Earlier this week, I had the chance to tag along on a media tour of the progress being made on the new Bradley Terminal concourse at LAX. It’s a big, impressive terminal, that’s for sure. I just wish they hadn’t wasted quite so much money. (I know, I know, I sound like a broken record.)

Let’s start with a brief history. If you’ve never been to the Bradley Terminal at the western end of the horseshoe of terminals at LAX, you know that once you get past security, the concourse are very small with limited seating and almost non-existent amenities. It really is a poor experience, and I think few would argue that something new was needed. LA World Airports (LAWA) spent over $700 million fixing up the pre-security area (ticket counters, etc), but the concourse needed to go, so they came up with a plan to knock down the existing concourse and build an all new one immediately behind it.

When I wrote about this in 2008, it was expected to open with 14 gates beginning this month. The entire project was around $2 billion, which included a new taxiway, fire station, etc. The price hasn’t changed much (the terminal will now be $1.7 billion on its own without the other improvements) but one more gate was added (plus 3 existing gates that are staying for a total of 18) and it has slipped a year. The first phase will open in March 2013.

For those who prefer visuals, take a look at this 2:49 video walkthrough of the project. Then stick around for the explanation.

Travelers will enter as they do today, into the main ticketing area. But instead of going either to the left or to the right to get into one of the two security lines, there will be a new central security area that feeds into the new concourse. Once you go through security, you’ll come out into the Great Hall.

This is where all the big shops, restaurants, and lounges will be. They kept talking about it being a town square, or something like that. To the north, there will be a short concourse with a larger one to the south. You can see this area under the shorter ceilings.

Travelers will all board through the same gate entrance, but some will walk immediately upstairs to board on the upper deck if on an A380 while other stay downstairs. That might be a bottleneck. Arriving passengers will get off the airplane and then promptly go UPstairs. There will be a glassed-in sterile corridor that goes above the departure gates for arriving passengers. They’ll walk to the middle of the terminal where they’ll have to then go all the way back down to the basement for customs. It’s a lot of up and down.

When it first opens, the 10 gates on the west side of the building will be operational. The east gates will have to wait until they demolish the old concourse, which they will do one side at a time so that they can keep enough gates operating.

On the very northern end, three gates from the old concourse will actually remain and will be attached via a walkway at that end. Why? Because the LAX master plan has a line north of which no building will occur. That’s for future plans to separate the runways further for safety purposes. Even though new construction can’t occur, old construction is grandfathered in. So they’re keeping those three gates, as awkward as it might seem.

Eventually, there will also be connectors between the Bradley Terminal to Terminals 3 and 4 behind security to make for better connections. If they could only open up that Terminal 4-5 connector, the entire airport would be connected behind security except for Terminals 1 and 2.

Photo courtesy of LAWA

So is it worth the $1.7 billion (part of a larger $4 billion+ renovation at the airport)? No. I mean, the new terminal was needed, but did they really need to spend so much money on this crazy roof? I’m sure they could have gotten something just as light and airy but without looking like a copy of Mexico City’s Terminal 1 for a lot less.

The airport CEO, Gina Marie Lindsey, keeps hammering on how this takes no money from the LA general fund so it costs taxpayers nothing. Yeah, right. That money ends up coming from higher operating costs. According to Gina Marie, the cost per enplanement at the airport will rise from $12 today to “only” $17 somewhere around 2016. I’d be amazed if that held true considering the $4 billion being spent, but even if it does, that $5 per head will be problematic, especially for domestic flights.

Gina Marie was quick to say that they were working to spread the cost of these projects around the entire airport. That means that Southwest, sitting alone in Terminal 1, will still have to pay for some of this even though it gets none of the benefit. Oh, I’m sorry, airport officials kept dismissing my questioning along those lines with “everyone benefits from a better airport.” I’d like to see what the airlines say about that.

While international carriers will grin and bear it, the domestic guys, especially those flying shorter haul flights, could see real pressure on some flights. I don’t dispute that much of this work needed to be done; I just wish there was more concern about cost control in order to keep as many flights viable as possible.

But hey, what’s done is done at this point. We’ll see how things look next March when the concourse opens for business.

[See more of my photos on Flickr]

I’m still hanging out, getting to know my son, so here’s another guest post for you. This time it’s an interesting look at airports and their names.

—-

The name of an airport: we see it when we book reservations, on billboards as we cruise down the highway, on signs directing us towards the terminals, and we hear it constantly over the airport’s PA and on the airplane itself. As frequent fliers, we try to tune it out and focus on the three-letter airport code—it’s a daunting task given how often we’re exposed to the actual name.

But there are reasons why air travelers are constantly inundated with the full name of the airport. First, an airport’s name is the largest free advertisement in its attraction toolbox. It’s plastered everywhere, and mostly not at the airport’s expense. Flight search engines use the airport’s full name in search boxes, airlines use the airport’s full name in itineraries, and cities use the airport’s full name on signs on highways and roads. With this much expensive real estate freely displaying the airport’s name, it’s no wonder that this component is integral for attracting passengers. Second, the name happens to tie in nicely with the region’s economic development strategy. Not only is it important for funneling more passengers through an airport’s gates and services, but it also is important for the region the airport serves.

Take the example of what happened recently in Bozeman, Montana, where the name of its airport was recently changed from Gallatin Field Airport to Bozeman Yellowstone International Airport at Gallatin Field. Not only does the new name include “Bozeman,” the largest city the airport serves, and “international,” even though the airport does not yet have a customs facility, but also “Yellowstone” was added. The airport, which is approximately 90 miles from Yellowstone National Park, changed its name to better compete with other airports that serve the park (Yellowstone Airport in West Yellowstone, Montana which is just a couple miles from the park; Jackson Hole Airport in Jackson Hole, Wyoming which is approximately 47 miles from the park; and Yellowstone Regional Airport in Cody, Wyoming which is approximately 52 miles from the park).

Even though none of these airports are actually located in Yellowstone, their names all work to advertise their proximity to this popular destination. Numerous other airports utilize this strategy of including a nearby destination in part of their names: Fresno Yosemite International Airport, which is located in Fresno, CA, is approximately 60 miles from the park; and the airports that serve Washington, DC (Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport, Washington Dulles International Airport, and Baltimore Washington International Thurgood Marshall Airport) that all use Washington in their name yet none are actually located in the city.

However, not every airport that claims to utilize this strategy actually does so. Last year the airport that serves Budapest, Hungary changed its name from the Budapest Ferihegy International Airport to the Budapest Liszt Ferenc International Airport. With a new terminal opening at the airport and the country taking over the EU presidency, the national government claimed that a name change was necessary to be more descriptive and more attractive to European travelers—after all, who has ever heard of Ferihegy? To further support the government’s cause, they elicited the support of the population, naming the airport after the country’s musical hero, Franz Liszt, who is widely known and celebrated throughout Europe and the world. Throughout the negotiations, the government made the case that changing the airport’s name would better promote the region during such a crucial time and in the future. The problem is that it is hard to imagine that naming an airport after a prominent figure would actually increase passenger traffic—is Washington/National attractive to passengers because it’s now named after Ronald Reagan or is it because it’s mere minutes from the city center? While the name change in Budapest might promote Hungarian culture, it certainly does little to increase growth for the airport or the region.

An airport’s name is clearly an important asset, much like the names of sport stadiums in the U.S. Airports use their names as an advertisement to promote passenger growth as well as the region’s wider development. Sports stadiums lease or sell their names as an additional source of revenue. If airport finances get much worse, maybe we’ll start seeing corporate sponsorship there, as well—who knows, perhaps the GM Detroit International Airport or the Exxon Mobil Dallas International Airport will be on the next billboard you pass?

–
Jacob Kuipers is an economic policy consultant who has lived in Vermont, Washington, DC, Montana, Boston, Budapest, and Cleveland over the past five years. His current clients include the U.S. government, the Harvard Business School, and economic development organizations. He is a student pilot and an airplane enthusiast. You can reach him at jacob /dot/ a /dot/ kuipers /at/ gmail /dot/ com.

It’s really interesting to watch US Airways as it starts to announce how it’s going to use its newly acquired slots at Washington’s National Airport. While Delta made a huge splash in New York with its hub-creation at LaGuardia after it got the US Airways slots there, US Airways has gone with a softer launch with the Delta slots it acquired at National. That’s quite fitting.

Unlike Delta, US Airways is going with a phased introduction of new flights. Of the 42 slot pairs that it’s getting from Delta, it looks like it’s only announcing what will happen with 26 of them. I’m told by the airline that more will be announced in February. Meanwhile, Delta has already shown which flights will be getting the axe, so we have a pretty good picture of what’s happening. Here it is.

Now, I pulled all this up by hand, so there could be a couple of issues with the number of frequencies in some of these markets, but you get the idea. I’ve highlighted the most interesting ones to me in green.

As expected, Delta is pulling out of every market save for its hubs with one little exception. Want to guess which one that is? It’s Lexington, Kentucky, where it appears Delta will continue to have 1 daily flight on a CRJ. Why? I have no clue. Maybe there’s something special about that particular slot which will keep Delta serving that market, or maybe it was just an oversight and will be removed shortly. Regardless, other than that, there are no other non-hub flights for Delta.

That includes the ditching of all flights between Boston and Washington/National, a market which has probably suffered greatly with JetBlue in there. There’s plenty of room for US Airways and JetBlue in there, but it was probably a little too crowded with Delta anyway. There’s also a noticeable reduction in flights to JFK. I assume that’s because Delta is really trying to shift domestic flying over to LaGuardia. It doesn’t need as many flights to JFK anymore.

But let’s get to the meat of this story. What is US Airways doing? It is not following Delta by ramping up service in larger markets. Instead, it’s really serving some of the little guys out there. Look for flights to Fayetteville and Jacksonville . . . North Carolina. There will also be service to Ft Walton Beach, Pensacola, and Tallahassee in Florida. These are cities that have been begging for service to the nation’s capital and now they’re getting it. I imagine a lot of this is actually military traffic, come to think of it.

The upshot here is that US Airways is really bringing some great new service to smaller cities, a rarity today. That does mean that some of the cities Delta abandons will truly suffer. Des Moines and Jackson (MS) are the big losers here; they lose their only nonstop to National when Delta pulls out. Unless US Airways adds them in the next round of flights announcements, they’re out of luck.

Mid-sized cities Charleston (SC), Columbus (OH), Jacksonville (FL), New Orleans, Providence, and Tampa will all keep the US Airways service they have today, but they won’t get more flights. They will, however, be losing Delta as nonstop competition. That’s bound to impact fares to some extent. Grand Rapids and Madison are losing Delta as well, but they have new service from Frontier coming in just in time. That actually might turn out to do alright.

It’s funny to see big cities like Miami lose Delta service but not get US Airways in return. That’s probably a smart move on the part of US Airways. The airline doesn’t want to serve every big city from National. It wants to serve every city it can serve profitably. The high costs and massive frequency and loyalty advantage held by American in Miami probably make it worth avoiding.

But what will the next round of adds bring for US Airways? Great question. I would assume that the airline wanted to add the routes it thought had the most potential first, but there could be more in the next round that will surprise. Maybe we’ll even see some summer seasonal stuff, I don’t know. Either way, it seems to be a very methodical process for the airline, somewhat different from Delta in New York.

With Delta, it seems like it has an idea about which cities need to be served from New York in order to “win” the town. The airline made the flashy announcement so it could make its mark. For US Airways, however, it’s really a market-by-market decision based on viability, with no effort to “win” a city. Not quite as flashy, but it gives great insight into the amount of demand to different cities from Washington.

I look forward to seeing what’s next.

ANA has announced that will start flying the 787 to the US. First market are Seattle and San Jose. Is that a surprise to you? My guess is that United will pull its Seattle to Tokyo flight, letting ANA fly it with a more appropriate airplane. San Jose, however, is different. American couldn’t make it work with a 777, but the 787 might just be the right size with the right costs to make it viable.

The details are out. Now that the feds have finally paved the way for the Delta/US Airways slot swap (at least this part of it), Delta can finally roll out its plans to dominate New York. This is far from just replacing US Airways on existing flights but is rather a much broader shift.

There’s great news for people in bigger cities, primarily other hubs. Delta will be providing some competition there that didn’t exist before. But that growth means someone else loses, and it’s primarily smaller cities. This isn’t really a surprise, but it’s going to make people pretty unhappy that need those routes. Ultimately, these can be divided into four different categories. Let’s go through each of them.

Big Cities, Big Winners
What Delta is really trying to do here is offer frequent nonstop service in top business markets. That’s good for travelers but not for other airlines. The biggest likely loser? American.

Of these 14 cities, American serves five of them nonstop, so it won’t be happy. As if that’s not bad enough, Delta’s new flights to Halifax will certainly pull from JFK, where American operates the only nonstop flights to Halifax today. For two cities, Nassau and Halifax, this will be the only nonstop flights in the markets, so they’re just going to be happy in general.

You’ll notice that Halifax, Montreal, and Ottawa all are getting service but Toronto is not. Seems strange, right . . . oh wait not so much. Remember, some of those divested slots went to WestJet, and the expectation is that most if not all will fly to Toronto. Oh, and did I mention that Delta and WestJet are planning to codeshare? Not so much of a divestment, eh? Here’s the list of winners.

A Little Bit of Growth
Those markets above aren’t the only winners. Others will actually see some growth or at least stay the same. These fall into a couple different categories.

Most of them are markets that are already served by Delta today but aren’t served by US Airways. In these, Delta is adding an additional flight, so it’s all good news for this group.

There are two that don’t fall into that category. Washington/Dulles will see its 4 daily US Airways flights replaced with 4 new flights from Delta. That might seem like a wash, but US Airways loyalists could always fly United before and can continue to do so and still earn miles. Delta brings convenience to its loyalists, so it provides better utility. Also, some will be happy to see jets replacing turboprops, but that doesn’t matter to me.

The last one is a special case. The 4 daily US Airways flights to Syracuse will be replaced by 5 from Delta. Not bad, but why is this happening? Delta has been particularly careful to court the New York politicians in this process. That relationship has helped open plenty of doors, so those upstate New York markets will be taken care of quite nicely. Here’s the list:

Just a Haircut
Now it’s time to start talking about the losers, but let’s ease into it by talking about those with pretty mild losses to start.

In this group there are really two types of cities. The first group loses the least. These are cities that have US Airways service today but no Delta service. The US Airways flights will disappear and Delta will step in, just with fewer frequencies. These cities get “upgraded” to jets, and they’ll have at least two flights a day. So, there is a loss in terms of the number of flights but it’s pretty minor.

The other group will be less happy. These are cities that had both US Airways and Delta service before, but they’ll now be losing US Airways completely. In return, these cities will get more flights from Delta, but not enough to replace what was lost by US Airways. It also means there’s one less competitor in the market. Here’s the full list:

Little Cities, Big Losers
It’s time to talk about the bad news. There are some cities that are just getting wrecked here. In general, the plan is this. These cities have service from US Airways today and that’s all going away. Delta’s either not coming to these cities or it’s adding a single, measly flight.

Basically, it sucks if you need to go between these cities and New York because your options are greatly reduced. There is one in this list that’s not like the others. That is Baltimore. Delta has declined to go into that market, and I know why. Southwest is the only other airline in the market. So people who need to fly between New York and Baltimore still have an option, but Southwest only has 3 flights in there. US Airways has 7 flights that are going away, so this market is taking a big hit. It’s just not as bad as those markets that lose absolutely everything. Here’s the list:

As you can see, there are some winners and some losers here. In general, the little cities are the odd men out, but many smaller cities do retain at least some service. It’s completely clear why Delta is doing this. It wants to make its slots at La Guardia as useful as possible, and that means serving larger markets. Delta is also upping its game at JFK (I wasn’t able to get the full details on that one yet), which will really make it so that Delta can adequately get anyone in New York to just about anywhere they need to go.

As I said above, this hurts American the most. American now becomes an even more distant third place in New York, and that’s even if you count JetBlue as its partner. For Delta, this is a smart way to use the slots. Of course, I say that as someone who doesn’t have to travel to Ithaca or Providence.