Plans to modernize the Los Angeles International Airport, long controversial, have become a bit uncertain with the defeat of Mayor Jim Hahn and the departure of Councilwoman Cindy Miscikowsky, both of whom supported the Master Plan. Mayor-elect Antonio Villaraigosa has reiterated his opposition to elements of the Plan, which was recently approved by the FAA. Amid this uncertainty, MIR is pleased to discuss the current state of the LAX Master Plan with Dennis Olson, Managing Director of the LAX Airlines Airport Affairs Committee. In this interview, Olson sheds light on the airlines' perspective of LAX modernizations plans and opines on which projects are likely to be given the "green light" in the near future.
As a point person for the airlines at LAX, what is your assessment of the status of the modernization plan today? Does the City of Los Angeles have a green light to proceed?
As you know, the Master Plan Alternative D has been approved by the City Council and divided into two phases. Phase one contains what are referred to as the green light projects, and phase two contains the yellow light projects. The green light projects have the conceptual full approval of the City Council, and the yellow light projects have a number of additional studies required before they would be approved by the City Council.
What other approvals are necessary from local, state and federal authorities, with regard to phase one projects, before modernization work at LAX can begin?
The FAA has to issue a Record of Decision (ROD) on the environmental statements for the master plan.
Does the L.A.City Council have to take any additional action before July? Is the plan been finally approved by the council? And what specifically is before the FAA?
I think it is done in the City Council. Well, it is never completely done, but in terms of the Master Plan's environmental review, it is done, depending, of course, on what the FAA says. They may have conditions that require more action, but if they were to approve it outright, I don't think that anything else would be required of the City Council to complete the Master Plan.
Note that we are talking about the Master Plan concepts. Each actual project still has to be designed and then go through a project specific EIR and any additional review processes dictated by the Consensus Plan.
Is the industry confident about LAX modernization moving forward?
We definitely want modernization to go forward, and I am really talking about the green light projects. Now exactly what that will look like when all of the studies and technical analysis are finished, we are not sure. There will be more discussion about that.
What is the expected time line?
This is a very long process. Some projects can be done in a few years, some longer. There was an earlier schedule that had the projects all happen in 10 to 15 years. I am not sure that all of the projects can be done in that time period.
This airport master planning process has been a long and, some have said, torturous and expensive process. Are the airlines' satisfied with the progress made and the practicality of Alternative D, as now configured?
First, we believe some projects have to move ahead sooner rather than later. The first one is the relocation and redevelopment of Runway 25 Left. The reason for this is that it includes installation of the midfield taxi lane, which will reduce the risk of planes getting too close to one another on the ground. The second project that needs to move ahead is work relating to the international terminal. Part of this is work to be done to accommodate the A-380, and part of it is just making the terminal the right size to serve the international community. Those are two of the more pressing items under the green light projects.
Can you speak to the community benefit agreements that have been signed with airport impacted communities?
There are concerns about the community benefits agreement, and we are waiting for the FAA to make their comments. There is also an oversight organization called the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) that weighs in as to whether such benefits are legally permissible under federal law. Those two entities will be involved in helping to decide what is permissible and what is not under the agreement, because there is room for varying interpretations.
In the public debate, especially the mayoral campaign that concluded on May 17th, the question of whether there is or is not a cap on passengers in the Master Plan was repeated raised. What is the perspective of the airlines regarding whether or not there now is a cap at LAX on passengers?
It is our understanding that under federal law you cannot cap the capacity of an airport and we do not support any such cap. However, the facilities actually built and available for use do impact an airport's capacity. For that reason, the EIR does rate the passenger capacity of the Master Plan if it is built out as indicated, based on a number of calculation assumptions.
To return to the issue of a cap, Mayor Hahn has stated that, by fixing the number of gates, the city has effectively put a limit on the growth at LAX. What is your reaction to his assertion?
I think that is a true statement. The airlines operate out of gates. If you have a limited number of gates, you can only put so many planes and passengers through them. The estimated numbers can vary a bit. It depends on what size aircraft is being used, how many seats are on the aircraft, how many people are in those seats and of course the number of flights operated at that gate in a day. There are not a lot of flights that leave between midnight and 6am. If there was greater demand to fly at that time, then you could increase the number of passengers moving through the airport. But it is not very likely that this will happen.
There has been emphasis in the public dialogue about dispersing the traveling public to regional airports rather than having the entire region heavily rely on LAX. What is your industry's response to why LAX is so central to airline traffic in Southern California?
LAX is so important because, like a lot of businesses and a lot of enterprises, there is synergy of location. It is the same reason that you have a downtown Los Angeles area, it is consolidated enough to create synergies and efficiencies.
The other issue is that airlines basically go where the customer wants to go. If customers didn't want to go to L.A., we would follow them to where they wanted to go. If they wanted to go to Ontario or Orange County, we would put the flights there. But it doesn't do us any good to put the flights at airports where there are not enough passengers to fill the planes.
The original Alternative D, and now the consensus plan, puts much of the financial burden of modeling LAX on the airlines. Are the airlines comfortable with funding Alternative Plan D as written?
There are a lot of issues and a lot of sources for funding, and until one knows how much is available from each source and to which project those funds will be applied, it is hard to answer that question. There are a number of federal grants that are available. There are federal funds known as passenger facility charges that are available. The question is how much gets allocated to which project.
To the degree that the plan improves passenger service, convenience and satisfaction at the airport, it is a positive thing. From our standpoint though, if it doesn't add value to what people want to pay on the ticket, you have to ask yourself whether it's something you want to spend money on.
Does Alternative D offer enough to the airlines to justify what their being asked to contribute for LAX's moderization?
Ultimately, only the passenger can answer that. But from an airline and an airport view, there is value in putting money toward the green light projects and the problems they address. We still don't know whether when we get through all of those studies whether the right final solution has been selected by the Master Plan or not. And that is why you go through additional studies. What you have done with the Master Plan is to say that, as a concept, we want to address these issues in these conceptual ways. The next step is to go to project specific environmental reviews, including financial reviews, and ask, "We have this concept. Now does it really make sense to proceed this way, now that we have decided this or that, such as where the routing can go, what particular projects and technologies are available, etc?" The Master Plan is only the first step in that process.
Recently, the Los Angeles City Council approved a mitigation agreement struck between the Los Angeles World Airport, three other airports in Southern California, a 22 member coalition of environmental and labor organizations, a religious group, and two school districts abutting LAX. What is the legal status of that agreement?
That agreement is also subject to the FAA ROD decision, and people are waiting to see what they say. Federal law makes it very clear that if any of those things constitute revenue diversions, they are not permissible.
The proposed mitigation for the airport expansion includes $500,000 for environmental mitigation and jobs related benefits programs for the neighborhoods affected. Is the airline industry comfortable with that level of financial responsibility?
The airline industry recognizes that it has a financial role in mitigation issues and a lot of them are clearly authorized by federal law. However, to the degree that mitigation issues are not traditional and are not authorized by federal law, the airlines would not be comfortable with those.
Your reaction to former airport commissioner Dan Garcia assertions in MIR over the last few years is a good close. He has repeatedly reported friction between the FAA, the airlines, the city of Los Angeles and the LAWA board. Does this friction still exist re LAX's moderization plan?
Quite frankly, I have not seen that friction at all recently, so I am not sure what Mr. Garcia is referring to. Although, I know in times past there may have been some. Without a specific reference, I really can't comment.
- Log in to post comments
