Talk:Los Angeles International Airport

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Los Angeles International Airport article.
Article policies

Contents


I think it looks great! Danny 04:11 Jan 22, 2003 (UTC)

Thanks. :) Miles and miles of whitespace just bugs me - it makes a visual desert. The very simple justified table takes care of that. --mav

I can’t believe there’s no photo of the LAX sign – I’ll try to get one when I should be in LA next in May. Monucg 02:24, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I added a picture of the LAX sign when one enters off of Century Blvd. Flo

Probably a stupid question, but... what does the "X" stand for in "LAX"? Does it simply mean "International airport" and if yes, why is it "X" instead of "IA"?

LAX is the airport's three letter IATA identification code. see this Wikipedia article.

[edit] LA and LP

I have a question - I notice that all international airline listings include even direct destinations, but domestic ones do not. For instance, LAN lists Lima, Santiago and Buenos Aires, even though the last two are not nonstop. Under Southwest, though, I only see nonstop destinations. What's the reasoning?

This is how I understand WikiProject Airports. We list only direct destinations, non-stop or not. This means having the same flight number. However, one will NOT list a city if the route passes through a hub first, so that's what happens to "faux" direct flights, usually with a plane change. Examples are like UA 915 CDG-IAD-SFO, where there is a plane change in IAD. So the CDG article only lists IAD but not SFO because the route passes through a UA hub (IAD). Therefore, with the same reasoning, I removed EZE but not LIM from the LA 601 LAX-LIM-SCL-EZE because the hub is Santiago (LAN Airlines). I also removed GRU from the LP 605 LAX-LIM-GRU flight because the hub is Lima (LAN Peru). Elektrik Blue 82 18:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Would this mean, then, that all the Southwest Airlines destinations would count as well (i.e, a flight that went from LAX-ABQ-Amarillo, or something similar)? What constitutes a Southwest hub?

I have to admit I am not familiar with the business plan of Southwest. You better ask other Wikipedians for advise on this one. The only thing I know is they do not operate a hub-and-spoke system similar to other legacy carriers. Elektrik Blue 82 23:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Quite frankly, I wouldn't remove references to direct destinations as long as they are not change-of-gauge flights. On the LAN flights you are staying in the same seat on the same airplane the whole time, not getting off one plane and on another.
There are flights where it is simply a "timetable-direct" flight, but there is a change of planes. Frankly, I have no idea how to tell whether the plane will change or not, sometimes the Yahoo! timetables indicate it, sometimes it doesn't. I guess the rule of thumb I am following here is that once the airplane touches down at a hub of the airline, then everything else will not be listed. Elektrik Blue 82 08:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
If it is an international flight that does not change gauge, I would list it. What I believe we should not list are international flights that require a change of plane, or domestic "direct" flights that pass through an airline's hub and only incidentally happen to connect two points in a "direct" fashion. Direct flights that miss a hub, like AA's old AUS-HOU-LGA, should probably list both destinations. FCYTravis 02:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Incident Section

I don't understand why rather minor incidents like the jetBlue gear failure and the Air India tire blowout are being included. It is not as if we are including all the incidents through out LAX history where planes have run into each other and ripped holes in wings because of the tight infrastructure at the airport. Only deadly incidents or complete hull losses should be included

Did the Unabomber or some one else threaten to blow up a plane landing or taking off from LAX in June-July of ? year. And if so should that be included?

It was in the early 80's that a waitress was murdered at the old Terminal 2 building. I know because she was a friend of mine during my tenure with Continental Airline"s Contract Services. I first met her when she bought me coffee while I was waiting in line, she was a pretty hispanic woman who worked the small cafe on the upper floor of Terminal 2.

I never really got to know her as I had transfered to the Air Cargo facility in 1980. I read about her murder in the Los Angeles Times and was absolutely crushed, a male co-worker at the cafe was arrested a short time later. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.165.56.62 (talk) 09:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AVIANCA

I looked at Avianca's website and did not see LAX on the route map. Is this a planned route?

Avianca already flies the route, AV 48/49 BOG-LAX-BOG. Elektrik Blue 82 21:58, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Noise lawsuits

There used to be residential neighborhoods right up to the property line, on the north side. After a lawsuit, in (I believe) the 1960s or 1970s, the houses were bought up and the homes razed, forming a noise buffer zone. It looks bizarre to see the remaining streets, sidewalks, trees, and streetlamps with no homes! Maybe it is still that way; I haven't flown out of LAX since 1992, though. Hi

[edit] Runways

I don't know much about airports, but it seems to me that the length of LAX's runways (the longest? the longest in the US?) is significant because flights with serious malfunctions are redirected there (like the recent JetBlue flight).

'They're the longest runways in Southern California because they have to handle large widebody jets such as the 747 and later the A380. Starcity ai 02:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] LAX to LGA Direct Flights

  • There are NO DIRECT flights on Delta from LAX to LGA! I have checked BOTH www.oag.com and www.delta.com and there are no direct flights to LGA on Delta. The Port Authority does not permit transcontinental flights to LGA due to noise limits and congestion. I live 10 minutes from LGA and the Delta counter there reconfirmed this when I inquired last week. Please visit http://www.delta.com/schedules/travel/reservations/flight_sched/index.jsp and search every Saturday from November 2006 and December 2006. THERE ARE NO DIRECT FLIGHTS! All flights connect in CVG. Delta's website is much more accurate than OAG. OAG is not 100% reliable. --XLR8TION 22:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
    • So I guess this flight doesn't really exist? DB (talk) 00:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
    • There are direct flights on Saturdays, when the perimeter rule is void.

Flights from Los Angeles, CA to New York, NY LAX to LGA Saturday, 23 December, 2006

Select leg Flt From To Dpt Time Arr Time Mkt Carrier AC First Av/Au(Cap) Bus. Av/Au(Cap) Coach Av/Au(Cap) Lists

 1644  LAX  LGA  23DEC  1235P  23DEC  905P  DELTA  757

[edit] International flights

I know United Airlines has Terminal 6 as international arrivals center, but usually international flights occur from the Tom Bradley International Terminal (such as JAL, ANA and British Airways). Do you know if there are international arrival facilities at Terminal 2 (since Northwest Airlines operates a LAX-Tokyo Narita route)?

I'm also thinking why Alaska uses Terminal 3 for departures/domestic arrivals and Tom Bradley International Terminal for international arrivals.

Bigtop 23:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Mattfox22 10:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)I'm pretty sure there are international flights at many of the terminals. Terminal 2 definately.

T2, TBIT, T5/T4 and T6 all have international arrivals facilities. T5/T4 is a common shared area for AA/QF(some QF flights - some still operate from TBIT) and DL. The T2 and TBIT facilites were built some time ago. T5 came online in the early 90's and T6 came on line when UA refurbished T7/T8. --Np sca 02:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Should the format in T3 explaining international arrivals (inspections done elsewhere) be applied for all other terminals? I really don't like double listing airlines (departures here, arrivals there) as if the planes really operate from multiple terminals! HkCaGu 17:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I would do what you have done to T3--my opinionSox23 20:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Distinguishing Delta destination Liberia

User Elektrik_blue_82 keeps reverting my idea to clarify confusion that Delta's destination is 'Liberia, Costa Rica' rather than 'Liberia, Africa'. Given Delta's aggresive expansion to Africa, it is perfectly sensible to show '[CR]' after 'Liberia' in order to avoid confusion to Wikipedia readers. Thanks!--Inetpup 21:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

See my reasons here. I've brought it to the attention of the relevant WikiProject. Cheers. /ɪlεktʃɹɪk bluː/ 22:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Seperation of domestic/international flights

I've noticed that at a few US airports (specifically JFK, EWR, ORD and LAX) some airlines domestic and international destinations are seperated. This is not set up in the standard form as set forth in the ProjectWiki Airport guide. Plus, when it's being done, it's inconsistent even within the airport page - i.e. DL and UA destinations being seperated, but AA and NW remaining intact. So, stop doing it. Thanks. Andrewb729 17:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Delta Connection

Despite the fact that I removed it citing that there was no evidence of this route, someone has readded LAX-Tijuana operated by Delta Connection. I don't want to fight with this person over it, but there is still no evidence in Delta's schedules or other online schedules that this route is happening. I find it believable, but see no proof of it as of now. NW036 01:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hong Kong Service on Northwest Airlines

Should Hong Kong be listed as a destination? One user stated on the Hong Kong Airport article that Los Angeles should not be listed becuase it is a direct flight. I have removed Hong Kong since it is not a direct flight. I will not restored until it is decided that if it is a destination or not. Bucs2004 05:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't like listing destinations that are not n/s from the specific airport. In NWA's case, the flight probably goes through MSP (which should already be listed) so I don't think HKG should be on the LAX page since there is no n/s flight on NWA to HKG. Sox23 16:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Just so everyone knows, this flight goes through Narita. It is routed LAX-NRT-HKG as Northwest flight 1. NW036 18:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Same point...it's not a n/s flight. (I know WP:Airports says that direct flights can be included I just don't like to list when they're not n/s) Sox23 19:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
The flight numbers 1 and 2 are LAX-NRT-HKG and HKG-NRT-LAX. All legs are B744. But most of the days it's just not the same plane servicing LAX-HKG and that fits into "faux-direct". Beside, NRT is a hub. HkCaGu 20:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
At the flight information display, you would definitely see Hong Kong as the final destination for the NW flight. It will be something like Hong Kong via Tokyo-Narita being displayed. As such, I think it's perfectly alright to list Hong Kong as a destination. In any case, if you booked the NW flight to Hong Kong, your baggage tag will have only HKG printed and not both NRT and HKG, which would be the case if it was 2 connecting flights. (Unsigned)
Sorry, it's the plane that counts in Wikipedia, not flight number, not aircraft type, not baggage tag, not ticketing, not airport information display, not frequent flyer benefit. Simply compare gate numbers in NRT and you'll see that more often than not the same plane doesn't transport you between HKG and LAX. HkCaGu (talk) 05:13, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] China Route Bids

I'm in favor of eliminating all the recent additions by various users for the 2008 and 2009 US DOT China route applications until they are approved. As I know the bids are many but routes granted will be few. It is really meaningless to include that many dream routes that far in advance! HkCaGu 22:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The format so far has been to list international flights as pending government approval. Why should China be any different? DB (talk) 07:30, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Because US-China routes are highly restricted and controlled. In the last round 4-5 airlines applied and 1 (UA IAD-PEK) was granted. This time there are more than a dozen routes applied for and unless someone can enlighten me otherwise, it looks like USDOT will grant only a few, and airlines are asking their fans to petition DOT. See related discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports. HkCaGu 05:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
The last round had four applications. In this one I count ten. Six will be chosen. DB (talk) 05:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Terminals 4 and 7

I screwed up when editing those two sections. Anything to fix that?

[edit] Eagle Remote Terminal

Should we mention something about the American Eagle terminal? After all, you're only boarding a bus at T4. Should it be listed as a separate terminal? Or should it be a sub-heading under T4? HkCaGu 05:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Subheading or a sentence or two mentioning the terminal would be best, seeing as the point is to inform readers the way to reach each airlines and the remote terminal isn't the way to find american eagle. -- SmthManly / ManlyTalk / ManlyContribs 14:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gate Count

Should we really get into gate count at individual terminals? Just click the LAWA link and see all you want! The terminal listing is useful because of the different airlines. I think a count including listing the As and Bs is an overkill. And where is the source of that "must cut X number of gates per year" thing?HkCaGu 22:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it's not uncommon for airport articles to have gate counts in the terminal sections; Also, I haven't heard of the "must cut X number of gates per year" thing either...Sox23 22:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] KLAX redirect

I think KLAX should be a disambiguation page, and not redirect here. I believe far more people typing or linking to "KLAX" would expect a TV or radio station article than the article about the airport; and in fact, what few links there currently are to KLAX should actually be linking to KLAX-TV or KLAX-FM. Would anyone object to me making KLAX a disambiguation page? LAX, of course, would continue to redirect here. DHowell 08:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WestJet

When did WestJet move to Terminal 2? I flew WestJet in 2006 and it was in T3. Did they change it? WestJet (talk) 02:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Marketshare and Network History in The Terminal/Destination List

For the last time, the terminal/airline/destination list area is NOT an appropriate place to list an airline's marketshare, network history, or anything like that, especially if you don't list it for the others.

Gustoj820 (talk)gustoj820 —Preceding comment was added at 01:03, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Listing arrival cities (international processing terminal different from departures)

I reverted an edit which added the city name for Copa's arrival (Copa's departures are from a different terminal). Before I proceed further, I'd like to get a consensus on this proposal: Shouldn't international arrivals into another terminal (passenger processing, not the plane) not contain the city names which are already mentioned in the departure listing, unless arrivals from different international cities (if more than one for that airline) are processed in different terminals? My reasoning is that it's unnecessarily repetitive and divert attention from its "arrival only" nature. After all, that would be a listing of ORIGINS, not DESTINATIONS. If we apply this repetitive principle, wouldn't we repeat every United (mainline) city in Terminal 6? HkCaGu (talk) 16:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup tags

I removed the neutral point of view and original research tags because there was no mention of a dispute on the talk page and no statement tagged as original research. If there is a concern, please explain it on the talk page and re-add the tags. I also removed a redundant citations missing tag; the refimprove tag is still there. Ashill (talk) 21:20, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gate Numbers

The reason LAX's article should have gate numbers because numerous other airport articles have them, including SFO, OAK, LAS, PHX, DEN, SLC, DFW, JFK, YYZ, and several others have them. Let's be fair, unless it's against Wikipedia policy.

--Limaindia (talk) 21:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I removed them because a) I don't think they're encyclopedic and only serve a travel guide purpose (WP:NOT), b) WP:Airports policy (though certainly not binding) has no mention of gates in the suggested airport page layout, c) the Airports WikiProject talk page archive has two (brief) discussions and a suggestion to remove them.
The gate numbers are also not explicitly cited. The gates in each terminal are in the official web site's terminal maps, so that's not hugely troubling, but the airline gate assignments aren't so clear.
I know that many airports do have them, and I think they should be removed there too, but I'm not going to spend that kind of time all at once; I just happened to be looking at LAX so I removed them here. There may be good arguments to include gates, but the fact that other airport articles have them holds no water as far as I'm concerned. Moreover, there's no requirement that all airport articles be perfectly homogeneous; that sort of logic makes it impossible to make improvements, particularly in a case where many airport articles have unencyclopedic excessive information. ASHill (talk) 22:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Gate number RANGES may be useful, but once they're there, somebody will turn them into As and Bs and individual gate listings. I think for LAX there should be an explanation to gate numbering outside of the terminal listings. Like in T1-T8, the first digit matches the terminal number, and the gate number ranges for TBIT and the remote stands, etc. HkCaGu (talk) 10:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I think that would be excellent. ASHill (talk) 14:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I should mention that I brought this up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports#Gate numbers. ASHill (talk) 20:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Separate terminals and destinations

I would like to separate the terminals and destinations so there's one, alphabetical list of all the LAX airlines and their destinations separate from the terminals, sort of like Ben Gurion International Airport. I think that in an airport with 9 terminals like LAX, it's hard to find a given airline unless you already know which terminal it uses without using the browser's search function.

I would still mention the airlines that serve each terminal in the prose for the terminal. For example:

Any objections? If not, I'll make the change shortly. ASHill (talk) 14:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I've created my proposed version at User:Ashill/Sandbox. ASHill (talk) 16:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I didn't see this until now, but I've reverted because I disagree that this is helpful. Particularly at LAX, because the terminals operate almost completely independently, and we're helping the reader know which terminal to go to for their flight. It also helps organize and rationalize the sheer number of airlines and destinations here; having them all in one extremely long list is visually disconcerting. With two separate lists, we're disconnecting two important pieces of information - which airline flies where, and what terminal they operate from. They really belong together, IMO. FCYTravis (talk) 17:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
OK. My problem is that it's hard to find a given airline if you don't already know which terminal it operates out of. I don't think that organizing airlines by terminal is rational because the terminal an airline uses has little relation to the destinations it serves or any characteristic of the airline. Therefore, I think a single list of destinations is better for seeing which destinations the airport serves by each airline. Once you know which airline you're flying, my version still has all the terminals listed with airlines operating out of each terminal.
Even a number of foreign carriers don't operate out of the international terminal. What led me to think about the change was that multiple editors added V Australia to TBIT even though it was already listed in Terminal 2. That in itself doesn't mean the change should be made, but I think it's indicative of the unwieldy nature of the nine separate lists of destinations.
I agree that the single long list of destinations is visually disconcerting, but I think that the long list of terminals with all the airlines is as bad or worse. An airport with such a large number of terminals and destinations will have a visually disconcerting appearance if we list them all here (which I think we should, like every other airport). What is the best way to present the information? I don't think the current format is very good. Is there another idea? Should the destination list be collapsible, a la Manchester Airport? ASHill (talk) 17:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
This idea is very confusing and looks like one big paragraph. This discussion should really be taking place at WP:Airports and not on this talk page...Sox23 20:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ground Transportation > Freeway

Under "Ground Transportation > Freeway" the article states:

"Like all other California airports (with the exception of San Francisco International), LAX does not have direct freeway access; all visitors entering by car must pass at least one traffic light-controlled intersection to transition from the freeway into the airport's main loop road."

First of all, there is no citation regarding "like all other airports."

Second, it is incorrect. I can tell you from personal experience (and it can be verified easily using Google Maps) that you can access SNA directly from the freeway. http://maps.google.com/maps?f=l&hl=en&geocode=&q=airport&near=santa+ana,+ca&ie=UTF8&ll=33.683327,-117.861017&spn=0.004517,0.010042&t=k&z=17

"Like all other California airports (with the exception of San Francisco International)" really adds no value and should be removed completely. The rest of the sentence and section would be fine as is.

166.128.184.213 (talk) 09:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)