Ya know, (back a little closer to the original topic) now that AS has that half of the terminal to themselves, maybe now's the time to put a little money into updating the interior. Just updating the lighting in the old part of the terminal (the part that was there before they built the connector) would make quite a difference all by itself.
Lax T-3
- Thread starter cws818
- Start date
TWAnr
Veteran
I doubt that any major renovations will take place at Terminal 3 (or 1 and 2 for that matter). Mayor James K. Hahn's preferred master plan for LAX calls for the demolition of those three terminals and their replacement by a new Central Terminal complex where the parking structures now stand.mweiss said:
Master Plan LAX (Alternative D is the recommended plan).
Dont call me Shirley
Veteran
Boy, does that bring back memories! T-3 was quite nice in those days, with the waterfalll by the stairs up the gate level, the air side outdoor patio. And the many movie/TV productions that took place there. TWA always did have a special relationship with Holywood.cws818 said:
At that point, why not shift to a design like ATL? I mean, once you've moved the landside facilities that much, it'd be just as easy to put the whole landside over where the USPS is today (where they recommend adding parking). You'd have enough room for much easier aircraft movement, just like in ATL.TWAnr said:
What I find odd about AltD is it has the lowest capacity of the options.
TWAnr
Veteran
That is due to the NIMBY factor.mweiss said:
There is immense pressure from the beach cities and the Los Angeles neighborhoods surrounding LAX to reduce the operations there.
If your suggestion ever did come to pass it would be ironic, in that it would return the 'landside' terminal to just about where the entire passenger facility stood prior to the opening of the "Jet Age" LAX in 1962--the original LAX terminal on Avion Drive!mweiss said:
It's not odd, if you're a local official determined to regulate airport usage and charge monopoly fees to airlines. Los Angeles is the poster child for airport revenue diversion. But that's a whole other story. The least capacity alternative is part of the 'regional' plan.mweiss said:
Maybe it's time to dust off and take another look at the 30-or-so-year-old plan to build a "21st Century" LAX replacement up in the Antelope Valley near Palmdale.
Remember seeing maps of this proposal back in the '70s--in total area it was to have dwarfed DFW (and, presumably, DEN).
Of course, with California in the shape it's in, who'd pay for it?
Remember seeing maps of this proposal back in the '70s--in total area it was to have dwarfed DFW (and, presumably, DEN).
Of course, with California in the shape it's in, who'd pay for it?
Start off by calling it Arnold Schwarzenegger International Airport and I'll bet they'll find the money for itmga707 said:
Seriously though, AS is one of the few airlines that seems not only to have a rational growth plan but to be actually implementing it instead of randomly dumping seats on the market. Since they seem to also have a good grasp on their financial senses they would be unlikely to fund the necessary improvements, nor would the state or the airport. It would be nice if AS had a facility at LAX that is as nice as the one they have in the beautiful new terminal at PDX but these days it's just not economically viable.
The best long-term solution would be to reconstruct LAX in the linear form used at ATL. The concept of individual airline terminals made sense in the 1950s and '60s but make less sense today not only financially but also from a passenger logistics perspective. Today's code-sharing environment can make for some interesting transfers between terminals. It would also allow the airport to address the landside security issues with a clean slate rather than fitting them to an existing structure.
Agreed. Nonetheless, the demand is certainly going to be there for a much larger facility. Geez, if there was ever an airport in the US that has the demand to support dozens of 380s, LAX is it.RowUnderDCA said:
TWAnr
Veteran
Modified LAX Plan on Hahn's Radar?
Departures of 2 key officials may signal compromise from the mayor
By Noam N. Levey, Jennifer Oldham and Patrick McGreevy, Times Staff Writers
Two and half years later, however, the plan has come under relentless criticism from surrounding communities, major airlines and City Council members. And now, its two leading champions have left Hahn's administration amid criminal probes into the awarding of airport contracts.
Many city leaders, including council members poised to consider the $9-billion proposal, are saying that Hahn's plan — with its vast new passenger check-in terminal — is dead on arrival. They argue that the mayor must change his approach, reach out to opponents and compromise.
That could mean that the world's fifth-busiest airport will get a fraction of the makeover Hahn proposed in 2001, at perhaps a third of the cost, and leave LAX's existing terminals mostly the way they are today.
"My sense is that the old plan doesn't have much life left in it," said Councilman Eric Garcetti. "I wouldn't be surprised if you saw the council and mayor collaborating to come up with a new plan … that makes much better sense for the community and for safety."
Neighbors complained that the check-in facility would move traffic and pollution into their community. Airlines and business groups said the plan would waste $9 billion on a project that would not significantly increase LAX's passenger capacity. City leaders also questioned the costs. And the cause was undermined further by a Rand Corp. study that concluded that Hahn's improvements would actually make travelers more vulnerable to terrorism by concentrating them in the check-in center.
"What should have been an inclusionary process that should have been ongoing for the last 18 months instead has been a void," said Councilwoman Cindy Miscikowski, whose district includes LAX and neighboring communities.
Even the mayor's allies in organized labor and the business community began calling on Hahn to dismiss his controversial lieutenants and begin negotiating with the plan's opponents.
"There is nowhere close to eight votes on this proposal as we speak," said Councilman Antonio Villaraigosa, one of several council members who have been warning Hahn for weeks that his plan is facing defeat because it can't win a council majority.
City Council President Alex Padilla said the mayor signaled this week for the first time that he is open to a possible compromise. "I asked, 'Are you still going to hold hard and fast to [the proposal] or is there finally room for discussion?' " Padilla said. "I welcomed his response, which was 'Yes, there is room for discussion.' "
Other council members and community groups said they were still awaiting a call from the mayor's office.
Plans being pushed by the airline industry and other business groups would spend no more than $3 billion to remodel the Tom Bradley International Terminal, expand a system of FlyAway bus centers, build a consolidated rental car facility and move a southern runway closer to El Segundo to decrease near misses between aircraft.
Miscikowski is drafting her own scaled-down alternative, which she plans to release in the next three weeks. And the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce is calling for a more incremental approach.
Scrapped, or at least deferred, would be the proposed remote check-in facility in Westchester. Gone too would be the plans to demolish Terminals 1, 2 and 3 and to tear down the airport's existing parking garages.
But that, said many observers, may actually deliver the consensus Hahn has struggled for two years to achieve.
"It's in everyone's interest to come together on a plan that modernizes the airport," said George Kieffer, chairman of the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce.
Complete Los Angeles Times Article
- Thread Starter
- #29
Just in the way of an update, per my last flight out of T3.....phllax said:
Here is the layout that I observed, based on gate podiums and where the planes were: (note: Alaska includes Horizon)
Gate 30 Alaska
Gate 31A Alaska
Gate 31B Alaska
Gate 31C Alaska
Gate 32 Alaska
Gate 33 Alaska
Gate 34 Alaska // Bus to American Eagle terminal
Gate 35 AirTran // ATA
Gate 36 Midwest // ATA
Gate 37A ATA
Gate 37B Alaska // ATA
Gate 38 Alaska // ATA
Gate 39 Frontier
According to a post on FlyerTalk, F9 is apparently going to start using a few more gates....I believe 37A, 36, and possibly 34 were mentioned.
What is truly deplorable in T3 is the baggage claim area. It is poorly arranged, quite dingy, and always crowded. It seems as though with all of its flights, as compared to the flight counts of others, AS should have more than Carousel C. It also seems odd that T3 only has 3 claim areas, when the others have at least 4.
Of course, it would only take a vacuum cleaner and some light bulbs to make the place look demonstrably better. After all, the new ticketing areas aren't that bad....
- Thread Starter
- #30
I haven't run into anybody who regularly flies in or out of LAX that thinks Hahn's plan is a good idea. In fact, the only airline in favor of it was United, at the time it was introduced.TWAnr said:
It seems to me that whoever dreamed up "Alternative D" was on a holiday from reality. I can't (and won't!) speak for everyone, but I would honestly say that at least 4 of 10 times I land at LAX, I have to wait for a gate - particularly on Horizon (T3). LAX, as it stands now, is severely gate-constrained. Hahn's plan would result in a net LOSS of 15 gates. Even though CO/DL/NW/US have reduced their LAX operations from their respective high points, I doubt those reductions could scare up 15 gates. While Hahn can reduce the number of gates, he does not have the authority to limit the number of flights. So, its either going to be a LaGuardia 2001 situation, with passengers sitting on planes for 2+ hours waiting for gates, or LAX will turn into something like a European airport, with lots of remote stand bus gates. Neither option is palatable to the airlines or the passengers.
I also remember how much of a hassle LAX was in the fall of 2001, when private cars were banned from the terminal area, and all passengers not being brought by mass transit or van service were dropped off at a remote location and bussed to the terminal area - much like Alternative D envisions. If such a setup is actually adopted, LAX would possibly be a bit more convenient for connecting passengers, but for local residents, it would be a nightmare.
The overall goal of spreading capacity among the region's airports is certainly a good one, but its hard to require it. Sure, ONT has a nice, new setup, but Ontario, irrespective of geography, is considered to be pretty far out from most of Los Angeles, particularly for the well-to-do residents of the Westside and San Fernando Valley. LGB and SNA are capacity-controlled. BUR faces similar issues. While Palmdale looks like a good alternative, it IS quite far away from most of Los Angeles, and you can only get there on the 14 freeway, which is quite crowded. Operationally, Alternative D would be better than one of the other options, which moved all commuter flights to Hawthorne Airport, which would be connected to LAX by a bus.
All in all, LAX is a mess, like so many other things in my curious, unique hometown.
