A Long, Tortured History of Airlines Trying to Win LAX


There are dominant airlines in nearly every airport in the US, even those that are the most competitive. You have Delta at LaGuardia and JFK, United at Newark and Chicago/O’Hare, Alaska in Seattle, and the list goes on. But there is one airport that nobody has ever been able to conquer, and that’s Los Angeles International Airport (LAX). I haven’t seen a direct statement supporting this, but a lot of people are now talking about how Delta is going to make a run at LAX again. History suggests it won’t work.

Before I dive into this, I want to be very clear about the scope. I am talking about dominating one airport, LAX. If you include the entire LA Basin, then that is a whole different discussion. Southwest dominates every airport other than LAX, and so you can argue it is the airline that provides the most utility to the region as a whole, at least domestically. But all of those airports are regionally-focused. LAX is and has for decades been the one airport in the region that acts as a global hub.

I’ve recently started playing with a tool called SkyGo that has OAG schedule data back to 1980. So I was able to really go back in time here and watch the evolution of this airport. Back then, United was the biggest airline at LAX. If we exclude commuters, Western was next with PSA close behind. American was a step further, and Delta was basically nothing.

1980 LAX Route Maps OAG data via SkyGo, generated by the Great Circle Mapper® – copyright © Karl L. Swartz.

Back then, the airlines were still coming out of deregulation and trying to figure out their positioning. Historically, American flew people from LAX to the east/northeast while Delta took (very few of) them to the east/southeast. But United not only did east-west, it also flew a lot of north-south. Western did intrawest flying as well from its home at LAX, and PSA was the young buck who went almost entirely north-south. This remained the status quo until 1984 when Air Cal started challenging PSA at LAX, having more departures than American after that year.

Up until the mid-1980s, however, it was United, Western, and PSA who led the pack and then the mergers started. In 1987, Western schedules were absorbed by Delta, AirCal went into American, and PSA was folded into USAir in 1988. United picked up Pan Am’s Pacific routes shortly before that as well.

By the end of the decade, Delta had become the largest airline at LAX thanks to its acquisition of Western, followed by American with AirCal, and then United. Those three would maintain their hold on the top three spots from then on.

Starting in 1990, I can look at T-100 data via Cirium which then gives us a more accurate look at seats and seat share. But I went deeper than that. I looked at seats for Alaska, American, Delta, Southwest, and United including regional partners departing LAX. This also includes joint venture partners but only in the years when they were part of the joint venture. Here’s what you get.

LAX Departing Seats by Airline Group

T-100 Data via Cirium

This chart tells us quite the story. What we see is that in the early 1990s, Delta was retrenching a bit, pulling down frequencies in some markets while standing pat in others. But United, well, United started growing fast. I believe it was 1997 when SkyWest moved its Delta flying to United instead, further cementing United’s historical position. American also made a run in the late 1990s through acquisitions, so as they both grew, Delta lost seat share. That lasted for 15+ years until Delta bought Northwest and began to focus on LAX.

American, meanwhile, didn’t really grow much on its own. It was all about acquisitions. It took Reno Air in 1999, TWA soon after, and then US Airways in 2015. That final merger brought the strategic decision to open a Transpacific hub at LAX which was when American first made a real run at LAX through organic growth. All of this pushed American into the top spot right up until the pandemic. That’s when things changed dramatically.

What we see during the pandemic is that American pulled back a lot. It did get rid of its Transpacific hub idea, but it wasn’t just about those long-haul flights. Meanwhile, after years of decline, United realized it wanted to get back into the game. So it did, and it has increased share ever since. Delta has just continued to grow into the number one position.

We haven’t even talked about Alaska and Southwest yet. Alaska was up in the 5 percent range until it took over Virgin America. It gave much of that back during the pandemic. Southwest, meanwhile, had been slowly declining for a decade before the pandemic hit. That trend hasn’t changed. The only reason those two airlines matter is to show that not all of Delta’s and United’s gains have been at the expense of American.

But let’s look at this a different way. We’ve been talking about seats up until now, but that doesn’t really tell us how well the airline is doing at capturing the local market. Instead for that, we’ll look at DB1B/C data through the end of 2025, though keep in mind this is only for domestic travel.

LAX Local Domestic Passengers by Airline

DB1B/C OD Data via Cirium

This looks at itineraries, so it takes away those who are connecting at LAX to find those who are starting or ending their trips there. There are some things that look very different here.

First of all, American’s fall looks much more precipitous from this angle during the pandemic. Keep in mind that getting rid of all those international flights won’t even show up here. But when American backed off, it lost a lot of ground domestically as well. This is the “s-curve” at work; when American reduced its utility, people moved in greater numbers to other airlines that had more utility in the overall market.

Unlike in terms of seats, however, American is still ahead of United, though barely. United’s gain in local traffic is much less than its gain in seats. It has to fight Delta for those local travelers, and Delta just keeps going up.

It’s also fairly remarkable to see that Southwest was the largest in the domestic market from LAX for many years. It is now a distant number four, and it probably isn’t planning on trying to compete for that title again.

In the end, other than a brief blip around the turn of the century, nobody has been above 25 percent share in the domestic market, and that’s the point. LAX doesn’t want one airline to dominate. Airlines have tried to make runs, but they never seem to last. Inevitably they all jockey for position and then end up somewhere in the pack. There has been no winning in this market, but… could that change?

In my next post, I’m going to look at why this might be a good time for Delta to try.

Get Cranky in Your Inbox!

The airline industry moves fast. Sign up and get every Cranky post in your inbox for free.

Brett Avatar

85 responses to “A Long, Tortured History of Airlines Trying to Win LAX”

  1. Matt D Avatar
    Matt D

    I love the history posts.

    You briefly touched on, but didn’t acknowledge that for a couple of years, I think 1989 and 1990, USAir actually held the #3, possibly #2 spot at LAX because of PSA and the handful of former Piedmont flights. I could be wrong; you have access to the data (assuming it’s correct) whereas I’m just going from distant memory.

    Plus, AirCal was never all that big at LAX to begin with. Because of that, AA didn’t get all that big. I think they had only 2 or maybe 3 gates at Terminal 1 whereas PSA had around 6 or 7. Again, I think. SNA and ONT were the AirCal sandboxes.

    But I know, this writeup is about LAX.

    As you said, it didn’t last. The whole PSA/USAir tie-up was a disaster from the start. But that’s another discussion.

    One thing you forgot to mention was the Recession of 1990-1991 tied to the first Gulf War. Those of us who lived through it and remember know how brutal it was. A lot of airlines (and the economy in general) got absolutely clobbered in that period. Those were not economically good times at all. But it’s also part of that period that seems to have, at least culturally anyway, been mostly forgotten.

    It’s interesting how the Big 3 (American/Delta/United) seem to have a long pattern of building up/tearing down/rebuilding at LAX. I guess whatever way the market winds are blowing this Quarter. Any idea why that might be? Why it’s so hand-to-mouth?

    Also….why is market share so important as opposed to profitability? Wouldn’t it make more sense to be running 10 flights a day but be averaging 95% loads and 15% profit as opposed to 20 flights a day that are 60% full and you’re losing fifty grand on every flight?

    I know…I pulled those numbers out of my ass, but you get my point.

    Can’t wait to see your follow up.

    1. Brett Avatar

      Matt D – Looking at departures, USAir never got above fourth place. It hit the peak in 1990, but it was still well behind the big three. Of course, then it began to cut back dramatically. I don’t have seat counts that far back, unfortunately, but I doubt that would have changed things. AirCal was never big but then it made a move in 1984 to start growing, which is when T1 opened. Still, it was like 35% of PSA departures that year, so it was never huge.

      As for why airlines build up, tear down, etc… LAX is an enormous local market. It’s a huge place that matters a lot strategically, so airline management teams come and go and decide at certain times they want to focus there. Then it fails and they focus elsewhere.

      Market share does correlate with profit to an extent. The S-curve shows that airlines that have a higher share of capacity will get more than their fair share of local traffic. So you need to have that investment to win a market. That doesn’t mean all efforts are profitable, but that’s what all airlines are angling for when they move into places like this.

  2. NedsKid Avatar
    NedsKid

    Fascinating post! Thank you!

    Where can I find SkyGo? I have OAG Analyser… is it a function of that or a standalone?

    1. Eric R Avatar
      Eric R

      google it !

    2. Brett Avatar

      NedsKid – It’s a standalone. Currently in beta, so I can’t give you a link, but there is a LinkedIn page:
      https://www.linkedin.com/company/skygo-aviation-intelligence/

  3. 1990 Avatar
    1990

    I love that airports like LAX (JFK, ORD, etc.) have resisted dominance by any single airline. That competition is better for passengers (and can be ‘healthy’ for the companies that decide to compete there.) By contrast, fortress hubs are disgusting; while Delta plans to open a second DeltaOne lounge at LAX, it can’t even handle opening one at its headquarters in ATL, because it knows those hostages in Georgia are captive. Sad.

    1. John Selden Avatar
      John Selden

      Righto! On so many forums, the trend is to stomp on some carriers in an apparent hope that they disappear off the face of the earth, which would hardly be beneficial to your average, typical, run-of-the-mill traveler. That LAX landscape in the 1960s and 70s was a beautiful thing.

  4. ChuckMO Avatar
    ChuckMO

    SkyGo appears to be a nice addition to your resources. I would have loved to see the route maps of the Top 5 in 1980. Followed by AA/DL/UA after their 80’s mergers. The see-sawing at LAX has been fascinating to watch since the 80’s merger mania. After the AA/AS code-share restrictions go away this year it would be interesting to see their combined domestic coverage at LAX complete with market share.

  5. Bill from DC Avatar
    Bill from DC

    This really jives with my recollections of flying from LAX in the late 90s and early 2000s. Nearly everybody on my team flew United and I was the oddball on Delta. I didn’t realize how large the disparity was in O&D, roughly 25% to 10%. Back then Delta’s terminal 5 was the nicest terminal, apparently it still looks exactly the same now haha.

    United came as close to “dominating” LAX as any airline both in terms of seats and local market share during the 90s then began to decline significantly beginning in 2000 through the pandemic.

    Why did this occur? They had the most gates in 2000, even though they were generally crappy, having T7 and 8 with some creep into T6, especially after the Continental merger which basically only yielded them a bunch of flights to Houston and Newark and a couple to Cleveland and Guam.

    During the 2000s, AA grew quite a bit via the TWA (which had a decent presence at LAX especially in the JFK market) and USAir mergers. As you noted, DL changed their thinking post NW.

    So was it primarily due to industry consolidation in which AA and DL gained far more at LAX than United? Or was United focused more on SFO (although it seems they’ve always been committed to both)? And what will Scott Kirby do if Delta decides to bulk up even more at LAX?

    1. TZ Avatar
      TZ

      During the late 90s early 00s, United had “Shuttle by United” that rebranded to “United Shuttle” so that aided United’s market share on the West Coast.

      Does anyone recall did “United Shuttle” become “Ted” or had United shut down “United Shuttle” fully before introducing “Ted”? “Ted” was largely leisure market focused vs “United Shuttle” being West Coast focused. So leads to how did you Shuttle and Ted play into UAs numbers, assume they used UA callsign, so not able to extrapolate from the data.

      1. CHM Avatar
        CHM

        Shuttle by United and Ted were two completely different things.

        Shuttle by United was an attempt to better compete with Southwest on West Coast routes United mainline was already flying. They added a few seats by reducing the rear galleys in some 737’s. This folded right after 9/11.

        Ted was started in late 2003 to compete with jetBlue and to a lesser degree Frontier. It folded in 2009.

        In reality, both were just marketing plus special aircraft configuration, they were operated by UA mainline crews under the UA AOC. In most cases, they took routes that were already operated by regular UA and marketed them as either Shuttle or Ted.

        1. TZ Avatar
          TZ

          Thanks for the details CHM

        2. LT_DT Avatar
          LT_DT

          I worked with a guy who left United to go be a pilot for NASA. He had been flying primarily Shuttle routes while at United so he introduced himself to everyone he met while working at NASA as a “shuttle pilot”.

        3. 1990 Avatar
          1990

          Oh, I memba Ted! (FLL-DEN)

    2. CHM Avatar
      CHM

      T5 is now a pile of rubble.

    3. Brett Avatar

      Bill – United made the decision to deemphasize LAX for strategic reasons, I guess. It did pull back on flying from 2001 for about 15 years. I imagine some of that was a focus on SFO. Some was also probably that LAX just wasn’t making them money. And when Continental took over, Smisek seemed to have no use for LAX in the system which is why they gave away those gates in Terminal 6.

      1. Bill from DC Avatar
        Bill from DC

        That man loved giving away gates at major airports! I knew about his cowardly JFK withdrawal but surrendering gates at LAX too? What a cheese eating surrender monkey.

        But he kept those nonstops running to CAE!

      2. PSC Avatar
        PSC

        What gates did UA give away in T6? And to who?

        1. Brett Avatar

          PSC – United gave up the four gates in the neck of the terminal which I think were 60/61/62/63A, but I’m not sure about numbering. American took those. Then a few years later, American swapped those gates for four in Terminal 5 instead. That was part of the big Delta move out of Terminal 5.

          1. PSC Avatar
            PSC

            So now those gates belong to AS? Gotta imagine UA is trying very hard behind the scenes to purchase those gates back from AS, especially with them shrinking.

  6. SEAN Avatar
    SEAN

    What is it about LAX that prevents dominance by a single airline? Is it geographic, structural, market forces or something else. JFK has had dominance by a single carrier despite having a multi hub structure. Right now it is DL, but AA & TW at one time were top dog. ORD historicly has been a duel hub for AA & UA, but until a few years ago was evenly split. Now UA is dominant as cranky has noted with those amazing graphics as of late.

    1. Bill from DC Avatar
      Bill from DC

      I think JFK is still the most analogous to LAX, both in structure and lack of dominance. For local O&D by airline, DL currently has about 30%, JetBlue 24-25%. No airline is anywhere near dominant because international and other carriers account for nearly 1/3 of O&D pxs. As a result, the above market shares would change significantly if looking at alliances instead of airlines but would still not allow for dominance by any.

    2. See_Bee Avatar
      See_Bee

      My guess is that in the past, no single airline was able to get enough scale due to the airport layout. The modular terminals prevented development of a true hub facility, and no single airline could really dominate 2+ terminals

      Recent capital investments might be the factors that have changed things. It’s my understanding that DL has (significant) skin in the game on their $2B+ redevelopment of T2/3. Additionally, they have an airside connector to TBIT, which not only has more gate space for DL but a better connecting experience which they can leverage for a “true” hub

      I’m not sure LAWA would allow it, but if WN continues to shrink, NK going away, F9 retreating due to high costs, etc., there’s a world where DL could start taking gates in T1 to get even more scale

    3. Dan d Avatar
      Dan d

      Boston is pretty similar it might be geography.

    4. Brett Avatar

      SEAN – I think it’s a mix. First, you do have a ton of airlines interested in winning in LA. And unlike in New York, there aren’t slots to really prevent anyone from making a run if they feel like it. But also, I’m told the airport generally runs itself in a way that it tries to make sure no one airline gets a dominant position. I assume that has to do with gate leases and availability of additional gates, but I’m not sure of the exact details.

      1. Southside Emil Avatar
        Southside Emil

        Brett,
        Can’t the same be said about BOS in the 70’s? You had PanAm and Northeast as the gorilla. But wasn’t Northeast the biggest in BOS in the first half of the 70’s?

        1. Brett Avatar

          Southside Emil – I really don’t know, my data only goes back to the 1980s. In 1980, Delta was largest with both Eastern and Allegheny/USAir about 3/4 the side of Delta. Northeast was half the size of Delta.

      2. SEAN Avatar
        SEAN

        Thanks Brett. I knew it was something like that, but you have so much more knowledge on this than I could ever accumulate.

    5. Bevvy Avatar
      Bevvy

      Want about Braniff and Hughes?

  7. MaxPower Avatar
    MaxPower

    Great post. thanks Cranky!

    Never a dull couple years at LAX!

  8. emac Avatar
    emac

    “why this might be a good time for Delta to try”

    spoiler: credit cards?

  9. dan d Avatar
    dan d

    Is the Southwest decline a switch to secondary airports or a decline in the overall market? The decline seems to match up with when the started Long Beach.

    1. Brett Avatar

      dan d – Southwest has just focused much more on those secondary airports. It is still dominant in SoCal overall thanks to its positions there.

  10. George Romey Avatar
    George Romey

    With so many airlines can one really dominant? Sure, with enough flights/seats yeah but that dilutes yields. So a bunch of flights that do not make money.

    There are only so many people that can/will pay big bucks (or use OPM) for a lie flat seat for a five hour flight to New York, Boston on Washington.

    1. 1990 Avatar
      1990

      George, there are still limitations, like slots, unless US airports go 24/7 like some overseas (DXB, DOH, SIN, etc.)

  11. Dan from Cheyenne Avatar
    Dan from Cheyenne

    Any predictions as to what will happen when T4 and T5 construction is complete? I believe AA will have the most preferential gates at LAX. I would assume that they will make a push to unseat DL and that is why DL is trying to win as much share as they can now.

    1. Eric R Avatar
      Eric R

      I was going to say this, but you beat me to it. A factor that must be considered is the current gate constraints AA is facing due to ongoing construction. Once the construction is completed, AA will ramp up operations.

      Will it be profitable? Probably not. Will it be sustainable? Probably not. But I fully expect AA to close the gap on DL when construction is complete.

      1. MaxPower Avatar
        MaxPower

        AA has specifically, recently, and publicly said AA will grow to be the biggest again at LAX after the terminal construction. But that’s years away…

    2. GM Avatar
      GM

      AA renewed lease with LAWA, proposed in Oct 2025 gives them a total of 25 preferred gates in the T4/5 complex, 15 in T4 and 10 in T5. I believe there is still some ability to use gates in TBIT but haven’t seen the actual lease. The last five gate appear to be common use so AA might be able to use some of them some of the time. AA also loses access to the Eagle Nest.

    3. Brett Avatar

      Dan from Cheyenne – As GM says, I think it’ll still be a couple gates less than Delta. It will have common use access, I’m sure. But also, I wonder if there is an opportunity to gain more in T5. Spirit is out of business, and JetBlue might be just fine in T1 where it is today. So, we shall see what happens.

      1. Bill from DC Avatar
        Bill from DC

        Is the eagles nest finally being bulldozed?

        1. GM Avatar
          GM

          It will eventually go away once T5 is fully built out. However, the timeline is still unclear. LAWA is trying to get T5 done by the 2028 Olympics, however, if it looks like it can’t be fully open then the plan is to open the headhouse plus the five closest gate. The rest of the terminal would get finished after the games

  12. MetroCity Avatar
    MetroCity

    Since the mid-60s, for business or pleasure, I flew through LAX more times than I can count. But it wasn’t until I read this post that I realized how many different airlines I flew through LA.

    American, United, TWA, Delta, Hawaiian, Alaska, Western, Eastern, PSA… but never Southwest.
    I wish I had saved some of the ticket envelopes. But then again, clutter averted.

    Means nothing in the grand scheme of the universe. Just my own observation.

    1. John Selden Avatar
      John Selden

      And in the late 60s through early 80s, I flew the rest of them. Hughes Air West up the coast, Continental (with their wonderful DC-10 Y lounges) out to Honolulu, Northwest DC-10s to Seattle and 747s to Minneapolis, and even an occasional Pan American 747 to/from Honolulu. Halcyon days for sure!

    2. Kivi Avatar
      Kivi

      Don’t forget Reno, AirCal, Aloha, Hawaiian

    3. CraigTPA Avatar
      CraigTPA

      I don’t really recall flying through LAX twice on the same airline, except for DL, and that was only 2 times. Flew there on AA, UA, PSA, US, Qantas, and the mighty Air21.

  13. Tim Dunn Avatar
    Tim Dunn

    first, it would be helpful to define “dominate” esp. in the context that some are using about DL’s plans for LAX; DL hasn’t used the term and I think most would agree that it is impossible for any airline to dominate an airport like LAX if “dominate” means to have a substantially higher share than any other competitor.

    Most of the large coastal airports were built long before many big interior US hubs existed. Coastal airports by nature have the potential to connect much less domestic traffic – the majority of the US air travel system. The number of international markets that can be served from LAX is smaller than eastern US coastal markets just because of the size of the oceans next to those cities.

    The US airline industry is now far more concentrated which supports large hubs but no carrier is ever going to gain the facilities at LAX to operate a true hub; at best, they connect some domestic passengers as a product of combinations of their point to point flights. Feeding international traffic is what domestic size will help do at LAX even though LAX is best positioned geographically for a fairly limited part of US international traffic.

    DL does a great job of focusing its attention on a few strategic initiatives at a time and it clearly de-emphasized LAX in the past to focus on the east coast where it has grown quite nicely over the past 20 years – but where growth will be harder.

    It will be interesting to read the article(s) on DL’s LAX, west coast and TPAC growth plans but it is very much true that DL sees itself with a series of advantages in growing TPAC and LAX that other airlines do not have.

    1. Eric R Avatar
      Eric R

      If DL starts to increase TPAC flying from LAX, it reduces the need of SEA to perform a similar function.

      1. See_Bee Avatar
        See_Bee

        Not necessarily. Some benefits of maintaining duals hubs:
        -LAX requires an earlier departure from the US to hit the banks in Asia, which reduces mid-continent connectivity in the US. SEA flights leave later, so more connecting US flights
        -Coming the other direction, US bound flights arrive earlier in SEA for better connectivity into the US
        -LAX is generally more circuitous as a connecting point to Asia
        -SEA is shorter length of haul, so you can play with gauge more (i.e., A339 vs A359)
        -More optionality for customers; maybe I want the SEA flight outbound and LAX on the return because of flight times. It’s easier to win customers

        The easiest way to interpret is LAX-Asia primarily serves the local market along with intra-Asia connectivity at partner hubs, while SEA has connectivity on both continents due to it’s geographic location, smaller local market, and ability to fly smaller gauge

        1. Eric R Avatar
          Eric R

          Key word: “reduces”. I did not say eliminate.

          We’ve already seen certain routes move to LAX that were formerly flown from SEA such as HKG. I am not implying SEA will close and all TPAC routes moved to LAX, but every TPAC add out of LAX means less potential passengers flowing through SEA.

          1. SEAN Avatar
            SEAN

            Even if DL reduced flying at SEA, the way AS wants to grow international they may choose to fill in the void themselves.

          2. Tim Dunn Avatar
            Tim Dunn

            first, there are no indications that DL is reducing anything. and they have not had a “need” for multiple gateways to Asia – based on how AA, AS and UA manage their route systems – but DL has more TPAC service across more hubs than any other US airline.

            as for AS, let’s see how their plans play out; analysts are increasingly saying fuel prices will stay high for a good, long time. AS is paying the highest price for jet fuel among large jet carriers which is a big hindrance to risky growth.

            LAX is just a much bigger market and DL will concentrate much more on the local market while SEA – and just about every other DL hub w/ TPAC service – are about connections and that is in line with DL and other airlines’ domestic service from LAX.

          3. See_Bee Avatar
            See_Bee

            “…but every TPAC add out of LAX means less potential passengers flowing through SEA.”

            But that’s the whole point of my answer above: LAX isn’t a great connecting gateway for DL, so SEA stays largely independent. If you look at composition of local/connecting on LAX and SEA, you’d probably find it close to 75/25 and 30/70 respectively. I would agree with your statement but only on the margins (spill LAX pax that were connecting through SEA, maybe some PHX or TUS).

            DL’s LAX-TPAC is about serving and winning the local market, not splitting interior US connecting pax with SEA

    2. CJared Avatar
      CJared

      … is this SEA, LAX, SFO quibble not missing the larger picture? Will American carriers stand up and compete with Asian carriers?
      … looking back in “history”, with mergers (read = bankruptcies) the fleets were old and mixed. It was a mess. Now American carriers have modern frames, modern product, and are consolidated enough that, with the support of their domestic networks, can compete, but will they?

  14. Iowa Airspace Avatar
    Iowa Airspace

    Love the old route maps/historical flights. Back in 1975 United was sending a 150 seat 727-200 between DSM and LAX every day with a full meal service (Nov. 1979 OAG has the departure at 450 pm central time). Guessing it was barely 60% full most flights. At the same time Eastern was sending a 300 seat L-1011 every day from OMA-STL at 6am, and United was sending a DC-8 every day between OMA and both ORD and DEN. Not surprising that the “legacy” of this airline industry model was a two or even three decade spree of bankruptcies.

    1. John Selden Avatar
      John Selden

      Now you’re talking! Big airplanes on small routes. We could all go on and on re our favorites. NW briefly flew DC-10s in to Great Falls, and DL’s morning BOS-BDA L-1011 originated in BDL. Endless examples.

    2. GringoLoco Avatar
      GringoLoco

      In the late 70s/early 80s, I regularly flew SAN/LAX on:

      AA DC10s
      DL L1011s
      UA DC10s
      WA DC10s

      ’twas a far far different era

    3. Patrick Avatar
      Patrick

      PSA was using L-1011’s for a short time on LAX-SFO

      1. CraigTPA Avatar
        CraigTPA

        Mother Grinningbirds! I believe they were the only L-1011s that had a downstairs lounge.

      2. Dale Avatar
        Dale

        Huge plane for such a short flight. I regret that I was never able to be a passenger on an L-1011. Or a DC-8 for that matter though I came close one time.

    4. Dale Avatar
      Dale

      There was a time when AA used the DC-10 on flight 73 from CLE to LAX between 1972 and 1974. I flew first class on those as an NRSA passenger. And I got to fly the DC-10 on Western between LAX and SEA in 1974 and 1976. Western called their DC-10s Spaceships as the coach cabin was spacious with generous legroom as they advertised 36 inches of pitch (you get three feet for your two legs on Western Airlines) and a 2-4-2 configuration. I did not understand how good I had it with complimentary meals in coach. On the morning flight from LAX to SEA there were predeparture beverages of orange juice in coach!

  15. Mark Avatar
    Mark

    Brett, I’m guessing this will come in part 2, but how will the gate situations look in a few years?

    DL seems settled in their new terminals, AA is hamstrung now but should have a lot of new gates when the T5 construction finishes?

    With airlines like B6 and WN reducing flights, and NK out of business, do gate opportunities for UA exist when construction settles down, either through new gates or a shuffling of existing carriers?

    I’m thinking UA would only want gates in nearby T6 since T9 no longer is in the cards, but maybe they’d accept something else?

  16. southbay flier Avatar
    southbay flier

    To me, LAX is all about serving those who live in the LA Basin, and there are a lot of people down there. It’s a terrible connecting point from the perspective of the great circle map for going to Asia. SEA and SFO are better.

    If you live in LA, why would you choose DL to go to HKG when you could choose CX instead? Or choose AA/DL/UA over JL or NH?

    This is why I don’t think anyone can “win” LAX ever.

    At least JFK and BOS are well located to go to Europe even though as a west coaster I prefer the long leg from SFO to Europe and making the connection over there.

  17. mike Avatar
    mike

    God Smisek really knee capped UA by giving away all those T6 gates. Don’t even get me started on him pulling out of JFK.

    1. Bill from DC Avatar
      Bill from DC

      I already started it for you above !

  18. Alan Georgiadis Avatar
    Alan Georgiadis

    Southwest is pulling the plug at IAD ORD. FLL (to some degree) OAK and ATL have seen a scale back. Have any idea what they are doing ? They are hiring lots of crew. Beefing up SAN. But a pull back out of LAX! What gives ..

    1. Brett Avatar

      Alan – IAD and ORD were small stations that don’t really matter. In FLL, Southwest has moved and consolidated flying at MCO instead. ATL has moved to BNA. OAK has gone to SMF, but I think OAK is likely poised for a return at some point.

      1. LostLUV Avatar
        LostLUV

        Especially if the flight reductions at SFO hold…

      2. Ernie D Avatar
        Ernie D

        What’s the logic of shrinking OAK and moving it to Sacramento?

        1. Brett Avatar

          Ernie D – Sacramento has just been performing better. To me, this isn’t a permanent situation. They can always go back and build up OAK again if they want and it starts performing better. It’s very different than an ATL/BNA or FLL/MCO situation.

    2. cactusneedle Avatar
      cactusneedle

      Alan, I think Southwest is “beefing up” SAN for a few different reasons:

      1. The new Terminal 1 provides more capacity. (Not to mention, a much better pre-flight experience)
      2. Spirit’s demise opened a bit of incremental opportunity.
      3. Just speculating, but I think the biggest reason is to counter Alaska’s growth at SAN: https://simpleflying.com/alaska-airlines-in-san-diego-45pc-more-flights-2026/.

      I’m a big Alaska Air fan, but it’s hard to beat Southwest’s frequency, especially on routes like SAN-LAS.

      Going back to LAX: given the backlog of undelivered 737-MAX planes, Southwest may just be prioritizing routes with less competition, at least until it has more metal. As Brett said earlier, Southwest still dominates when you aggregate all of the greater LA metro area airports.

      Here is an interesting example, to wit: on Tuesday July 14th, Southwest flies the only scheduled non-stop between Burbank and Albuquerque. The lowest fare (Basic Economy) is $157 one-way. On that same day, there are 6 non-stops between LAX and ABQ (just one of them operated by Southwest), and the Basic Economy fare across all of them is $104 o/w. (For comparison, Southwest operates the only two non-stops on July 14th from SAN to ABQ, and the Basic fare is $180 o/w).

      I’m guessing the fees are lower at the non-LAX airports as well, though I don’t have specific data to confirm that.

  19. Southside Emil Avatar
    Southside Emil

    And in other news it was announced yesterday that United Airlines will lose four gates at O’Hare International Airport this fall, and rival American Airlines will add three in the latest round of reshuffling of terminal space.

    1. Mean Gene from Worth Avatar
      Mean Gene from Worth

      While Delta sits there fat, dumb and happy with 5 gates. Why aren’t they growing ORD?

      1. southbay flier Avatar
        southbay flier

        Why would they? ORD is an outstation to DL. As long as they serve their hubs, they’re happy.

        1. Tad Avatar
          Tad

          Who wants to fly to DTW or MSP if as a businessman I can fly direct.

          1. southbay flier Avatar
            southbay flier

            That assumes I have business in Chicago, which has never happened to me. I have had business in Minneapolis, Salt Lake City, and Seattle over the years though. There are some airports that do not have timely non-stop service to Chicago and you’ll have to take a connecting flight anyway. Besides, you can choose between UA, AA, and WN if you need to go there.

      2. Tim Dunn Avatar
        Tim Dunn

        DL just started LAX-ORD. It is one of the few markets in the country – like LGA-ORD – that are served by all of the big 3 but, for right now, no one else.

        DL flies to all 9 domestic hubs from ORD.

  20. EasyMoney Avatar
    EasyMoney

    One of the more amusing graphs about LAX that I was hoping to see is international seat share, which (bizarrely) went United > Alaska > Delta >> American > Volaris for the first half of 2025. Alaska has a sizable Latin American operation that launches from LAX, with nonstop service to some surprisingly small airports in Mexico. United is able to fill transpacific flights from both SFO and LAX freely and apparently profitably. AA’s lack of international ambition at LAX makes no sense to me.

  21. YO Avatar
    YO

    I am looking out my hotel widow at LAX right now! Not flying, stepson is. Great viewing, not as good as in n out!

  22. Paper Boarding Pass Avatar
    Paper Boarding Pass

    Brett, thanks for using the old airline logos in the first image.
    Brought back many memories of when flying was fun!! ;-)

  23. bzcat Avatar
    bzcat

    The last chart is a great illustration of the idiocy of AA’s “El Paso to the world” strategy. I flew almost exclusively on AA out of LAX for 20+ years but when AA started pulling international flights, I lost interest flying them transcon and short haul as well. I now mostly use DL for int’l and transcon and AS for short haul and Hawaii.

    1. Dale Avatar
      Dale

      I had a set of grandparents who lived in El Paso from 1949 to 1979. I remember flying AA from LAX to ELP and return and I remember the dry heat of El Paso where 100F was more comfortable than lower temperatures in eastern states where there was way more humidity.

    2. cactusneedle Avatar
      cactusneedle

      Agree 100%. Most of those flights were cut soon after COVID broke out, IIRC. I’m a bit shocked they were not brought back. Hopefully the LA Metro extension from Union Station to LAX will make it feasible to just take the Surfliner from San Diego to get to the transpacific LAX flights.

  24. Dale Avatar
    Dale

    Thanks for the interesting post. I believe the situation at LAX benefits the traveller with competition and hopefully lower fares than if LAX was to become a fortress hub for one major airline (e.g. DFW with AA, IAH with UA and ATL and SLC with DL).

    I found the maps you showed for AA, UA and DL to be interesting. For what it is worth, if you look back further, before Deregulation kicked in, AA had an LAX-PHL route. I know as my parents took me on holiday to Philadelphia in the summer of 1975, the year before the Bicentennial. We even stayed in the Bellevue Stratford Hotel there which became famous for Legionnaires Disease the following year. Also AA did not have an LAX-SFO and LAX-HNL route before Deregulation. In 1972 my parents took my sister and myself to Hawaii on holiday and we flew Pan American LAX-HNL and return and that was my first time on a Boeing 747 or for that matter any widebody. In 1973 my parents took me to visit an uncle in San Francisco and we flew Western LAX-SFO and return.

  25. Lisa Anniston Avatar
    Lisa Anniston

    For an airline like American to not have basic Eagle service, as it once had, to places like Palm Springs (PSP) and San Diego (SAN) is beyond belief. They used to have so much American Eagle service in and out of LAX and people would then connect at LAX for other flights, in particular all their One World Alliance partner flights. Those commuter flights fed their international and domestic routes in and out of LAX. They have been gone for years now. Sad.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.