American recently decided to revamp its check-in lobby at LAX, and the result is going to be the blueprint for all of American’s hubs. American invited me to come on up and take a look last week. The highlight? The Flagship check-in service for the fancy pants travelers. I also got an update on a few other projects American is working on at LAX while I was there.

Let’s start with Flagship check-in, which is like checking in with a hotel. If you are traveling in First Class on a three-cabin airplane (either to New York or internationally), if you’re a Concierge Key member, or if you have purchased Five Star Service, you are entitled to use the Flagship check-in area which has a separate entrance directly from the curb. About 65 to 85 people per day use the service, so it’s rather exclusive. (Raquel Welch was checking in as I got my tour, so that certainly added to the glamour.)

This whole thing really does have the feel of a hotel to it. There is a doorman out front with a hotel-style bag cart. The doorman has an iPad with the list of people arriving every day so he can greet them properly.

Once inside, there are kiosks for those who want to use them, but most will just go to the hotel-style desk where an agent can help.

After checking in, the traveler walks out the door and into an elevator which goes upstairs to security. This uses the same security area as the regular premium line travelers (discussed below), but there is a separate line so people can go straight in.

Pretty fancy, huh? While it’s not easy to become Concierge Key or cheap to buy a First Class ticket, you can get Five Star Service for $125 a person ($200 for two). Is it necessary? Nah, but it does make you feel a little like a rock star.

Now, what about check in for the rest of us? As anyone who’s flown through LAX knows, the biggest challenge for check-in is that the lobby areas are pretty narrow for today’s purposes. That’s what happens when you’re in old terminals. But American has done a fairly good job at making this work after this last makeover.

The west end of the lobby (closer to the Bradley Terminal) is now all self-service.

They’ve pulled out banks of six kiosks attached to a computer where an agent is manning the operation. Everyone checks in there, and there are skycap-like runners (no tips) who take your bags to the belt. The counter itself is no longer used. By the end of 2014, there will be an in-line baggage screening area built, the counters will be removed, and bags can then be dropped right on the belt for their journey through the underbelly of the airport. At either end of the counter, there are “resolution centers” if people need help.

By the way, that inline baggage screening area will be built on the bottom floor of the new behind-security connector being built between American’s Terminal 4 and the Bradley Terminal next door. American will take 4 gates in the new Bradley concourse and people will be able to pass freely between the two. So that’s the airline’s growth plan. I asked about whether the new tunnel between Terminal 4 and 5 would ever open, and John Tiliacos, Managing Director of Los Angeles for American, said that they would like to open it up but the old tunnel has become something of a storage closet. It might take awhile before we see that happen.

The east side of the lobby has traditional counters for those who need ticketing (John said a lot of people still come to LAX to ticket, surprisingly) or have more complex issues. But the far east end of the lobby is the new premium check in area.

There is someone standing at the far end of this lobby to make sure only premium customers come in. After check in, there is an escalator there just for premium customers which takes people up to the new security checkpoint above the ticket counter so they never interact with coach passengers. (This is the checkpoint the Flagship check-in uses as well.)

All in all, I like what they’ve done with the place. The Flagship check-in piece seems particularly good for recognizing those travelers who really do spend a silly amount of money with the airline.

[See more photos of my visit]

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.