So I (John Q Public Traveler) am supposed to know that all gates in T1 start with a 1...and since there are more gates than 10 allotted, I will throw an A or B on 4 of the gates?

It actually makes sense for wayfinding to break the numbering of gates on tens. EWR uses a similar numbering scheme, where the concourses in Terminals A & B use subsequent groups of ten (concourse A-1 uses 10-19, A-2 uses 20-29, etc.) and the concourses in Terminal C are broken up similarly (the three arms of C-1 are separated among 70-79,80-89,90-99) and C-2 and C-3 use groups of twenty.

On the south side of LAX, it's simple to follow the numbers between the interconnected terminals; i.e. if in Terminal 6, there will be signs for 40-59 and 70-89 in the other terminals.

Quoting afcjets (Reply 17):
Expansion plans call for a new Terminal 0 just east of T1. This will allow for those gates to be numbered 1-8 followed by a letter if necessary. That is the only reason I can figure out.

I'd have to imagine that it'd be called something other than "Terminal 0" though. It probably makes more sense to just have an enlarged Terminal 1 akin to how Terminal 8 is mostly just an adjunct of Terminal 7.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 8):

I suppose "LAX is happening" is a better construction slogan than "LAX happens" but it's awfully close...

futureorthopod · Sun May 24, 2015 4:18 pm

Quoting afcjets (Reply 17):

Expansion plans call for a new Terminal 0 just east of T1. This will allow for those gates to be numbered 1-8 followed by a letter if necessary. That is the only reason I can figure out.

This is for what I was hoping.

Polot · Sun May 24, 2015 4:25 pm

Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 24):
How about you start at 1 at T1 and just keep going throughout the airport?

In reality that is what is basically going to happen. T1 is 10-19, T2 is 20-29, T3 is 30-39 etc. Any future T0 is 1-9. The problem with starting at 1 and just counting up (and ignoring A/B gates) is that it completely messes things up when you reconfigure/expand terminals and add gates. You then have to renumber every gate throughout the airport from that point on or add a letter to the new gate or break up the pattern some other way. .

[Edited 2015-05-24 09:26:29]

aklrno · Mon May 25, 2015 1:38 am

Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 24):
How about you start at 1 at T1 and just keep going throughout the airport?

So by your scheme if I need to get to gate 53 I have no idea what building it is in? What a pitifully stupid idea.

Most airports would assign letters to the buildings, then numbers to the gates in the buildings. I guess LAX could do that, but those building numbers go back about 40 years.

The numbering scheme is perfectly understandable. I don't see how 17A is much less understandable than A17. If and when they build terminal 0, the gates will probably look like 01,02,03.

I've talked to passengers looking for help, mostly because of a language problem or because they just don't fly much. One glance at their boarding pass and I can tell them exactly where they need to go.

Someone asked about the road next to T1, and what happens to it if T0 is built. They plan to reroute that entrance to the airport through the parking lot next to T1. T0 goes where the road is now. It's a fairly easy change, but a bit expensive because it is two levels. The land is available.

Its bad enough that they broke the number scheme when TBIT went between buildings 3 and 4. At least it is simple, gate numbers 100 and up are at TBIT.

As for the crowding issue at T1, long security lines, etc. The construction to fix that is underway now. T1 was a mess when I passed through there a few weeks ago. Very few services available, but since most of the work in non-structural it should be much better soon.

N1120A · Mon May 25, 2015 2:06 am

Quoting barney captain (Reply 5):
Here is the new layout - starting at Gate 9? Strange. And why the A/B numbering split?

If you think about it, Gate 9 (the old Gate 1) potentially connects over to a future T0. Also, A/B is common at LAX. Allows gates to fit into the numbering system.

Quoting usflyguy (Reply 13):
Why is WN getting rid of gates if they use all of them currently?

73H and also the eventual connection over to T2.

Quoting ScottB (Reply 25):
I'd have to imagine that it'd be called something other than "Terminal 0" though. It probably makes more sense to just have an enlarged Terminal 1 akin to how Terminal 8 is mostly just an adjunct of Terminal 7.

I kind of hope they keep Terminal 0. Would be unique.

RedTailDTW · Mon May 25, 2015 4:00 am

It begs the question of why they didn't just assign concourse letters to each terminal (For example Terminal 1 would start with "A1" and Terminal 7 would start with "H1"). Many other airports, ORD comes to mind, use this type of system. I find it much easier to understand than the complex system that LAX is using.

Just my two cents...

Mason

mercure1 · Mon May 25, 2015 4:12 am

Quoting RedTailDTW (Reply 30):
find it much easier to understand than the complex system that LAX is using.

Complex

Terminals are 1,2,3, etc.

All terminals are numbered except the International terminal.

Whats complex about 1,2,3??

If anything that is more universal than using letters, which might actually confuse or be hard for those that do not utilize modern greek lettering and know the alphabet.

airplaneboy · Mon May 25, 2015 4:45 am

So is LAX building a terminal 0? A connector between T1 and T2? FIS/customs hall? I thought all 3 of these ideas were scrapped altogether if I remember correctly.

afcjets · Mon May 25, 2015 10:03 am

Quoting RedTailDTW (Reply 30):
It begs the question of why they didn't just assign concourse letters to each terminal (For example Terminal 1 would start with "A1" and Terminal 7 would start with "H1"). Many other airports, ORD comes to mind, use this type of system. I find it much easier to understand than the complex system that LAX is using.

It may even be more complex than you realize. ONT which is also part of Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA) gates start at gate 201, and as mentioned above TBIT gates at LAX are numbered 100something. By gate numbers, ONT appears to be just another terminal at LAWA. BUR airport though, has gates as A1, B1, etc, which does not fit the pattern, yet still there is no duplicate gate number within the three airports that make up Los Angeles World Airports.

ikramerica · Mon May 25, 2015 11:00 am

Why not Terminal 0? The gates in each terminal start at 0. Gate 60 is really gate 6-0.

QANTAS747-438 · Mon May 25, 2015 11:22 am

Quoting airplaneboy (Reply 32):
A connector between T1 and T2?

No, the T1 - T2 connector has been canceled as of now due to budget issues. The emphasis being 'as of now'.

YVRFlyer · Mon May 25, 2015 1:58 pm

Wow, the planners at LAX probably watched The Onion too often and got their inspiration from this

ikramerica · Mon May 25, 2015 2:09 pm

Quoting QANTAS747-438 (Reply 35):

Which is likely why gate 10 is there. Gate 9 will likely go away once the new TSA (and FIS?) area is finished.

UA1K3MM · Mon May 25, 2015 3:04 pm

Quoting afcjets (Reply 33):

"It may even be more complex than you realize. ONT which is also part of Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA) gates start at gate 201, and as mentioned above TBIT gates at LAX are numbered 100something. By gate numbers, ONT appears to be just another terminal at LAWA. BUR airport though, has gates as A1, B1, etc, which does not fit the pattern, yet still there is no duplicate gate number within the three airports that make up Los Angeles World Airports."

Sorry, but I believe your statements are incorrect on both counts. #1 - BUR is not owned or operated by LAWA. It is an separate commercial airport. LAWA operates LAX, ONT and VNY. See LAWA.org

#2 The master plan for ONT at the time the current "new" terminals were built in the mid 1990s and opening tn 1998, there were plans for four terminals. Terminal 2 (UA, AS, DL and Mexican flights) and Terminal 4 (AA and SW) thus you have the 200 and 400 series gate numbering. Terminal 3 was to be built for future growth in between these two terminals where the overnight aircraft stands are currently. Terminal 1 was going to be west of Terminal 1 in the area where the current FIS arrival building is today. Of course you also still have the old terminal building as well which today houses the ONT offices, USO and Hollywood old airport movie set location. Keep in mind this plan was developed in the early 1990s when passenger projections for ONT were being estimated at over 20 million a year and ONT was serving about 9 million passengers annually when the new terminals opened.

ONT is still the best located and most under served airport in Southern California.

afcjets · Mon May 25, 2015 3:56 pm

Quoting UA1K3MM (Reply 38):
#1 - BUR is not owned or operated by LAWA.

That may explain why BUR has a different numbering convention. Having the first number designate the terminal number is not very common and specific to LAWA and regardless of the master plan the fact remains that LAX gate numbers are between 1 and 159 and ONT starts at gate 201 and therefore they appear sequential with no duplicate gate numbers and both operated by LAWA. It is interesting they operate 2 commercial airports and one private airport. Also, LA county, yet BUR and LGB are, which they do not operate.

Quoting UA1K3MM (Reply 38):
Top

LAXintl

Posts: 24964

Joined: Wed May 24, 2000 12:12 pm

RE: LAX T1 Gate Renumbering

Quote

#41

Mon May 25, 2015 4:44 pm

Quoting afcjets (Reply 17):
Expansion plans call for a new Terminal 0 just east of T1.

First LAX is not into "expansion" projects.
Todays work is considered renovation. At the end of the day the airport operates under a court approved annual passenger limit and gate count cap, and community certainly does not wanted to see an expanded LAX.

Secondly Terminal-0 concept is one of the alternative that came out of the specific plan amendment study in 2012, but things have not beyond moved that. There has been no required environmental reviews on the project nor a formal green light from the city.

Quoting QANTAS747-438 (Reply 35):
No, the T1 - T2 connector has been canceled as of now due to budget issues. The emphasis being 'as of now'.

This is pure A.net lure.

The LAX masterplan has no plans for a T1 to T2 connection. Its not even one of the yellow lighted(yet to be approved) concepts.
In addition the 2013 T-1 renovation concept study itself made no proposals for a T-1 to T-2 connection either, let alone one being approved.

Quoting afcjets (Reply 39):
the fact remains that LAX gate numbers are between 1 and 159 and ONT starts at gate 201 and therefore they appear sequential with no duplicate gate numbers and both operated by LAWA.

You can forget your hypothesis. LAX remote gates are 2xx.

[Edited 2015-05-25 09:50:02]

From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California

Top

ldvaviation

Posts: 1259

Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 7:21 pm

RE: LAX T1 Gate Renumbering

Quote

#42

Mon May 25, 2015 4:49 pm

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 40):
This is pure A.net lure.

The LAX masterplan has no plans for a T1 to T2 connection. Its not even one of the yellow lighted(yet to be approved) concepts.
In addition the 2013 T-1 renovation concept study itself made no proposals for a T-1 to T-2 connection either, let alone one beign approved.

It has been discussed internally.

But you are correct. It has never been formally proposed or budgeted.

Top

afcjets

Posts: 3537

Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2015 6:20 pm

RE: LAX T1 Gate Renumbering

Quote

#43

Mon May 25, 2015 5:04 pm

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 40):
You can forget your hypothesis. LAX remote gates are 2xx.

Do you mean the Imperial Terminal where MGM Grand Air used to depart from?

Top

LAXintl

Posts: 24964

Joined: Wed May 24, 2000 12:12 pm

RE: LAX T1 Gate Renumbering

Quote

#44

Mon May 25, 2015 5:08 pm

No the 19 remote gates and facilities at West end of airport.

From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California

Top

barney captain

Topic Author

Posts: 2372

Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2001 5:47 pm

RE: LAX T1 Gate Renumbering

Quote

#45

Mon May 25, 2015 6:01 pm

LAXintl, and all -

Thanks for your insight and clarification, it is much appreciated.

Southeast Of Disorder

Top

Display posts from previous: Sort by

Post Reply

Print view

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: bigb, Bing [Bot], CALMSP, CanadianRedneck, CBRboy, csturdiv, Dalavia, eightcone, FlyingHonu001, gdavis003, GeneW, gregn21, hbernal1, irelayer, jamie86, JayinKitsap, lemondao, qf789, rbretas, SoEWR, TTailedTiger, TWA772LR, UALFAson, vadriver, wrenchon727, zippy and 200 guests

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

Civil Aviation

Travel, Polls & Preferences

Technical/Operations

Aviation Hobby

Aviation Photography

Photography Feedback

Trip Reports

Military Aviation & Space Flight

Non-Aviation

Site Related

Airliners.net

Aviation Forums

Civil Aviation

Delete all board cookies

The team

Delete all board cookies

The team

Forums

Civil Aviation

Travel, Polls & Preferences

Technical/Operations

Aviation Hobby

Aviation Photography

Photography Feedback

Trip Reports

Military Aviation & Space Flight

Non-Aviation

Site Related

Quick Links

Forum Rules

Forums Home

FAQ

Search

The team

Photos

Search

Photo Albums

Top Photographers

Upload

Photo Index

More

News

Aircraft Data

About

Terms of Use

Copyright

Privacy Policy

Do Not Sell My Data

Manage Consent

Contact us

About us

Airliners.net is the leading community for discovering and sharing high-quality aviation photography. We thank you for your support and hope you'll join the largest aviation community on the web.

Copyright © VerticalScope Inc.