Umm, you’re an idiot. The total value of the construction project is $1.5 billion. My company is insuring it. Where are you getting these ridiculous numbers from?

Name-calling is always a great way to engage in a discussion. For some reason, I’m bothering to respond to you. There is no way this thing will be done for $1.5 billion.

First, let’s make sure we’re talking about the same thing. There are two phases to this project. The first is for the new gates in the existing terminal. The second is the remote concourse with new ticketing area. The combined projects are expected to be $6 to 7 billion (but I bet it goes even higher).

In Phase I, which may be what your company is insuring, the costs are expected to be around $1.5 billion, but I’ll be surprised if it comes in that low. They have already awarded $1.26 billion in the form of two contracts, and I’m sure there will be more.

If you’d like to keep having a discussion about this, I’d suggest that you stop being an ass and act like an adult. I won’t respond to name-calling from you again.

But I’d be curious to get your thoughts on JetBlue’s new terminal. It appears to be quite functional, and while somewhat spartan, it’s attractive and will probably last long into the future. For JetBlue to be able to knock down most of the old TWA terminal and rebuild a brand new 26 gate terminal from scratch cost a mere $800 million. Meanwhile at LAX, they’re talking about simply knocking down the existing 11 gate concourse and building a 14 gate one to replace it in the first phase. While this will include some changes to the ticketing/baggage areas to fit with the new concourse, that part isn’t a new structure at all. The only other component here is moving an existing taxiway further west to accommodate for gates on both sides of the new concourse. Yet this much smaller project is going to cost $2 billion.

Airports should always be trying to keep costs low, and in this case, I think they’ve let the design have costs that are running away for the sake of prettiness.

Perhaps the big mistake was Fentress describing their design in such shallow terms People are appropriately suspicious of architects designing for themselves and not the rest of us. It’s hard to imagine Norman Foster (Beijing, Hong Kong) or Renzo Piano (Osaka) describing their work in such trivial terms. Those are great airports in every way because they did not fall into the trap of thinking there is a difference between beauty and function. But that doesn’t make the LAX expansion bad or make it wrong to bear in mind that these are large public buildings that we will have to live with long after the small-minded bureaucrats have retired.

Whoever controls this facility should immediately do two things:

1. Hire Disney ($1,000 ought to do it because their own executives have to pass through) to show the Bradley folks how to move people.

2. Fire the beauracrats who presently run the place, they obviously don’t have a clue.

Dale

Did Mr. Johnson give a breakdown on the cost of relocating the taxi way?

The bridge at DEN is good in concept but partially poor in functionality. There are two levels in the bridge. The lower level is for passengers who choose to walk from the main terminal to the A concourse. The upper level is for PAX inbound from international flights. They trek from the gates directly across the bridge and go down to the customs area by escalators.

The problem is that the capacity in the customs area is limited, and when multiple flights arrive, passengers is held up at the bridge level so they don’t have to walk backwards on the escalators, and many get WTF cranky b/c they want to go use the restrooms, which are located in the customs area only.

Earth removal is always more expensive than to build above ground, but they want to dig a hole for parking, hmm.

If you’re talking about intercontinental flights, then yes, a few extra dollars is not going to deter an airline from flying to LA on its own. It will, however, make them reconsider a second flight if demand is questionable. More importantly, these costs will likely be spread around to at least some other airlines in the end. Expensive airports have absolutely deterred airlines from adding service in the domestic market.

One of the reasons that Southwest said they went back into SFO was because the airport had been able to bring its costs down. I believe that in the last 15 years, costs have come down from $17 or $18 per enplanement to closer to $13. That’s a big difference.

And yes, I have included polls from time to time. I’m sure I’ll continue to do them.

If the glass waves alone cost $2 billion, I’d agree that it’s an egregious expense. But as far as LAX is concerned, for a non-resident I’ve only ever seen someone pull down their service at that airport simply because they were managing their business badly. Any carrier that wants to be taken seriously at LAX will either suck up the cost or pass it along to the public that still overwhelmingly wants to fly there.

As for DIA, I don’t know if the operating costs have gone down, one reason Southwest said they could not afford to operate there the first time. They seem to have reversed their stand in that regard, however, by re-entering the Denver market. They may smell blood from Frontier but they also are apparently willing to accept the costs associated with Fredirico’s Folly.

Question for you, CF…is it possible in your blog to include simple poll questions for users to enjoy? This would be a good example of such a single question poll – form over function. Thanks again for the great column!

You may not see it as a passenger, but when airport operating costs go up, airlines cut flights or at least limit expansion in that city because the demand at profit-making price is less, even if it’s just $10 to $15 a ticket (which is a huge amount, by the way).