Cramped and old, LAX is losing international flights to newer airports

[question everything]

Cramped and old, LAX is losing international flights to newer airports

Cramped facilities push Pacific Rim carriers to newer airports.
By Jennifer Oldham
Times Staff Writer

February 23, 2007

(snip)

The move is just one example of a little-noticed shift in lucrative international air service away from crowded LAX to newer facilities in San Francisco, Las Vegas and New York. Since 2000, LAX has lost 12% of the seats on its weekly international departures, while other major U.S. gateways posted gains in service to foreign destinations. Economists blame the shift on LAX's cramped and outdated terminals and lawmakers' inability to agree on a plan to modernize the airport while other cities have built gleaming new concourses. And newer, more fuel-efficient aircraft give carriers more choices of cities to patronize.

(snip)

For several decades, airlines plied international routes from their biggest hubs. Now, with the help of fuel-efficient aircraft, they're just as likely to favor smaller cities and different routes. For example, Korean Air started flying nonstop last fall from Seoul to Las Vegas, bypassing LAX. (The carrier still has LAX service.) This trend is expected to accelerate when new aircraft with longer ranges come into service in the next few years. Many large airports around the U.S. are already enjoying record spending by international travelers, at least some of it at LAX's expense.

(snip)

Travel wholesalers who plan itineraries for overseas groups say LAX's outmoded facilities are increasingly prompting operators to bring U.S. tours through other cities. Jeff Karnes, regional vice president at New World Travel, said major improvements in such airports as San Francisco's and Las Vegas' have "definitely had an impact on L.A. being their first choice as a West Coast gateway."

(snip)

LAX does have some advantages, including better weather than San Francisco and considerably lower fees. At LAX, airlines pay about $6 per boarded passenger, compared with about $14 in San Francisco — a consideration for the cash-strapped industry. LAX also served twice as many international travelers last year. But it has been losing ground in the Asian market to San Francisco since 1998. That year, San Francisco had one flight to Asia for every three from LAX. Last year, the Bay Area facility boasted one flight to Asia for every two at LAX. Airlines are paying attention to San Francisco's growth potential. Qantas is boosting its service at San Francisco from three flights a week to five starting next month — by taking two Boeing 747-400s that currently serve LAX four times a week each and moving them up north.

(snip)

Officials agree that one of the deciding factors for international carriers choosing among LAX and other airports is likely to be their readiness for the world's largest aircraft, the Airbus A380, expected to start service next year. Some industry observers said Airbus' decision to take the 555-seat plane on its first U.S. test flight next month to New York instead of Los Angeles, as company executives promised last year, reinforces continued frustration with LAX's aging infrastructure. By the end of this year, LAX plans to have two terminal gates that can accommodate the aircraft. San Francisco has six. And some carriers say they will not be satisfied with the remote gates on LAX's western edge.

(snip)

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-lax23feb23,0,3237581.story?coll=la-home-headlines

[rumpel]

1. I bet you the 405 does not help either n/t

[pinto]

2. Read that this morning. Interesting piece. I can see choosing SFO over LAX,

from a customer viewpoint. Easier auto access, better mass transit access, better accommodations, etc. etc.

I know LA has a vocal and important local voice against expansion at LAX and more political wrangling about tax funded upgrades, while SFO seems to have less issues with area residential neighborhoods or site improvements.

I don't fly overseas, so I'm just barking up a tree here, but it was a good read.

(Didn't realize SFO was an hour shorter via air from Seoul/Taipei than LAX...?)

[question everything]

3. And Ontario is begging for more passengers

if only a good dedicated rail line connected both