Lax Expansion?

[biztraveller29]

This was brought up in the Alaska Airlines thread, but I thought starting a new topic here would be warranted. US Airways is prepared to move to co-locate with United in Terminal 6, and rumor has it that America West may move to T3 (or T2 for int'l).

It sounds like some gate space may open for WN at LAX. Has there been any discussion of expansion of service plans? I can't imagine WN would let free gate space go unused in T1...

 

[AA191]

That would be great then WN would have its own terminal at LAX.

 

[JFK777]

Southwest having its own terminal at LAX? Given the tight terminal situation and the airports primary mission, international, I would find it strange if some one didn't move to T1. Given Alaska uses T3(old TWA), I would bet they move to T1. Since T3 is going to be torn down, the question is really who has the master lease on T1. If Usair does, then it could be musial terminals. Why would US move to the crowded T6 & T7(UA terminals) given the number of flights they have to LAX from PHL, CLT & PIT.

T1 & T2 have always had a strange client list at LAX, the only consistency is NW, master lease holder of T2. T2( its own customs) has KLM(NW partner), Virgin Atlantic, Air New Zealand and some other orphans. T2 reads like a list of exiles from the Tom Bradley building. T1 could use a few international airlines to relief Bradley. Given that such airline(s) would have to clear customs at T2, it has to be related to NW. Korean Air & JAl would be good candidates. Given LAX's need to concentrate on Asia turning T1 into "Love Field West" would be a bad decision. I find it ironic, SW flies to LAX but not SFO, ORD, ATL, JFK, IAD, BOS, or MIA.

 

[SWAFA30]

According to this....

/index.php...showtopic=10078

the US move from T1 to T6 is already a done deal.

 

[mweiss]

Since T3 is going to be torn down, the question is really who has the master lease on T1.

The same master plans that have T3 torn down also have T1 torn down.

T2 reads like a list of exiles from the Tom Bradley building.

Funny way to put it; T2 was the international terminal before TBIT was built for the 1984 Olympics.

 

[mga707]

Since T3 is going to be torn down, the question is really who has the master lease on T1. If Usair does, then it could be musical terminals.

Hmm, interesting. At first I thought it strange that one would guess US as the leaseholder, but it does make sense: When T-1 opened in 1984, by far the busiest operator there was PSA. AirCal, America West, and Southwest (with a much smaller LAX operation than today) were the other T-1 tenants. Funny how now WN has the big T-1 operation, while PSA's successor has the much smaller one.

 

[mga707]

The same master plans that have T3 torn down also have T1 torn down.

Which really strikes me as odd since T-1 is the newest domestic LAX terminal, less than half the age of T-3 (20 vs. 42 years old).

 

[mga707]

T1 & T2 have always had a strange client list at LAX, the only consistency is NW, master lease holder of T2. T2( its own customs) has KLM(NW partner), Virgin Atlantic, Air New Zealand and some other orphans.

Don't forget T-2's only other domestic carrier besides NW: Hawaiian.

 

[biztraveller29]

Why would US move to the crowded T6 & T7(UA terminals) given the number of flights they have to LAX from PHL, CLT & PIT.

US is moving to co-locate with new Star Alliance partner UA. Besides, Terminal 6 (while a dump), is not that crowded. But the US move is not just a rumor, it is going to happen. I am more suspicious of any talk of an HP move. Yes, they will be inaugurating flights to Canada and Mexico (and will need customs). But that doesn't mean the entire airline needs to change terminals.

At a minimum, there will be empty gate space from the US departure. I really don't see Alaska moving their operations there, especially since they have a much larger number of flights than US does at LAX. I do think WN will be the airline to fill any vacated space, but that is just conjecture on my part. Given WN's expansion at LAX, I don't think it is too far-fetched to say T1 is going to go all WN.

I see flights to PHL, PVD, & ??? in the future...

 

[mrman]

Southwest having its own terminal at LAX? Given the tight terminal situation and the airports primary mission, international, I would find it strange if some one didn't move to T1. Given Alaska uses T3(old TWA), I would bet they move to T1. Since T3 is going to be torn down, the question is really who has the master lease on T1. If Usair does, then it could be musial terminals. Why would US move to the crowded T6 & T7(UA terminals) given the number of flights they have to LAX from PHL, CLT & PIT.

T1 & T2 have always had a strange client list at LAX, the only consistency is NW, master lease holder of T2. T2( its own customs) has KLM(NW partner), Virgin Atlantic, Air New Zealand and some other orphans. T2 reads like a list of exiles from the Tom Bradley building. T1 could use a few international airlines to relief Bradley. Given that such airline(s) would have to clear customs at T2, it has to be related to NW. Korean Air & JAl would be good candidates. Given LAX's need to concentrate on Asia turning T1 into "Love Field West" would be a bad decision. I find it ironic, SW flies to LAX but not SFO, ORD, ATL, JFK, IAD, BOS, or MIA.

Why shouldn't WN take over T-1. They have about the same market share as AA at LAX and will most likely surpass AA this year. Remember WN carries more passengers domestically than any other.

See http://www.losangelesalmanac.com/topics/Tr...nsport/tr70.htm

 

[sfb]

Southwest having its own terminal at LAX? Given the tight terminal situation and the airports primary mission, international, I would find it strange if some one didn't move to T1. Given Alaska uses T3(old TWA), I would bet they move to T1. Since T3 is going to be torn down, the question is really who has the master lease on T1. If Usair does, then it could be musial terminals. Why would US move to the crowded T6 & T7(UA terminals) given the number of flights they have to LAX from PHL, CLT & PIT.

T1 & T2 have always had a strange client list at LAX, the only consistency is NW, master lease holder of T2. T2( its own customs) has KLM(NW partner), Virgin Atlantic, Air New Zealand and some other orphans. T2 reads like a list of exiles from the Tom Bradley building. T1 could use a few international airlines to relief Bradley. Given that such airline(s) would have to clear customs at T2, it has to be related to NW. Korean Air & JAl would be good candidates. turning T1 into "Love Field West" would be a bad decision. I find it ironic, SW flies to LAX but not SFO, ORD, ATL, JFK, IAD, BOS, or MIA.

LAX's terminal situation isn't as tight as it used to be. With TWA gone and AA consolidating its flights into T-4, there are a decent number of gates open at T-3. I can't say that I agree that the airport's primary mission is international travel, either, given that only about 26% of the airport's passenger traffic in 2003 was international. Alaska already has a lot more gates (and flights) at T-3 than US has at T-1, so that move would likely be unworkable.

US wants to consolidate gate locations with United to facilitate connections with United's network. Having to take the bus between Terminals 1 and 6/7/8 (and reclear security, to boot) is not terribly convenient for passengers, and United isn't fully using its gates, with fewer mainline departures than WN out of about twice as many gates. Some of the former United Shuttle (Terminal 8) gates are being used for United Express these days.

Actually, if PSA, America West, AirCal and Southwest were T-1 tenants at its opening, then the list of tenants has changed very little (aside from AirCal being absorbed by AA). USAir bought PSA, after all. T-1 is unsuitable for international carriers since it has no customs facilities and the gates are pretty tightly-spaced.

"Given LAX's need to concentrate on Asia" -- I actually don't see this as a given. LAX needs to concentrate on where people want to travel. The airport probably does need more international facilities, and I suspect the most likely scenario is an expansion of the TBIT.

WN flies to LAX "but not SFO, ORD, ATL, JFK, IAD, BOS, or MIA" because:
-- SFO has a poor runway configuration when the weather's bad; the delays proved unworkable for them.
-- ORD was slot-restricted and MDW is a good alternate.
-- ATL already has a well-entrenched LCC (and has historically been a large hub for Delta and Eastern until its demise).
-- JFK has historically been viewed as unattractive for short-haul travel, though jetBlue may be changing that perception.
-- IAD sits in the shadow of their large operation at BWI and doesn't draw from as large a catchment area.
-- BOS has a poor airfield configuration and is very short on gate space.
-- MIA is an AA hub and FLL serves the same area with better facilities and less congestion.
LAX has historically been a fragmented market for domestic travel, which eliminates many of the network carriers' advantages in their hub markets. The airfield has capacity comparable to ATL and the weather's generally good. And WN expanded to LAX fairly early in their history, around 1982 or 1983, before serving the other airports in the L.A. Basin.

I would think that US and HP would be glad to be out of T-1, given what I've heard about the security lines...

 

[JFK777]

SFB,

You are right in your observations of the coastal hubs but they are all fragmented to one degree as compared with hubs like ATL. Big coastal cities are fragmented for many reason but one large one is you have these many airline flying to these cities with few daily flights. Just look at MIA, JFK & LAX( the countries 3 traditional, all those foreign airlines creating fragmenation. Miami( the gateway to banana republics) gets every little airline with a 737 and some big ones like TACA abd LAN. JFK gets every airline from Eastern Europe and Africa with a pair of 767's( LOT & Royal Air Maroc). LAX gets some Taca's and some pacific island airlines with better birds( Fiji Air with 747's). Then LAX and JFK to a lesser degree MIA get the marvelous Asian & European airlines; BA, Virgin, JAL, Cathay, ANA & SIA. Sorry MIA, no Asis for you; this has to dealt with. Whomever is in development at MIA is asleep at their job.

 

[mweiss]

Which really strikes me as odd since T-1 is the newest domestic LAX terminal, less than half the age of T-3 (20 vs. 42 years old).

It's not because of age, that's why. It just happens that there's less room to expand to the north than to the south, so in increasing the runway spacing, they have to move inward rather than outward on the north side.

I still remember the inflatable T-1 that predated the one there now. Laker used to fly out of there to London.

 

[Just Plane Crazy]

CO and DL are also in T6. With US moving to T6 where are CO and DL going to move to? OK DL still has T5 and they could consolidate. But CO needs to move. So is CO moving to T1 or are they moving in with NW and other airlines in that treminal will move to T1? Are some additional LCC"s moving into LAX and into T1?

 

[mga707]

I still remember the inflatable T-1 that predated the one there now. Laker used to fly out of there to London.

Unless I'm sorely mistaken, the inflatable "Hefty bag" terminal was at T-2, not T-1. T-2, the original Pan Am/National/Int'l. carriers (and Eastern after they began serving LAX in 1969) terminal, was extensively redone in the early '80s.
I have photos I took of LAX from fall '82 showing the inflatable T-2, with construction just beginning on what is now T-1. The land that T-1 was built on had been ramp space.