Air Carriers Attack Hahn’s Plan for Renovating LAX

Airlines that carry almost half the passenger traffic at Los Angeles International Airport criticized key components of Mayor James K. Hahn’s $9.6-billion renovation plan in a strongly worded letter sent to the city agency that operates LAX.

The message marks the first time that the carriers, who have been widely rumored to be unhappy with the mayor’s recently released modernization proposal, have gone on the record with their concerns.

The airlines documented their unease about several key points of Hahn’s plan, including construction of a remote facility near the San Diego Freeway; moving a runway, which would require demolishing three terminals; an effort to cap use of the airport at 78 million annual passengers; and, perhaps most important, the cost.

It was signed by United Parcel Service, as well as seven passenger carriers--Alaska, America West, American, Continental, Delta, Northwest and Southwest.

“The airlines wonder how a plan of this size could be financed,” the signatories said. “If the city’s policy is indeed to constrain the capacity of LAX, it is difficult to believe that the airport could not be improved in a more cost-effective manner and still achieve the benefits of the new alternative.”

It’s crucial that Hahn secure the airlines’ support because they would be asked to shoulder half of the plan’s cost through higher landing fees and terminal leases. The airlines also have enormous lobbying power in Washington, where the Federal Aviation Administration’s approval of the proposal would be needed.

Hahn recently unveiled details of his highly anticipated master plan, which favors safety and security over expansion. The sweeping proposal would dramatically alter the airfield, ban traffic in the central terminal area and rely on an elevated train to link LAX with new facilities to the east.

In the letter, carriers noted that most of the 88 members of the airport’s airline affairs committee weren’t included in numerous briefings given by Hahn’s staff to business and community leaders before he announced the plan.

The airport’s largest carriers, including American, Southwest and United, received an overview before the July 3 rollout, and the proposal was changed to reflect some of their concerns, said Airport Commission President Ted Stein.

Noticeably absent from the list of signatories is cash-strapped United, the airport’s largest carrier. The company refused to specify why it hadn’t signed the letter, saying that it continues to meet with the city to discuss Hahn’s plan.

“We support the modernization of this airport, and we are looking forward to working very closely with the airport administration and the city to refine that proposal and make it work,” said Alan Wayne, a company spokesman.

The airport agency plans to meet with the airlines again next week. But the letter, sent last month to Jim Ritchie, deputy executive director of long-range planning for the airport agency, raises the question of just how much of Hahn’s fledgling plan is negotiable.

City officials say they will not budge on many of the plan’s most controversial provisions.

“Having people go to Manchester Square for the purpose of getting on the people mover is nonnegotiable,” Stein said. “Barring cars and hopefully car bombs from the [central terminal area] is not something we’re going to change. Increasing the capacity over 78 million annual passengers is not on the table, and moving the runway on the north side 340 feet closer to the terminals is not negotiable.”

The airlines have quarrels with all of these elements. They say passengers “would certainly view” a remote terminal at Manchester Square “as another ‘airport hassle,’ with no corresponding benefits.”

The airlines are also concerned about a proposed underground system for ferrying bags from the remote terminal to the airport. Dennis Olson, director of properties for Alaska Airlines, asked in an interview: How would the bags be delivered to the right airlines for processing? Where would they go through security?

The city is open to talking with the airlines about having passengers check their bags and go through security at Manchester Square, Stein said. The plan proposes that travelers pass through security after arriving at the airport.

The letter also states that moving the inbound northern runway closest to the airport--which would require the destruction of Terminals 1, 2 and 3 and part of the Tom Bradley International Terminal--would necessitate a major investment resulting in “limited operational improvements.”

If the mayor breaks ground without the blessing of many of the airport’s most influential airlines, he may risk prohibitively higher costs for carriers and consumers, industry watchers said.

As an example, Hahn need only look to Denver International Airport, where officials spent $3 billion to carve an airfield out of rolling grasslands.

The facility’s cost required the city agency that operates the airport to raise landing fees from $1.76 per 1,000 pounds of landed weight in 1993 to $3.68 in 1995, an airport spokesman said.

This increase forced at least six carriers, including the hub airline, Continental, to desert the new facility and prompted those who stayed to set airfares at stubbornly high levels, said Michael Boyd, a Denver-based airline consultant.

“You need a buy-in from the airlines,” Boyd said. “You don’t want to build an airport outside the context of the people who use it. You can do it. But it’s always the consumer and the taxpayer who pay the price.”

*

Excerpts From Carriers’ Letter

Many of Los Angeles International Airport’s most influential airlines sent a letter to the city agency that operates the airport criticizing Mayor James K. Hahn’s $9.6-billion modernization plan. Some excerpts:

* On a remote facility at Manchester Square: “This facility would appear to do little more than centralize the transportation of passengers into the central terminal area, which they would certainly view as another ‘airport hassle’ with no corresponding benefits.”

* On airfield modifications: “The relocation of Runway 6R/24L [the runway closest to the terminals on the north side], which also necessitates the demolition and replacement of several passenger terminals, would be a major investment, provide no real increase in capacity, and gain only limited operational improvements.”

* On constraining capacity: “Constraining the capacity of LAX to induce traffic at other airports that are already constrained could result in the inability of the Southern California region to accommodate air traffic demand at reasonable levels of customer service.”