Slashdot Mirror
Domain: lawa.org
Stories and comments across the archive that link to lawa.org.
Comments · 6
-
Re:Private ownership of public infrastructure
Maybe elsewhere they make big money, but in the US, it's not quite true. Here's the budget for Los Angeles World Airports. Now, at first blush it looks like they'll make about $100MM in profit in 2017; however, tearing into it, you see they do that by issuing $680MM in new bonds, and paying our $560MM in old bond servicing. So basically their profit comes from issuing new debt. Not quite as much of a gold mine as many would think, especially for the 2nd busiest airport in the US.
-
Re:U-2 Caused Widespread Shutdown of US Flights?
No they weren't. This was just LAX
ARRIVING FLIGHTS TO LAX: A total of 27 cancellations, 212 delays, and 27 diversions to other airports
During a ground stop, the FAA has to sort out what is going on because in this case the ATC computers went down. This means controllers shift their attention wholly to inbound flights and order the traffic the old fashioned way which is slow and tedious. That means a lot of circling planes or in case of circling too long or being at the back of the line, getting diverted and sitting it out someplace else, of course you're being held hostage during this time but just remember you have a choice in airlines but not in air traffic control systems.
-
LAX security?!?
Why is Los Angeles Airport's security at a Russian rocket plant?!?
There needs to be an investigation!
-
Re:No more new TLDs!Incidentally, ".aero" works, sort of. If you type ".aero", you get the web site for that airport. Sometimes. But that's just because the domain registrar set up dummy redirects. But they botched the job. Try, for example, dfw.aero.
lax.aero does work, if anybody cares. But it's just a redirect to the main site for all Los Angeles County airports. It doesn't even go direct to the LAX site.
Totally unnecessary.
-
Re:signal theft ?
Airports suck.
But now what am I referring to? The Apple Airport? A generic access point? Wifi in general? Or am I referring to an actual airport? Nobody knows because of your fanboyism. -
Re:Really big airplanes?
They require completely new airports - out of the question in most large cities, where the cities grew around the airport and there is no possibility of expansion.
Apparently, LAX can already handle the new Airbus A380... at least, to the same extent it can handle existing aircraft. (For years now, the space between the jetways has been inadequate for two planes to pull out side by side... they have to dovetail them carefully.)
Where the problem really lies is not in the physical size of the runways and terminals, but the people-carrying capacity of the big hub airports. They already run most of them on a pulse system, where all the flights come in at the same time to make transfers easier. This means you're handling all your traffic at once, and have to hire enough people, open enough gates, etc. to handle all those passengers simultaneously (while those employees sit around with pretty much nothing to do for hours at a time between pulses). By increasing the number of people that can arrive on each plane, you stress the baggage claim, security checkpoints, vendors, etc. *inside* the airport a great deal.
But for an airport like LAX, this isn't an issue. Flights are constantly arriving and departing, and 86% of the passenger traffic is beginning or ending their journey... very little transfer traffic, so not much pulsing. They're not overly concerned about the A380s. I think the Department of Transportation is more worried about the added street traffic they might generate.