AA president Scott Kirby says the carrier seeks to make LAX its "primary Asia-Pacific gateway".

[eolesen]

How many gates does each airline have at LAX?

It's hard to tell based on the website maps, as many gates have more than one jetway, allowing two aircraft on one gate number. But, by using imagery and counting jetways and/or lead-in lines:

AA: 13 gates in T4 plus 8-10 at the RJ satellite (2 coming in TBIT)
US: 1 in T3
WN: 15
DL: 13 (one looks like RJ only)
UA: 20 in both T7 & 8, not sure if they still have gates in T6

T2: 20
T3: 12
T6: 13 (not sure if UA still has gates there or not)

 

[WorldTraveler]

DL and UA both have gates in T6 along with AS and some of the DL/AS gates are preferential use for DL.

Remote gates and bussing might be common in other parts of the world but it isn't the norm in the US and it isn't at LAX either.

I'm still waiting for you to say yes or no whether AA can add mainline flights at its RJ remote terminal. If not and if they can't add RJ flights at its main terminal, then there is a lack of flexibility and ability to grow that DL and UA don't have to worry about.

gate counts may or may not make the difference of whether AA can mount a successful transpac operation from LAX or not but they have two flights right now that generate significantly less revenue than their competitors' do so gates alone isn't going to make or break the equation.

It also doesn't change that LAX is GATE LIMITED INTO ETERNITY which means that every carrier will be focused on generating the most revenue per gate. Operating high levels of connecting traffic thru an airport where there isn't even the ability to grow to match the local market's growth doesn't make sense.

 

[700UW]

Busing happens at DCA and a few other airports.

 

[737823]

Busing happens at DCA and a few other airports.

Not for AA they are all in the B gates at DCA, I was just there a few weeks ago.

Josh

 

[eolesen]

Josh, think beyond the AA blinders. There may be other airlines who bus people out to a pad at DCA. Certainly, it was the norm at IAD for decades.

Busing may not be popular, but it isn't all that uncommon at LAX, either. In addition to the RJ terminal for AA, there are nine pad gates at TBIT -- for departures, buses take you out to the pad, and you walk up a ramp to a jetway, nowhere near as bad as it is at other airports where you have to climb the stairs.
 

I'm still waiting for you to say yes or no whether AA can add mainline flights at its RJ remote terminal. If not and if they can't add RJ flights at its main terminal, then there is a lack of flexibility and ability to grow that DL and UA don't have to worry about.

It can't be any clearer, WT.

For DL to add RJ feed, they have to displace mainline; to add mainline, they have to displace an RJ or two (since some of those gates can serve two RJ's but only one midbody/widebody).

For AA to add RJ feed, they have the ultimate flexiblity. No displacements to be concerned about.

Arguably, UA has plenty of underutilized gate space at LAX, which are the remnants of SBU. They can add within reason and not have to displace anything already in the schedule.

Put otherwise, it's not AA who has the lack of flexibility and ability to grow. It's DL, VX, and WN who are the most boxed in.

AA will expand into TBIT, and in addition to the gates they stand to gain on their own, I believe the gates used to service QF in the afternoon will also be freed up to allow more mainline use.



It's interesting that you see AA's RJ capability as a disadvantage in LAX, yet it's a key part of DL's "let's replace AS @ SEA" strategy...

 

[WorldTraveler]

thank you for clarifying your faulty assumption.

DL is not going to add RJ flights to the detriment of mainline flights. DL is adding RJ flights - all large RJs since DL doesn't fly 50 seaters or less into LAX - in every whole in the schedule it can. That is how they have pulled off 15% growth.

But nearly all of those gates CAN accommodate a mainline aircraft including 717s which are pretty compact aircraft.

You can fully expect that as soon as DL gets the critical mass of 717s, there will be upgrades from large RJs to mainline at LAX. LAX-SFO is ripe for an upgrade = it is E175s now; 717s add a fairly marginal 35 seats but that amounts to 50% more seats.... and right now, DL and AA are about tied in seats on LAX-SFO because DL has more frequencies on smaller aircraft.

M80s don't take up that much more wingspan than a 717; I doubt if any of the gates at LAX that can accommodate a 717 could not also an M80 or 90.

That is just one example but DL could easily operate a nearly all mainline schedule at LAX and still grow considerably.

Now, tell me again how AA is going to increase the number of seats at LAX when it cannot operate mainline aircraft from its regional facility - which I would guess is running fairly full as it is and AA still has to figure out how to fit US' flights into AA's terminal or end up having operations in 4 terminals at LAX.

LAX simply does not make sense as a place to run a high connection based schedule and esp. not to Asia where AA will be competing against US and foreign carriers who are much stronger and themselves growing in the west coast to Asia market.

 

[eolesen]

What exactly is a whole in the schedule?...

AA has the ability to move operations into TBIT once the connector is in place, and has preferential use of 4 gates.

That in turn opens up four gates in T-4 for mainline expansion, something DL can't do because they'd have to send people the wrong way on the connection bus. I'd guess that they're going to get higher utilization out of those 4 gates in T4 than they do by having them occupied by widebodies today.

And while you clutch at your pearls, also try to remember that the MSC changes everything all over again, this time in regard to the RJ terminal, and that's just a few years off.

The good news (for AA, that is) is that those 10 RJ gates are included in the gate cap. Yes, LAX, like DAL, has a cap on gates.

Once the MSC opens up, AA gets to swap out their T-3 gates on a 1:1 basis for gates in the MSC, and the proximity to both the CTA and TBIT makes it far more tolerable. Less clear if they can eliminate the RJ terminal gates on a 1:1 basis or not, but it's possible.

Plus, TBIT will have a connector to T-4, which no longer has a secure-side connection with T-5 thanks to DL's forward thinking.

Oh, and Ranjan confirmed that DL has 14 gates in T-5, and access 3 common use gates over in T-6. They're not preferential use from what I gathered.

 

[eolesen]

Just for gits and shiggles, here's the settlement between AA and LAWA:

http://clkrep.lacity.org/onlinedocs/2009/09-1590_rpt_bac_6-23-09.pdf

Term. The term shall expire upon termination or expiration of the American Terminal
Facilities Lease for Terminal 4, currently scheduled to expire on December
4, 2024.

American Eagle Use of South Side Gates. Subject to applicable LAX Utilization
Standards, In the event any narrow body domestic gates in Terminals 5, 6, 7 or 8 that
are currently under long-term lease (i.e., leases commencing prior to 1985) become
available to LAWA as common use gates, then LAWA shall make such gates available
to American, American Eagle, Inc. and American's subtenants on a preferential use
first offer basis. This provision will terminate no later than December 31, 2015 and
may terminate earlier if certain requirements are met.

American's use of Tom Bradley International Terminal ("TBIT) Gates. In the event
that there are at least nineteen (19) total contact gates in operation in TBlT as part of
the proposed "Bradley West Project," then subject to all applicable LAX Utilization
Standards, LAWA will offer to assign to American up to four (4) TBIT contact gates on
a preferential use basis, subject to certain conditions. In recognition of LAWA's goal of
maximizing passenger convenience at LAX, particularly for international passengers,
American will make reasonable efforts to facilitate other airlines' use of its TBlT
preferential gates, particularly for those flights requiring use of the Federal Inspection
Facilities. The TBlT preferential gate rights are co-terminus with American's Terminal
4 lease rights. Additionally, LAWA will consider American's needs and interests in
designating the specific location of TBlT Preferential Gates assigned to American.

Secure-side Connector. Should a connector for passengers between LAX's Terminal
4 and TBIT not be built, LAWA shall provide American a rent credit for an American provided
secure-side bus connector operation, such credit to terminate upon
termination or expiration of American's Terminal 4 Lease.

Busing Credit. LAWA to provide American with a credit against rent due in the amount
of $94,050 per month, during January 15, 2010 to May 31, 2010, and $47,025
beginning June 1, 2010, for a specified period, to offset American costs associated
with reasonable costs of busing passengers...

 

[WorldTraveler]

feel free to carry on but the proof will be whether AA can pull off an int'l expansion at LAX.... that is all this discussion is about.

And, as noted, even by your count, DL has 17 gates at LAX which is more mainline gates than AA, and there is no bussing - just a security side tunnel - between all of DL's gates.

If AA can pull it off, remember I said I would be the first to cheer them on... but all of these great facility plans are all years down the road; the west coast to Asia market can and will change dramatically in that amount of time. Even if AA has a couple gate advantage, it isn't going to be anywhere near enough feed to solve the CURRENT REALITY that AA gets the lowest average fares on BOTH of its LAX-Asia flights than either of its nonstop US competitors.

 

[Hope777]

Last Straw for some of Delta's Best FF's.  Maybe this helps AA.....    http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/15/us-travel-upgrades-delta-idUSBREA3E1LP20140415

 

[700UW]

So much for WT saying DL will dominate AA in the JFK-LAX market.

 

[eolesen]

Continue to clutch the pearls, WT, and believe that 17 > 25...

You also keep beating the "lower average fare" drum quite loudly, however the fact is that AA is outpacing DL on every metric in the attached report with the exception of mail, which is a line of business AA has decided isn't worth chasing anymore.

http://www.lawa.org/uploadedfiles/LAX/statistics/aircarrier-2013.pdf

Granted, revenue and average fare are important measures, but I've come to immediately discard just about anything you choose to propose as "analysis" given your history of adding disclaimers to just about everything needed to spin your result in DL's favor...

 

[LDVAviation]

Further, as much as some want to tout AA's ability to add gates at LAX via the TBIT, AA has a significant number of gates at LAX that are and always will be regional jet gates which limits the ability to grow. DL and UA have large RJs at gates which can accommodate mainline aircraft; the 717 isn't that much larger in physical size than the E175 but can carry more people and is a mainline aircraft.

 
You keep making this stuff up.
 
As far as LAWA is concerned, there is no distinction between the gates at the AE Commuter Facility and gates at T4.  All the gates count as one gate.
 
Under the current gate cap, if LAWA builds any new gates (e.g., the Midfield Satellite Concourse), it must trade the new gates for the old gates.  There is no secret reserve of gates.  (Do you see where this is headed?  Of course not because you keep spreading misinformation.)
 
Technically, AA has the rights to 12 gates at the current AE Commuter Facility.  (The current facility, however, can only support 10 gates.) Still, LAWA included those 12 gates in the settlement agreement which stipulated the current gate cap.  In that agreement, LAWA counted those 12 gates no differently than it counted the 13 gates in T4.
 
To make its gate numbers work with the MSC (Midfield Satellite Concourse), LAWA will most likely end up shuttering the AE Commuter Facility and offering AA gates at the MSC or TBIT.  In short, AA is in a very good position to get more terminal gates.  So, just to be clear, what you said about AA's "regional jet gates" is wrong.

 

[FWAAA]

LAX simply does not make sense as a place to run a high connection based schedule and esp. not to Asia where AA will be competing against US and foreign carriers who are much stronger and themselves growing in the west coast to Asia market.

AA + US currently fly about 132 daily mainline departures from LAX, plus over 100 regional departures.   From SFO,  UA flies about 170 daily mainline departures, plus about 130 regional departures.    If it doesn't make sense for LAX to host a high connection based schedule, then doing it at SFO is sheer lunacy.    Yes,  UA controls a large portion of the international flights, but isn't without competition.   CX, JL and BA all serve SFO nonstop, the last two in immunized joint ventures with AA.   
 

And, as noted, even by your count, DL has 17 gates at LAX which is more mainline gates than AA, and there is no bussing - just a security side tunnel - between all of DL's gates.

AA currently has 13 mainline gates in T-4 plus the three gates at T-3.   Yes, the feds required that new AA give up two of those, but US has been using them on a common-use basis for the 21 daily US mainline flights.   Once AA gets the four new gates in TBIT, that will total 20 mainline gates, more than Delta.    Add in the 10 remote Eagle gates, and AA will have more than enough gates to fly some 200 daily mainline flights plus at least another 100 regional flights.   
 
As conceded above, yes, such an operation will bleed money, especially any new routes to Asia, as UA and DL will forever garner higher average fares.   And the foreign carriers will always be preferable, especially the mainland China carriers and the high-quality Korean carriers and the head-up-their-ass MH.      But gate limitations won't prevent AA from maintaining its position as the largest airline at LAX.  
 

If AA can pull it off, remember I said I would be the first to cheer them on... but all of these great facility plans are all years down the road; the west coast to Asia market can and will change dramatically in that amount of time. Even if AA has a couple gate advantage, it isn't going to be anywhere near enough feed to solve the CURRENT REALITY that AA gets the lowest average fares on BOTH of its LAX-Asia flights than either of its nonstop US competitors.

 
Are you saying that more connecting passengers at LAX is the secret to AA increasing its very low average local fares between LAX and Asia?   The problem with AA's yields is that AA doesn't have enough low-fare flow traffic at LAX?

 

[LDVAviation]

As for LAX and the RJ terminal, it is specifically because that terminal is an RJ terminal that limits AA's ability to grow using those gates while DL and UA have the ability to park RJs or mainline jets at many of its gates.

 
This is wrong too.  AA has the ability to park RJ's at T4 gates; it just choses not to do so.  
 
DL and UA do not have special powers.  For a while, under a temporary exemption from LAWA, DL was parking RJ's on the ramp near its hanger.  That exemption has since expired.  It was never intended to be permanent as Delta does not have rights to more than 15 gates, 16 if you count the gate whose rights they share with Alaska.
 
LAWA has stipulated to AA in writing that it understands that AA operates at a disadvantage to UA and DL by not being able to use terminal gates for its regional jets.  The solution in the future (as I explained above) is that LAWA will most likely trade gates at the AE Commuter facility for gates at the MSC or TBIT.  Not a bad solution if you are AA, as those gates will come with additional amenities (e.g., additional lounge space, ticketing counters at the CTP, etc.) that will make UA's and DL's facilities at LAX look even more cramped and outdated.