Southwest Airlines annual report

Quote: Pacomartin

Terminal 1
Albuquerque, Atlanta, Austin, Baltimore, Chicago–Midway, Dallas–Love, Denver, El Paso, Houston–Hobby, Indianapolis, Kansas City, Las Vegas, Milwaukee, Nashville, New Orleans, Oakland, Phoenix–Sky Harbor, Pittsburgh, Portland (OR), Reno/Tahoe, Sacramento, St. Louis, Salt Lake City, San Antonio, San Francisco, San Jose (CA), Tucson Seasonal: Omaha

Terminal 2
San José del Cabo (begins December 4, 2016),
Puerto Vallarta (begins December 4, 2016),
Cancún (begins December 4, 2016),
Liberia (CR).

Thanks for that. Would only ever be a connection from T1 for me. I should have also added, is T1 connected airside to TBIT via tunnel in the same way is T4, T5 & T6 are? Can you connect via the airside buses? Or do you have to connect landslide and go through security again?

Quote: Aussie

Thanks for that. Would only ever be a connection from T1 for me. I should have also added, is T1 connected airside to TBIT via tunnel in the same way is T4, T5 & T6 are?

From this map I would say no. The tunnels are only indicated on the terminals on the south side
https://www.lawa.org/uploadedFiles/LAX/pdf/LAX%20Airline%20Location%20Map.pdf

Quote: Aussie

Can you connect via the airside buses? Or do you have to connect landslide and go through security again?

Haven't been to LAX for a while, but I my guess is you must leave re-enter security at terminal #1 based on this map.
https://www.lawa.org/uploadedFiles/LAX/pdf/T1.pdf

Construction costing $508-million to Southwest's terminal 1 is expected to be completed by 2018. "There are about 12 percent of the passengers that use LAX that use Terminal 1," said Gina Marie Lindsey, executive director of Los Angeles World Airports. "This terminal has been basically the same for about 30 years. It's time we brought it into the 21st century." Southwest Airlines stands to gain a lot from the improvements. It's one of the busiest airlines at LAX, with 117 departures daily out of the terminal.

So it is possible that the answers to your question may change by next year. I assume that half a billion dollars in improvements may partly consist of better connections to TBIT.

Quote: Pacomartin

In northern American there have been several prominent examples of new airports replacing or co-existing with older airports in the same metro area

I think the lesson is "DO NOT EVER HAVE TWO AIRPORTS IN THE SAME CITY!"

Part of the problem in Mex City last decade, was that the Federal government favored closing the current airport, while the King of Kings (or mayor of Mex City at the time), insisted the old airport stayed open. The latter option would have put the new airport two states away in Hidalgo. The former places the airport much closer in a neighboring state.

Quote: Nareed

I think the lesson is "DO NOT EVER HAVE TWO AIRPORTS IN THE SAME CITY!"

Well, that is a little extreme. For instance Boston airport is overcrowded and small (typical city airport), and the three nearby airports that were founded in the late 1920's and early 1930's have grown to provide alternatives. You can do that because new airlines target the smaller cities and develop their own business there over a number of years.

Boston Nearby Airports
PVD 49 miles Providence 10.83% of BOS
MHT 45 miles Manchester 6.30% of BOS
ORH 45 miles Worcestor 0.37% of BOS

Southwest and Ryan Air were originators of the alternative airport way to build up an airline business. Spirit and Allegiant are following that business model.

What is nearly impossible to do is to build a second airport and then try to move the excess traffic from the first airport. Dulles Airport outside of Washington DC had the site chosen by Eisenhower in 1958 . The airport was dedicated by President JFK on November 17, 1962.

Twenty five years later, on June 7, 1987, Washington Dulles International Airport and Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport were transferred to Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority (MWAA) under a 50‑year lease authorized by the U.S. Congress in the MWAA Act of 1986, Title VI of Public Law 99‑500.
Prior to the transfer, the airports were owned and operated by the federal government through the Federal Aviation Administration in the United States Department of Transportation. Basically they could not be governed like other airports until Dulles was solvent.

Quote: Pacomartin

Well, that is a little extreme.

I prefer "consistent."

Quote:

For instance Boston airport is overcrowded and small (typical city airport), and the three nearby airports that were founded in the late 1920's and early 1930's have grown to provide alternatives. You can do that because new airlines target the smaller cities and develop their own business there over a number of years.

Airports in nearby cities are a different matter. Like Toluca to Mexico City. They can work, but only if the airlines move there on their own. Toluca boomed while MEX was saturated and you couldn't stick in an extra slot for love or money. Had Mexicana not gone broke, TLC would still be thriving, and the business models for Interjet and Volaris would likely be different now.

As it is, the airport is saturated again, but TLC has very few commercial flights at all. I figure some flights will move there out of necessity until the new airport opens. But short of yet another airline opening up for business with an LCC or ULCC model, I can't ever see it regaining its former glory.

Quote:

Southwest and Ryan Air were originators of the alternative airport way to build up an airline business. Spirit and Allegiant are following that business model.

I was surprised SWA flies to MEX rather than TLC. On the other hand, it's a rather hard airport to get to, or expensive, for many people.


If you were building a new city, where would you put the airport? Considering you don't want a dual airport mess in the future, and you do want it to be able to expand if needed.

Quote: Nareed

...If you were building a new city, where would you put the airport? Considering you don't want a dual airport mess in the future, and you do want it to be able to expand if needed.

I don't think there is a single answer to that question as it depends on what resources are available. In the case of Las Vegas, there is a lot of desert to expand into. There is also an Air Force base that may or may not come available at a future date. In the case of Hong Kong, or Honolulu, you don't have the luxury of open land available, so you expand into the ocean with man-made islands.

On top of all of this though is that no one wants to live under the landing path. The noise makes kids dumb. Planes and parts of planes dropping from the sky are also undesirable if you want your real estate values to go up. Therefore, new airports tend to be inconveniently located, and unattractive to folks looking for new places to live.

Quote: Nareed

I prefer "consistent."



Airports in nearby cities are a different matter. Like Toluca to Mexico City. They can work, but only if the airlines move there on their own. Toluca boomed while MEX was saturated and you couldn't stick in an extra slot for love or money. Had Mexicana not gone broke, TLC would still be thriving, and the business models for Interjet and Volaris would likely be different now.

As it is, the airport is saturated again, but TLC has very few commercial flights at all. I figure some flights will move there out of necessity until the new airport opens. But short of yet another airline opening up for business with an LCC or ULCC model, I can't ever see it regaining its former glory.



I was surprised SWA flies to MEX rather than TLC. On the other hand, it's a rather hard airport to get to, or expensive, for many people.


If you were building a new city, where would you put the airport? Considering you don't want a dual airport mess in the future, and you do want it to be able to expand if needed.

Dubai World City is planned to be home for a million people and features an airport that will carry a record 240 million passengers per year


Let's keep in mind that they announced this plan about 12 years ago, and there is very little substantial progress.


DXB is Dubai's current airport and DWC (Duwai World Central would be only 28 miles away)
AUH is Abu Dhabi (same country, different Emirate)
DOH is Doha Airport in Qatar

So you are talking about a lot of capacity in a small area

I just booked another DTW>LAS trip on Southwest for October. I'm calling it my "get away from this nightmare election" trip.

Because it's only a couple weeks away, I had to do a connecting flight for my outbound flight. It will be my first time doing a connecting flight.... ever. Is that weird? #spoiled

Quote: Ayecarumba

I don't think there is a single answer to that question as it depends on what resources are available.

If only it were that simple.

MEX is at the edge of town, surrounded on three sides by built up city blocks (there's a drying lake on the fourth side). It was surrounded by empty lots when it was built. the city grew to encompass it.

Quote:

Therefore, new airports tend to be inconveniently located, and unattractive to folks looking for new places to live.

Yes, that's the right answer: far from town and with lots of land to expand in the future. However big you think the airport needs to be, it won't be big enough in 20 years or so.

Quote: Pacomartin

Let's keep in mind that they announced this plan about 12 years ago, and there is very little substantial progress.

Asimov's law applies: whatever happens, nothing happens.

Quote:

So you are talking about a lot of capacity in a small area

I wonder how long they'll be able to keep it up. While the gulf tiny kingdoms are well-positioned for a crossroads, longer ranges on aircraft means more direct flights from Europe or the Americas to Asia and Africa. Realistically, traffic to Dubai or Doha is relatively small.