******Standard moderator disclaimer - please delete if previously discussed*****

The decade of the "20-teens" at LAX has been one of nonstop terminal construction activity. The mix of both civic (TBIT / TBIT-W, T2) and corporate (Alaka T6, Delta T5, Southwest T1) initiated projects have been the subject of various discussions here on a.net. The culmination of this activity is slated for late 2019 / early 2020 - the current projected opening date of the 1st phase of the MSC (Midfield Satellite Concourse).

Turning toward the next decade, it appears that the reinvention of LAX will continue. In the December, 2014 issue of Airline Business, Roger Johnson, deputy Executive Director of Airport Development is quoted extensively from an interview in which he gives insights on the continuing evolution of LAX.

Among the specific facility mentions, one that has been the object of years of a.net derision:

"LAWA plans to demolish and rebuild terminal three once the midfield concourse, which will handle both domestic and international flights, opens..."

For a reference, I've included a previous redevelopment proposal rendering for T3 from the late 90s':



Specific elements are undefined at this point, but the overall geometry will likely reflect that shown above - essentially, a large, rectangular structure replacing the oval-shape of the original 1960's LAX satellite concept.

Mr. Johnson also mentions the previously discussed (a.net, and elsewhere) Terminal 0, "east of Terminal One."

A surprising response with regard to concept(s) mentioned by Mr. Johnson was the potential 'resurrection' of Terminal 9 by, "....adding a terminal eight on the east side of Sepulveda Boulevard." The former Terminal 9 concept was discussed some time ago here on a.net: LAX:UA And Terminal 9?

Attached below are a couple of the original siteplan concepts:



Personally, the most surprising element envisioned by Mr. Johnson is the potential for, "....removing one of the five domestic piers on the south side of the central terminal area."

This potential concept, coupled with the rebuilding / resiting of the remaining south side terminals would be immensely helpful in addressing both the airside & landside demand imbalance that now plagues LAX during peak hours.

In the nearer term.....is LAWA paving a path forward for terminal relocation(s) to address the CTA (Central Terminal Area) demand imbalance?

The June 18th, 2015 LAWA BoAC report includes discussion of an award of two separate three year airport planning professional services contracts - one each to longtime LAWA business partners Gensler and Ricondo and Associates.

In essence, the purpose is definition & scoping work (from vehicle curb to aircraft gate, and the other accoutrements in between) for a forthcoming project currently termed "North Terminal Improvements". The project would also entail construction of the long hinted-at T3-TBIT connector building.

However, one nugget really stands out in this report: "Providing technical assistance and LAWA guidance for improvement being considered by airline(s) for Terminal 2 and Terminal 3."

Was this perhaps hinted at in an a.net thread from earlier this year?: "DL And Am Pledge To Co-locate At LAX"

Thoughts?

[Edited 2015-07-21 17:20:11]

I think Westchester residents are mobilizing already.

What LAX should really consider is creating a series of parallel satellites west of the international terminal.

Did you listen to the measure to appropriate $29.5M to upgrade T5? At the 2:39:00 they start talking about it, and Delta came to LAWA with $195M in improvements for phase 2 of T5.

LAWA says they decided to pass on that, as there are plans to re-locate airlines in a 1 to 2 year process. "Potential Relocations for efficient operations".

http://lawa.granicus.com/MediaPlayer...iew_id=4&clip_id=272&meta_id=21467

So who is moving and when?

aaway - good to see you my friend! thanks for the updates.

Quoting carljanderson (Reply 3): LAWA says they decided to pass on that, as there are plans to re-locate airlines in a 1 to 2 year process. "Potential Relocations for efficient operations".

Very interesting. UA just started renovations to Terminal 7, DL and AS just completed renovations to T5 and T6, respectively, and AA's T4 is getting the secure link to TBIT.

Quoting carljanderson (Reply 3): LAWA says they decided to pass on that, as there are plans to re-locate airlines in a 1 to 2 year process. "Potential Relocations for efficient operations".

Reading between the lines, it would have to be Delta. If it weren't Delta, one would have to imagine a situation where Delta would have to make do with fewer gates than they do now in T5.

On the south side, Delta is the most expendable. Both AA and UA are too large. The master lease to T5 already belongs to LAWA.

For Delta, the opportunity exists to colocate on the north side with AM and VS and gain access to more gates. In the meantime, Delta would have to put up with a ragtag group of gates. There is no telling when LAWA will follow through with its desire to upgrade T3 and build a T3 connector. Already, LAWA has reduced the scope of the T2 lobby renovation in the event that it builds the T1/T2 connector.

On the south side, Delta's departure would probably benefit AA the most. I could see AA trading its position in T6 for T5 and gaining a few more gates in the process. I imagine now that any forthcoming renovation of T4 will probably link the T4 ticket lobby to the T5 ticket lobby.

Whatever the case, it seems like LAWA has a plan to balance operations on both sides and to gain some operational flexibility on the south side. So far Delta seems to be cooperating, not that is has much leverage in the matter otherwise.

[Edited 2015-07-21 19:55:23]

Quoting LDVAviation (Reply 5): , one would have to imagine a situation where Delta would have to make do with fewer gates than they do now in T5.

Only you and your fellow fan boys are the ones imagining this.

Quoting LDVAviation (Reply 5): On the south side, Delta is the most expendable. Both AA and UA are too large.

Yes, Delta......who is larger than UA now FWIW......is expendable.

lol where do you come up with this stuff?

Quoting LDVAviation (Reply 5): On the south side, Delta's departure would probably benefit AA the most. I could see AA trading its position in T6 for T5 and gaining a few more gates in the process. I imagine now that any forthcoming renovation of T4 will probably link the T4 ticket lobby to the T5 ticket lobby.

And here it is.

AA to take over the world. It took 5 posts for this one to come out. AA isn't even using all of the space it has now, but yep they are going to take over the southside add all these flights yada yada yada yada.

Quoting LDVAviation (Reply 5): So far Delta seems to be cooperating, not that is has much leverage in the matter otherwise.

Lol yep because that is how the world works. You are one jealous or troubled person bro.         

Quoting aaway (Thread starter): However, one nugget really stands out in this report: "Providing technical assistance and LAWA guidance for improvement being considered by airline(s) for Terminal 2 and Terminal 3."

Internally a lot is being talked about. Delta has a few options and they are trying to figure out what is best. (clearly the preferred option is to keep T5 but it might not be the best thing, long term, for the airline.)

Tanks for posting aaway, hope all is well with you!

Quoting Beardown91737 (Reply 1): I think Westchester residents are mobilizing already.

Just last night I walked by a very new "Stop LAX Expansion" sign in front of a house near the north employee lots on my way back to my hotel from dinner.

Quoting phlwok (Reply 7): Just last night I walked by a very new "Stop LAX Expansion" sign in front of a house near the north employee lots on my way back to my hotel from dinner.

I live just north of the airport (in Playa del Rey, adjoining Westchester) and there are still plenty of "Stop LAX Expansion" signs in front yards here, from the last round of proposed expansion. Even many of the apartment/condo dwellers still have them in windows.

Quoting Deltal1011man (Reply 6): Only you and your fellow fan boys are the ones imagining this.

LAWA has indicated they want to move other airlines into T5. See the Board Report referenced above. If Delta is not moving, one would have to imagine a situation in which they make do with fewer gates in T5. This is not some figment of a fanboy imagination; it simply follows from what we know if Delta is not moving.

Quoting Deltal1011man (Reply 6): Yes, Delta......who is larger than UA now FWIW......is expendable. lol where do you come up with this stuff?

YES, Delta is expendable on the south side because it has preferential rights to far fewer gates than AA and UA and because it no longer holds the master lease to T5. It also seems now like it was not a wise strategic decision on Delta's part to split the renovation of T5 into two phases because that has created an opening for LAWA to assert its will.

Quoting Deltal1011man (Reply 6): And here it is. AA to take over the world. It took 5 posts for this one to come out. AA isn't even using all of the space it has now, but yep they are going to take over the southside add all these flights yada yada yada yada.

LAWA is in negotiations with AA over two properties, T4 and AA's hangar, the one in the way of Phase 2 of the MSC. Unlike Delta, AA still holds the master lease(s) to T4 and its maintenance facilities. LAWA wants to buy back both leases. AA wants more gates and money for a reno to T4. I've heard from more than one source that LAWA has offered AA gates in T5. (I am so sorry if that upsets your world view.)

Quoting Deltal1011man (Reply 6): Lol yep because that is how the world works.

Apparently it does. Because Delta did not initiate this action, LAWA did. (Again see the Board Report referenced above.) Perhaps if Delta still held the master lease it could unilaterally reject the move.

As I said, Delta seems to be cooperating because there is an opportunity here as well. It might not have another chance to better its situation in the near future because Southwest has also set its sights on T2. Furthermore, once the negotiations with AA are concluded, LAWA won't have any other incentive to free up more gates on the south side.

If Delta ends up in T3, it would get at least 13 gates there, plus some additional gates in T2 (at least as many as it has in T6 now). Eventually, it would also have access to TBIT via a connector, giving it the potential to operate international flights from either T2 or TBIT. In the meantime, of course, it would have to put up with facilities in T3 that are inferior to those in T5. It may also have to finance any renovations to T3, with LAWA providing support in the form of a buyback agreement. All of this would take time and there is no telling how fast LAWA would move to make these things happen.

If Delta moves, all of that seems somewhat clear. What is not clear at all is the fate of the airlines currently in T3 and T2. The ones affiliated with Delta probably stay in T2. The other international airlines could go to either T5 or T6, both have access to FIS. One or more domestic airlines would most likely move to AA's gates in T6. If that happens, UA will probably never regain preferential use of those gates.

[Edited 2015-07-22 11:08:45]

LDVAviation, seems T0 isn't off the table if WN wants to expand? Thinking it makes more sense of T2/T3 to become a single terminal even if a connector to TBIT comes along later. Doesn't mean T2 needs to be turn down fully like T3 has been but consolidate the ticketing to a common ticketing large single lobby, consolidate the bag claim and have airside access between both post security - still keep two checkpoint areas.

DL would be most ideal there along with Virgin Atlantic (even it's more distant siblings Virgin Australia).

This would give breathing space in T5 for AA, might even make sense for AS to be in T5 with other Star Alliance carriers more aligned in T6 that aren't in TBIT (like Copa is today; e.g. AC). Would also give Delta a ground up more modern facility and not a band aid terminal like most LAX terminals are (barring new TBIT portions)

All speculation but current DL in T5 does limit a lot of common sense to the passenger solutions.

Quoting NickLAX (Reply 10): LDVAviation, seems T0 isn't off the table if WN wants to expand? [...] This would give breathing space in T5 for AA, might even make sense for AS to be in T5 with other Star Alliance carriers more aligned in T6 that aren't in TBIT (like Copa is today; e.g. AC). All speculation but current DL in T5 does limit a lot of common sense to the passenger solutions.

If you are Southwest, you have to consider where a Terminal 0 figures in LAWA's plans. Even if T0 were to be built after the MSC Phase 2 and the CTA APM, that is a long way off and a lot of debt later.

In the meantime, a connector between T1 and T2 seems more likely. That's about a $100m project and could probably be done without any financial commitment from Southwest. T2 also has FIS and from what I've heard the additional gates in T2 would be used for some sort of international expansion.

As to AS, it makes a lot of sense to put them in T5, but does AS want to rebrand another lobby?

Moreover, I don't think the proposal to move Delta out of T5 was meant to be an alliance-wide colocation project. To be sure, if Delta moves it will unite with some SkyTeam partners, maybe even one or two now in TBIT. But on the south side I think you will see LAWA do what is most convenient.

As to your last point, I fully agree. At T5, Delta is in the way of progress. Of course, last time such a move was contemplated and discussed here a very well informed person opined that neither AA nor DL would budge to make things better for the other. The situation is a little different now in the sense that LAWA has to make things better for AA one way or another. Delta can benefit long term from that situation or it can stay and see AA get more considerations (e.g., gates) regardless.

[Edited 2015-07-22 13:54:17]

Quoting Beardown91737 (Reply 1): I think Westchester residents are mobilizing already.

Damn right! LAWA has taken enough of our land and demolished enough of our houses since the 60s. Plus Westchester home values are soaring thanks to the Silicon Beach boom. Between Playa Vista (construction should be wrapping up in the next few years) and all the development pretty much everywhere, expanding the airport is going to make what is now already miserable traffic and congestion even MORE miserable!

Theres so much to that interview that doesnt make sense.

Quoting aaway (Thread starter): A surprising response with regard to concept(s) mentioned by Mr. Johnson was the potential 'resurrection' of Terminal 9 by

Quoting aaway (Thread starter): "....removing one of the five domestic piers on the south side of the central terminal area."

What is the point of building T9 and removing a south terminal?

And if you remove one of the south terminals then which one? T5 will need to stay if LAWA wants anything from AA. Im sure AS would like to stay close to AA and TBIT in T6. UA in T7/8 won't take kindly to losing a pier either.

If DL moves into T3 will VX/B6 move into T2 because it sure as hell doesn't make sense to move them into T5. Combining VX/B6 + AA's four T6 gates into T5 offers AA a net gain of about one gate. That's surely not worth selling the T4 and hangar master lease.

Who moves into T9?

Quoting LDVAviation (Reply 9): LAWA wants to buy back both leases.

If AA is smart they will tell LAWA to kick rocks as far as the T4 lease is concerned. Regarding the hangar, their sole objective should be to translate the sale into a preferential/exclusive use of T5. Hopefully AA will get LAWA to sign a "sell your soul" agreement, but AA has a history of strategic blunders, so its a little worrying to see what they will choose.

Quoting LDVAviation (Reply 11): As to AS, it makes a lot of sense to put them in T5, but does AS want to rebrand another lobby?

Thats the same as the VX/BX scenario, how will that tempt AA to sell their leases?

Quoting LDVAviation (Reply 11): that LAWA has to make things better for AA one way or another.

Quoting LDVAviation (Reply 11): see AA get more considerations (e.g., gates) regardless.

Can you expand upon this? LAWA "has" to make things better as in contractually? What considerations would become available if DL didnt cooperate?

Quoting LDVAviation (Reply 11): In the meantime, a connector between T1 and T2 seems more likely. That's about a $100m project and could probably be done without any financial commitment from Southwest. T2 also has FIS and from what I've heard the additional gates in T2 would be used for some sort of international expansion.

Yup, didn't click in on the International potential for WN, makes sense to have SOME gates then in T2 for FIS use (and potential scale up as needed). Based on current moves to TBIT by T2 users would agree that a 100M connector would be viable way for LAWA to get FIS access to WN and get gate use in T2 up in light of some carrier moves.

Quoting Byrdluvs747 (Reply 13): If AA is smart they will tell LAWA to kick rocks as far as the T4 lease is concerned. Regarding the hangar, their sole objective should be to translate the sale into a preferential/exclusive use of T5. Hopefully AA will get LAWA to sign a "sell your soul" agreement, but AA has a history of strategic blunders, so its a little worrying to see what they will choose.

   AA should bring up the loss of its 12-gate Eagle terminal next to T4 for a smaller 10-gate terminal in the location of the T9 concept, as well as the loss of its two hangars and the loss of the preferential use rights for the 4 TBIT gates.

I know this is not going to happen, but without increasing the number of gates, all the international airlines at T2 could move to the MSC, Delta to a shiny new T3 connected to T2 and TBIT, and the domestic LCC to the T6, the MSC and a new T0 or T9. AA could then move all the T6 and Eagle ops to T5. In this scenario, everyone would be able to add a few gates when/if possible.

Quoting aaway (Thread starter): "LAWA plans to demolish and rebuild terminal three once the midfield concourse, which will handle both domestic and international flights, opens..."

Has there been any discussion to move a domestic airline to the new MSC?

Quoting Zrs70 (Reply 2): What LAX should really consider is creating a series of parallel satellites west of the international terminal.

That is already in the works with the MSC.

Quoting realsim (Reply 15): AA should bring up the loss of its 12-gate Eagle terminal next to T4 for a smaller 10-gate terminal in the location of the T9 concept, as well as the loss of its two hangars and the loss of the preferential use rights for the 4 TBIT gates.

AA was compensated for that with the connector to Bradley and preferential use of the 4 Bradley gates closest to T4, along with the Box conversion to Eagle's Nest being paid by LAWA. They can almost certainly get away with running fewer gates there, as lighter regional traffic drops and flights are replaced by 70 seaters.

Quoting realsim (Reply 15): AA could then move all the T6 and Eagle ops to T5.

AA would be foolish to agree to that. If they negotiate properly, they should already get some gates as part of the hangar agreement. If you combine those with the four gates in T6 and the nine gates in the Eagles nest, the total exceeds the 13 gate capacity of T5.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 16): They can almost certainly get away with running fewer gates there

But they won't. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought AA won the right to trade RJ gates 1:1 for mainline gates. AA will keep the 9 gate operation until such a trade happens.

Post 2020, the priority is going to need to shift to land-side circulation. The APM will help some, but World Way is a mess. I think demolition of at least a significant portion of the T7 garage will be needed, and possibly a good chunk of T1 garage. at least two additional lanes of traffic are required on the lower level in front of T7, but cars are presently a limiting factor for LAX.

I see T3 being fully demolished. LADBS won't let them do any work on the building without dealing with a huge backlog of upgrades, and the building really isn't worth it. I can't see a T0 or T9 happening unless a central terminal is provided that connects 1&7

Quoting TwoFourLeft (Reply 12): Damn right! LAWA has taken enough of our land and demolished enough of our houses since the 60s. Plus Westchester home values are soaring thanks to the Silicon Beach boom. Between Playa Vista (construction should be wrapping up in the next few years) and all the development pretty much everywhere, expanding the airport is going to make what is now already miserable traffic and congestion even MORE miserable!

Makes ya feel really smart for moving/living next to an airport, huh?  

Does anyone know the official status of Terminal 0? Is the renumbering of T1 gates related to this at all? Where can we find information on what's going on with T1?

Quoting LAX772LR (Reply 19): Makes ya feel really smart for moving/living next to an airport, huh?

Sorry, but my house was built in 1946 (years before there was any plan of expanding the airport to its current size). Plenty of homes in Westchester/Playa Del Rey that are even older (some even pre-dating Mines Field). My family alone has been living here for more than 50 years, but there are many here today who are descendants of original owners.

It helps to actually know LAX/Westchester history before commenting  

Quoting TwoFourLeft (Reply 21): Sorry, but my house was built in 1946 (years before there was any plan of expanding the airport to its current size). Plenty of homes in Westchester/Playa Del Rey that are even older (some even pre-dating Mines Field). My family alone has been living here for more than 50 years, but there are many here today who are descendants of original owners.

That doesn't mean you are chained to the house til death.

Quoting airplaneboy (Reply 20): Does anyone know the official status of Terminal 0? Is the renumbering of T1 gates related to this at all? Where can we find information on what's going on with T1?

The T1 gate renumbering makes sense on its own without considering T0, but it does help. In T2-T8 the gate numbers are the terminal number followed by one digit or one digit and a letter. Same with the renumbered T1 now.

If someone asks where gate 43 is, it is clearly in T4. That logic doesn't work when gates 3 and 13 are in the same terminal.

Gates in the 100 series are in the TBIT complex. I wonder if anyone had ever considered making TBIT T100 before Tom Bradley died.

Quoting Byrdluvs747 (Reply 22): That doesn't mean you are chained to the house til death.

He was spewing the "LAX was there first" nonsense (which is BS, as I explained above) that people who aren't from here and don't know a thing about the area and its history usually comment, so he was implying that I have no right to defend the place I grew up in and live from airport expansion (which they already did 50 years ago, demolishing a lot of homes and businesses). I'm not complaining about noise (anyone who actually lives here doesn't even notice or care), I am against further physical expansion of airport property into the community.

[Edited 2015-07-23 00:12:47]

Quoting TwoFourLeft (Reply 21): It helps to actually know LAX/Westchester history before commenting

Helps to read a bit more carefully............

Quoting TwoFourLeft (Reply 24): He was spewing the "LAX was there first" nonsense

............or did you somehow think that the split between "moving" and "living" found itself there by accident?   

In other words:

Quoting Byrdluvs747 (Reply 22): That doesn't mean you are chained to the house til death.

      

That said, I still maintain that anyone living next to an airport that's a lot older than they are, and whining about it, is probably not a paragon of the species' intellectual capability. To put it mildly.

Quoting TwoFourLeft (Reply 21): It helps to actually know LAX/Westchester history before commenting

The most unfortunate episode in Westchester history: In the early 1950s, when the area north of LAX was being developed, LAX put a sign on the fence warning prospective home buyers that a major international airport would be built across the street from them within a few years. At that time, all of LAX was south of World Way - the central terminal complex and the 24s hadn't been built yet. The developers of Westchester sued, and forced LAX to take the sign down....and once LAX was expanded north of World Way in the early 1960s, jet noise in Westchester became unbearable. LAX subsequently had to buy many of the homes north of the airport for far more than their original selling price.

Quoting LDVAviation (Reply 9): If Delta ends up in T3, it would get at least 13 gates there, plus some additional gates in T2 (at least as many as it has in T6 now). Eventually, it would also have access to TBIT via a connector, giving it the potential to operate international flights from either T2 or TBIT. In the meantime, of course, it would have to put up with facilities in T3 that are inferior to those in T5. It may also have to finance any renovations to T3, with LAWA providing support in the form of a buyback agreement. All of this would take time and there is no telling how fast LAWA would move to make these things happen.

Please correct me if I'm wrong because that's very possible. If I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that Delta, which already has 13 gates at T5 that they just spent $229M renovating, will be forced to move to T3 which has far fewer gates currently and would only have 13 if the new T3 is constructed (Based on the diagram posted by the OP). They would have to share those gates at T3 with other airlines and foot the bill for building T3 on top of it. All to help their primary competitor at LAX benefit at Delta's expense. Why would they cooperate with that? What would keep LAWA from kicking them out of the new T3 once Delta spent the money to build it, just like you're saying LAWA will do to them after the T5 renos? I must be missing something.

Quoting TwoFourLeft (Reply 24): He was spewing the "LAX was there first" nonsense (which is BS, as I explained above) that people who aren't from here and don't know a thing about the area and its history usually comment, so he was implying that I have no right to defend the place I grew up in and live from airport expansion (which they already did 50 years ago, demolishing a lot of homes and businesses). I'm not complaining about noise (anyone who actually lives here doesn't even notice or care), I am against further physical expansion of airport property into the community.

It's true that you don't really notice the aircraft noise. Took me a few days, but I honestly don't even hear it anymore. Thanks to the home demolitions in the 1970s, the planes are now flying past - not over - most of Westchester and PDR, so it's just sort of a background drone anyhow.

Most of Westchester was built really rapidly in the 1946-1955 period and was largely in place by the time the first of the two north runways was finished. The north complex was proposed right after the war, but the houses in Westchester went up so fast that there wasn't a lot of time to plan for anything.

Playa del Rey is older than Westchester - most of the streets and a fair number of the houses went in during the late 1920s, just before the Great Depression, and about a third of the lots of were occupied by 1930. Most of our sidewalks (the ones that haven't been replaced) are stamped "1928." Homebuilding pretty much stopped during the Depression and WW2, and didn't resume until the 1940s, so much of Playa has a distinctly mid-century look today, just like Westchester does.

Quoting mikesbucky (Reply 27): Please correct me if I'm wrong because that's very possible. If I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that Delta, which already has 13 gates at T5 that they just spent $229M renovating, will be forced to move to T3 which has far fewer gates currently and would only have 13 if the new T3 is constructed (Based on the diagram posted by the OP). They would have to share those gates at T3 with other airlines and foot the bill for building T3 on top of it. All to help their primary competitor at LAX benefit at Delta's expense. Why would they cooperate with that? What would keep LAWA from kicking them out of the new T3 once Delta spent the money to build it, just like you're saying LAWA will do to them after the T5 renos? I must be missing something.

Big question is where would VX/Virgin America, move to T6 where AS is? AS moves to T5? AS and DL still have an agreement - not well liked by AS but they still somewhat cooperate on feed.

The money DL spent would be a negotiating play for DL on LAWA doing the majority spend on T3 to be built to DL's needs.

Quoting JHwk (Reply 18): Post 2020, the priority is going to need to shift to land-side circulation. The APM will help some, but World Way is a mess. I think demolition of at least a significant portion of the T7 garage will be needed, and possibly a good chunk of T1 garage. at least two additional lanes of traffic are required on the lower level in front of T7, but cars are presently a limiting factor for LAX.

Agree. The shuttle buses are a disaster on traffic flow on top of the crush of cars in the evening. Getting a "Kiss and Fly" drop off near the forthcoming APM stations will be essential. I'll be honest once the APM starts working and it shows they can run it 24x7 without major issues I will start parking on the lot shared with the rental cars. Closer to get on the 405 and avoid all the LAX World Way nightmare. If I arrive on a Friday late evening it's faster to WALK from TBIT to Park n Fly (former Park One) and exit their lot than to deal with roadways not moving or waiting on a shuttle bus to any further out lots or hotels

My pet peeve is the shuttle drop off lanes on the lower level will have idiot drivers mixing in using it to circle World Way as a cheap mans "cell phone lot". The shuttle lane should be painted "BUSES AND SHUTTLES ONLY" "NO PRIVATE VEHICLES - $500 FINE"

[Edited 2015-07-23 10:33:21]

Quoting LDVAviation (Reply 11): If you are Southwest, you have to consider where a Terminal 0 figures in LAWA's plans. Even if T0 were to be built after the MSC Phase 2 and the CTA APM, that is a long way off and a lot of debt later. In the meantime, a connector between T1 and T2 seems more likely. That's about a $100m project and could probably be done without any financial commitment from Southwest. T2 also has FIS and from what I've heard the additional gates in T2 would be used for some sort of international expansion.

The key is FIS access. WN wants to expand international out of LAX, but they aren't going to build that FIS In the existing T1 frame.

Quoting Byrdluvs747 (Reply 17): But they won't. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought AA won the right to trade RJ gates 1:1 for mainline gates. AA will keep the 9 gate operation until such a trade happens.

Sure, but they already got their 4 gates in Bradley. T5 would be ideal to flesh out their plans. The T6 deal with United was separate.

Quoting TwoFourLeft (Reply 21): Sorry, but my house was built in 1946 (years before there was any plan of expanding the airport to its current size). Plenty of homes in Westchester/Playa Del Rey that are even older (some even pre-dating Mines Field). My family alone has been living here for more than 50 years, but there are many here today who are descendants of original owners.

The LAX site was chosen in 1928 to be the major airport for the region. The airport was there first.

Quoting LAX772LR (Reply 25): Helps to read a bit more carefully

Oh, and what exactly have you read? How many LAX books do you have? Do you know members of the Westchester Historical Society? I seriously doubt it...

Quoting LAX772LR (Reply 25): That said, I still maintain that anyone living next to an airport that's a lot older than they are, and whining about it, is probably not a paragon of the species' intellectual capability. To put it mildly.

1. No need to start talking like you're 12 and calling people names (or are you 12? They let 12-year-olds join A.net, don't they?)
2. You clearly don't understand what "property ownership" means or why it just might be kind of important to someone to keep the home they worked their lives to pay for and have for their children, or why one of the truly vibrant and best neighborhoods in Los Angeles where everyone really does love it here and where several generations have now grown up and live would want to preserve itself.

So clearly, you don't really know an ounce about Westchester (which I already knew from your misinformed and childish diatribe).

Quoting jsnww81 (Reply 28): Most of Westchester was built really rapidly in the 1946-1955 period and was largely in place by the time the first of the two north runways was finished.

Actually, most of it was built as housing for mainly aerospace workers prior to, during, and after World War II. If I walk a few blocks there's a section of houses from the late-1930s, then other sections built 1940-2, 1943-44, 1945-1947, and then 1948 and later. But that's just my section of the neighborhood. In other parts there's houses from the late 20s and early 30s. And I have found that the newer houses tend to be the furthest north.

Quoting jsnww81 (Reply 28): The north complex was proposed right after the war, but the houses in Westchester went up so fast that there wasn't a lot of time to plan for anything.

The vast majority of the houses were built 1930-1948. The airport before the government took it over for WWII was little more than a runway and a few buildings. There was virtually zero commercial service until almost 1950 when airlines started moving from Burbank. It was the increase in commercial service and the need for longer runways that drove the idea of expansion in the first place, but this was already after pretty much all of Westchester was built.

so...

Quoting N1120A (Reply 30): The LAX site was chosen in 1928 to be the major airport for the region. The airport was there first.

no.

[Edited 2015-07-23 12:59:38]

Any new terninal/gates should be common use, LAX expansion is bad enough to pull off with the militant neighbors then you have to deal with tenants griping about the renovations the neighbors got.

Quoting WA707atMSP (Reply 26):

That's ridiculous! Westchester was already mostly built by 1950!

Quoting flyingcat (Reply 33): Any new terninal/gates should be common use,

How exactly can that be done at LAX?! Ignoring the lease structures with the airlines, it isn't exactly practical to connect from (say) T6-T0.

Quoting TwoFourLeft (Reply 31): no

What do you mean no? You are wrong.

Quoting TwoFourLeft (Reply 31): and calling people names

Let's not invent that which hasn't happened, shall we?  

I've questioned the cognitive capabilities of people who perpetuate seemingly irrational actions, yes.
And I stand by that. But what "name" have I called you, or really anyone?

Quoting TwoFourLeft (Reply 31): You clearly don't understand what "property ownership" means

Oh but I do, including its limitations and why it's in no way the absolute that you appear to believe that it is. I dare say that property "ownership" is the right with the most extensive list of exemptions/roundabouts in US law.

Quoting TwoFourLeft (Reply 31): or why it just might be kind of important to someone to keep the home they worked their lives to pay for and have for their children

I understand it. Don't empathize with it, and really couldn't care less... but I do understand it.

Quoting TwoFourLeft (Reply 31): or why one of the truly vibrant and best neighborhoods in Los Angeles where everyone really does love it here and where several generations have now grown up and live would want to preserve itself.

*yawn* Bulldoze 'em!

Quoting TwoFourLeft (Reply 31): So clearly, you don't really know an ounce about Westchester

Please. Westchester's not worth taking a dump in, much less living.  

Quoting flyingcat (Reply 32): Any new terninal/gates should be common use

Tough to structure/operate outside of an int'l terminal though.

[Edited 2015-07-23 15:48:36]

The vast vast vast majority of people that live in Westchester have moved there knowing that they are at the doorstep of a major international airport ( basically most have moved there at least since the 1970s). I have very little sympathy for the NIMBYs in this situation. The airport is more important than their neighborhood, quite frankly. Sorry, I know that sounds cold, but that's the way it is. Fortunately the airport has been able to improve/expand within the confines of the settlement agreement with the neighbors, but that agreement is going to come to an end in stages:

http://www.planningreport.com/2014/0...estment-lax-improvements-continues

We know that there is a desire on the part of the near-in neighbors to have some cap on LAX activity. That expectation is referenced in the settlement agreement. They expect us not to have 78.9 million passengers by the end of 2015, after which the settlement agreement expires. There’s a remaining restriction on the number of gates we can have—no more than 153—that restriction stays in place until 2020.

So probably no gate restructuring until after 2020, but sorry, LAX will continue (and needs to) grow.

Quoting LAX772LR (Reply 36): Tough to structure/operate outside of an int'l terminal though.

Tough yes, not impossible though. Unfortunately most airports have little backbone to push the issue and US airlines hoard gates like the crown jewels. Sadly unless an airport supports a good shuttle loading system in a congested airport for an LCC most carriers will continue to lock up gates in any manner.

However if airports like JFK ORD, LGA and other were common use, terminals would be more streamlined and connected as opposed to the mess they are today.

Quoting LAX772LR (Reply 36): I've questioned the cognitive capabilities of people who perpetuate seemingly irrational actions, yes.

Fine, you didn't use a name, but seriously? Don't be a smart ass.

Quoting LAX772LR (Reply 36): Please. Westchester's not worth taking a dump in, much less living.

What nonsense! Tell that to our soaring home values thanks to Silicon Beach... or just take a walk... or ask anyone who actually lives here (which you obviously don't). People are discovering what we knew was here all along. You're just being rude and pretending like you know what you're talking about when you don't.

Quoting travelin man (Reply 37): The vast vast vast majority of people that live in Westchester have moved there knowing that they are at the doorstep of a major international airport ( basically most have moved there at least since the 1970s).

What data do you have that supports this statement? Do you live here? (NO) Come on! And it doesn't matter anyway because the houses predate the airport and Westchester is one of the hottest real estate areas on the Westside right now. We're not going anywhere.

http://www.latimes.com/business/real...hester-housing-20150102-story.html

[Edited 2015-07-23 18:26:57]

Quoting TwoFourLeft (Reply 39): What data do you have that supports this statement? Do you live here? (NO) Come on! And it doesn't matter anyway because the houses predate the airport and Westchester is one of the hottest real estate areas on the Westside right now. We're not going anywhere.

Newsflash: EVERY neighborhood in LA is "hot" right now. And yes, I can say the vast majority of people that live there knew they were buying in an "airport neighborhood" because all you have to do is look at the sales information on redfin to confirm (they list all of the last sales dates of all the houses based on government records).

Sorry, if you are looking for sympathy you are probably in the wrong forum. Try NIMBY.net.

Quoting TwoFourLeft (Reply 39): Fine, you didn't use a name, but seriously? Don't be a smart ass.

Better suggestion: how about, don't falsely accuse. Ever thought about that?

Quoting TwoFourLeft (Reply 39): You're just being rude and pretending like you know what you're talking about when you don't.

I'll happily take correction on any factual (i.e. not completely subjective-- which you seem to have rather significant difficulty differentiating) aspect that I've commented on inaccurately.

But let's not pretend that you repeating "you don't know what you're talking about" actually reaches that threshold though. At all.

Quoting flyingcat (Reply 38): Unfortunately most airports have little backbone to push the issue and US airlines hoard gates like the crown jewels

Wayyyyyy too simplistic of an assessment. It fails to take into account (among many things) the fact that the airports are often not the owner of the gates/concourse/terminal in question, or that they locked themselves into long-term lease agreements that give them little to no ability to alter the right to use any given gate setup. Thus they have no ability to "push the issue" regardless of "backbone"

Quoting TwoFourLeft (Reply 33): That's ridiculous! Westchester was already mostly built by 1950!

Actually, he is probably right. If you look at the area north of the airport on http://bit.ly/1TXjj8g you will see many homes were built there between 1952 and 1963. While I cannot confirm the presence of a sign it seems very plausible to me.

Quoting Byrdluvs747 (Reply 13): Can you expand upon this? LAWA "has" to make things better as in contractually? What considerations would become available if DL didnt cooperate?

We've discussed these things before. The T6 gates are temporary. The AE Terminal facility is uncompetitive and is now down to 9 out of an original 12 gates. The central security checkpoint at T4 is undersized and inefficient. Because of the MSC South, AA will lose a hangar and some RON parking. AA wants to fix some or all of this with any deal. As luck would have it, they have the leverage.

Even if Delta does not end up moving, LAWA still has to make a deal with AA. That might include anything from gates elsewhere, to lounge space in TBIT, to a LAWA-financed reno of T4.

Quoting airplaneboy (Reply 20): Does anyone know the official status of Terminal 0?

There is nothing official, not even a conceptual rendering. (We'll have to wait and see if anything more results from the architectural services contract Aaway referenced above.)

Quoting mikesbucky (Reply 27): All to help their primary competitor at LAX benefit at Delta's expense. Why would they cooperate with that? What would keep LAWA from kicking them out of the new T3 once Delta spent the money to build it, just like you're saying LAWA will do to them after the T5 renos? I must be missing something.

It's an opportunity for Delta to move to a side of the airport where it will have access to more gates. If Delta passes up the opportunity, no telling how or when things could open up for them again. While LAWA has some necessity to do something for AA, it has no similar necessity to do anything more for Delta. Mind you LAWA is not playing favorites here. It just so happens that AA has stuff that LAWA wants.

As to T3, the rebuild could be financed a number of ways, but in the end it is going to be LAWA money that pays for all non-proprietary improvements. It was the same with the recent reno to T5. (Remember LAWA has regained control of all the gates at LAX, except those in T4. I don't see LAWA making a deal with Delta that relinquishes any of that control.)

Furthermore, Delta is not being kicked out of T5. Delta was presented with the opportunity and some incentives. I think Delta initially turned it down, but reconsidered. LAWA's options were to move on or to wait until Delta's lease came up for renewal in 2025.

[Edited 2015-07-24 13:54:20]

It doesn't matter if there neighborhood or the airport was there first.

LAX serves the greater L.A. area, (2010 population of 12,828,837). A few households in Westchester should NOT have a say in the airport's expansion. That is simply not fair to the millions of others that decision effects.

How much of the T5 reno costs did DL pick up? Did LAWA pay for some of the renovation costs?

Search LAWA website this info is all public on all projects: http://www.lawa.org/uploadedFiles/LA...ews_for_LAXDev/T5%20Renovation.pdf

Delta paid $11.2 Million, LA World Airports $190M

Quoting LDVAviation (Reply 43): It's an opportunity for Delta to move to a side of the airport where it will have access to more gates.

I'm still missing how this gains more gates for DL. DL currently has 13 gates in T5 plus others in T6. The new T3 has 13 and you said earlier these would need to be shared. I'm not sure how many more gates in T2 they could get, but that would have to offset the loss of the T6 gates as well as the ones they'd have to give up in T3. Is there that much free space in T2 that other airlines aren't competing for? It seems like it would be a net loss of gates to me.

Quoting Byrdluvs747 (Reply 22): That doesn't mean you are chained to the house til death.

In California, you can get a big jump in property tax just by moving to another house of the same value.

Quoting kaitak744 (Reply 44): LAX serves the greater L.A. area, (2010 population of 12,828,837). A few households in Westchester should NOT have a say in the airport's expansion. That is simply not fair to the millions of others that decision effects.

The number of potential customers of LAX leans more toward 17 million. LAX will draw from that entire region due to its status as a hub for four US based airlines, and as a destination for international flights. However, it is not in a central location, and as such, is the closest airport to only about 20% of that total.

Westchester and other LAX neighbors probably wish for other facilities to take on more of the traffic burden, both air and ground. Newport Beach residents on the other hand, are successful in keeping limits on SNA traffic.

For those outside SoCal, Westchester is part of the city of Los Angeles, so is Playa del Rey, another source of LAX NIMBYs.