bzcat

LA Times: http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/l...721-story.html

The first phase of the project will add 11 gates to LAX.

The grand bridge design seems to have been discarded due to height concerns with A380 tail. Instead, the midfield concourse will be a free standing satellite. Upon completion, passengers will be bused ( ) to/from TBIT, until the peoplemover is finished.

OskiBear

Interesting - is the proposed people mover going to be airside or landside?

bzcat

Probably airside only to connect MSC to TBIT.

MSC is intended as a satellite concourse, not a full terminal (i.e. only secured/sterile area, no unsecured ticketing/baggage claim area) so the current design probably couldn't handle a landside connection.

If you look at the engineering drawings in the link below, MSC has secured (domestic) and sterile (international) bus bays and people mover platforms, but not unsecured bus bay and people mover platform. In order for there to be direct access by landside people mover (or bus, taxi, cars, walk-ins), there will have to be unsecured platforms (or bus bay, drop off area, doors).

Think of MSC as a really fancy AA Eagle-like concourse that will have duty free shopping and A380 gates...

http://www.lawa.org/uploadedFiles/Ou...ed_Project.pdf

This is what the documents says about how MSC will work:

Basically, you would check-in at any of the existing terminals and take a bus to MSC.

OskiBear

In the PDF, they are still referencing the CTA - is that still on the table as a possibility?

I rather liked the idea, versus LAX's separated terminals with separate checkin, security, etc.

bzcat

Reference to CTA (central terminal area) is generic... as in all the existing terminals.

You are thinking of CTP (central terminal processor), which could be build on the land between T2, T3, T4 and T5 parking garage. CTP is not part of the plan that was approved yesterday, although it remains in the LAX long term plan. Most likely, it will be build with the landside people mover station(s) as an integrated facility/building.

OskiBear

Thanks for the clarification. I seem to recall there was strong opposition to the CTP when it was previously floated. Do you know why?

I find the endless circling of vehicles buses etc so inefficient at LAX. Seems the CTP would solve much of this?

bzcat

Some airlines didn't like the CTP concept... they like having ticketing and baggage claims at the same physical terminals as the gates. But if CTP has direct air side connection to TBIT and MSC gates then it is much more compelling location. I can see some airlines will want to move their check-in counter to CTP.

downinit

According to what I read, there will be a tunnel built in lieu of the bridge, which makes a lot more sense than continually running horribly inefficient buses, anyway. Unfortunately, they are nowhere near being ready to start construction on a replacement hangar for QANTAS, which is currently sitting where the first phase of the remote terminal will be built. There are still mountains of dirt and rocks on the area that needs to be cleared for the new hangar. They will have to finish a replacement hangar before they tear down the old one and begin construction of the new terminal, so I would not hold my breath. So far, it has taken them over a year just to repave the tarmac on the SE side of TBIT, and that project still has a long way to go. If they ever get it done, they can open the SE gates and start the repaving on the NE gates.

jaymar01

LAX breaks ground on a $1.6-billion midfield terminal that will add 12 gates for aircraft

Marking another milestone in the massive renovation of Los Angeles International Airport, city officials broke ground Monday on a $1.6-billion midfield passenger terminal that will have a dozen gates for aircraft.

The project, which is scheduled to be finished in late 2019, will help accommodate growth at LAX and reduce the use of the airport’s outdoor gates, where passengers exit planes onto the tarmac and take buses to the Tom Bradley International Terminal.

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/l...227-story.html

TWA884

Only two years behind schedule:

TWA884

beckoa

Well that's nuts.

But more lounges

bigguyinpasadena

WHY in the world would they not do this when the were doing the other "improvements"?
And if you add this project into the costs of the other projects why did they not just build a new state of the art airport and tear down the existing disgraceful LAX?

ajGoes

The adjective "just" really doesn't belong with the phrase build an airport. Where would the replacement for LAX go?

bigguyinpasadena

Plenty of other airports have torn down old structures to build new airports. Nothing new. It is a hassle during construction- but no more than the ongoing hassle that has plagued LAX for years and, when the midfield terminal is built will continue to be a hassle far into the future.
But instead LAWA insist on constantly remodeling existing structures.