jdrtravel

[QUOTE=readywhenyouare;29509071]It is really mind numbing that cities like ATL, SEA, DEN, etc can have world class airports with all concourses under the same roof but major cities like LA, DC, NYC, and Boston are just a mess of various terminals. They should be ashamed.[/QUOTE

I wish that LAX were more like JFK and really spread out. The way the terminal buildings are so close together creates so much vehicle congestion that you don't typically see at JFK.

KDCAflyer

I think those airports were built in stages on a much more ad-hoc basis. In DCA's case, there is literally no room for expansion (although I'm fine with building further into the Potomac if need be).

JFK and LAX should both be bulldozed and rebuilt with an ATL-style layout, but those cities kind of need functional airports. There's no space to build new airports to replace them unfortunately.

jdrtravel

SoCal needs to do a better job of spreading out services. While there are smaller airports like SNA and BUR, the vast majority of the traffic flows through LAX. JFK, on the other hand, is well supported by LGA and EWR, and again, though the spread out terminals are annoying for connections, they do help alleviate congestion. LAX was just not designed to handle anywhere near the amount of pax that use it. Building bigger terminals will help, but until something is done to dramatically reduce land-side vehicle traffic, it will continue to be a bit of a nightmare.

readywhenyouare

For LAX they should just build a new airport away from the city and link it by high-speed rail.

KDCAflyer

LOL California already has enough disastrous high-speed rail projects.

manacit

I'll preface this by saying that most peoples' problem with T4 (the long walk) is actually something I love. I don't ever connect in JFK (because I'm almost always coming/going from NYC), so for me it's an excuse to get a bit of walking and scenery compared to T2. I like ATL for the same reasons - I never take the Plane Train when I'm connecting there.

I dislike T2 immensely because it:

- Feels cramped compared to T4 (to me) - I'm gathering that this is, again, a good thing for some people. I hate it
- The SC has some of the most awful bathrooms compared to T4 / SFO / SEA and other of the nicer clubs in the system. Seriously, last year the toilet paper dispenser was broken and I could see into the stall next to me.
- Requires a walk outside to/from the AirTrain

I'd say the dining options are crap, but to be honest I usually make a beeline to the mediocre T2 SC food (which is consistently worse than T4 IME).

I get your comparison - sure, it's on par with FLL or PBI, but JFK isn't a Delta outstation. JFK is significantly more important than PBI or FLL to Delta, which I think T2 misses the mark on. LGAs clubs are nicer (sans showers)!

T4 isn't perfect either - the SC gets too cramped, and security can take a while (though IME with Pre Check I've never waited _too_ long)

MCO Flyer

The last time I checked, you can access all the concourses under one roof at IAD and DCA. DCA is a very nice airport (minus the s***hole terminal that WN is in) and IAD isn't too bad unless you are flying on UA out of their "temporary concourse" that was built back in the 80s.

pbarnette

There is next to nothing that can be done to "spread out" air service. Short of actively restricting what flights can or can't operate from one airport or another, it simply can't be done. Of course, then we'd have complaints about restrictions at LAX (or SNA or BUR), much like we see about DCA, LGA, and (for the longest time) DAL. At best, you will get some budget-conscious airlines willing to use secondary or tertiary airports, but aside from the most cost-conscious LCCs (like Ryanair), many are just biding their time until they can get into the primary airport.

jdrtravel

Why is this the case? (honest question). When other huge regions like NYC and London are able to utilize 2-3 airports, even if there is one that is the main central one, why can't that work in LA?

pbarnette

Last I checked, NRT has a pretty fast rail link to Tokyo, yet everybody prefers HND because not everyone wants to go to the train station. The same issue would doom any attempt to replace LAX with an airport out in Palmdale or wherever, no matter how fast you made the train.

Jeff767

3Cforme

Hub efficiencies, for one. Carriers with hubs at LAX (and that's AA, DL and still sort-of UA) prefer to aggregate traffic for onward connections in both directions, both TPAC and intra-USA.

Aircraft efficiencies, a second. Cost per available seat mile (CASM) generally declines with bigger aircraft. It's cheaper for Delta to run a 757 to LAX than it is a 319 to LAX and an E75 to Burbank. To the extent that people will pay a premium to avoid LA road traffic by flying into Burbank, SNA, and ONT, Delta will indulge them.

Your London and NYC examples are pretty poor, actually. LHR and LGW have been facilities-capacity-constrained for decades. Carriers use Luton and Stansted because they have to, not because they may want to. The LaGuardia perimeter rule protected JFK. Neither LON nor NYC looks anything at all like a market allocation of flights across the respective region's airports.

Why does Delta alone from Atlanta have 217 non-stop destinations, and all 74 scheduled carriers to New York's JFK, LGA, EWR, SWF, and ACY combined have only 230? Hub and aircraft efficiencies.

http://www.panynj.gov/airports/pdf-t...G_DEC_2017.pdf

Break up LAX traffic and hobble the region. (Yes, they should have had a direct Metro line from Airport to downtown three decades ago.)

Austin787

DL will still have to compete against JetBlue, and indirectly against United's EWR hub. DL and AA may want to consider trading JFK terminals - DL takes over terminal 8 and AA moves to terminal 2. DL gets a relatively modern terminal with lots of room while AA consolidates its shrinking JFK ops into fewer gates, saving on costs.

readywhenyouare

FlyinHawaiian

Nope.