Lounge of Tomorrow - Qantas warns LAX

Lounge of Tomorrow (http://74.208.121.111/LoT/index.php)

- Jet Set (http://74.208.121.111/LoT/forumdisplay.php?f=4)

- - Qantas warns LAX (http://74.208.121.111/LoT/showthread.php?t=8396)

Qantas warns LAX

http://www.smh.com.au/cgi-bin/common...702013246.html

Quote:

Qantas has threatened Los Angeles Airport that it will move its flagship Airbus A380 services to San Francisco unless Los Angeles upgrades its facilities.

The calls come just weeks before the inaugural Airbus flight is due to fly from Melbourne to Los Angeles on October 20.

But a Los Angeles Airport spokeswoman described Qantas's demands as odd, given that the airline's executives visited just a week ago and praised the progress made as part of $723 million spent in renovations.

Qantas senior executive vice-president for the Americas and Pacific, Wally Mariani, told British transport and security publication Jane's that it would not put up with passengers having to exit its planes at remote gates not attached to airport terminals.

"If in the future LAX [Los Angeles Airport] is unable to keep up with the need for additional ... gates, we would be forced to relocate our A380 services to San Francisco," he said.

"Should that ever be required, it would be a major economic loss to Los Angeles and we would regret it. We've made a large investment in our A380s for the benefit and enjoyment of our passengers and we do not intend to lose it on the ground."

Qantas is the largest international carrier at the airport, operating about 40 services there every week.

From October 20, Qantas will operate two regular Airbus A380 return services each week to LA - one from Melbourne and one from Sydney.

When the second A380 is put into service in November, the airline will complete three return trips from Sydney and two return trips from Melbourne each week.

Airport spokeswoman Nancy Castles said it had already purchased eight gates to accommodate the A380 - which are much larger than for a normal aircraft - two of which will be attached to terminals.

"We built it in time [for the inaugural A380 flight]. I don't understand why they're saying that," she said. "I can see why he'd be concerned if we were to say you have to park out there on the remote side of the terminal, but that's not the case as it stands.

"Unless Qantas have plans to expand that we're not aware of, there's no reason for that."

She said the airport would have an additional eight gates attached to terminals by 2012.

Modelling conducted by the Los Angeles County Economic Development Corporation found that an average daily, transoceanic flight of wide-body aircraft to Los Angeles generates $US623 million in annual economic output, and sustained 3120 direct and indirect jobs in Southern California.

Qantas's near monopoly on the Sydney-Los Angeles route will be challenged when competitor, V Australia, launches services on December 15.

Wow, I guess LAX does need some work!

And here I was thinking it would be a warning about large bits dropping off QANTAS jets.

You never can tell.

Mind you, last time I was in LAX, the cruddy ceiling tiles looked like a hazzard.

Upgrades to LAX? Hooray! Let's hope this kind of tactic is used all over to bring airports up to speed.

Sounds like Quantas is trying to strong-arm LAX

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevy Baby (Post 231927)

Sounds like Quantas is trying to strong-arm LAX

Or strong-leg as the case may be.

I have a mental picture of the Qantas Koala saying "I hate LAX".

SFO ain't no prize either......they should try PDX. We already serve Frankfurt and Tokyo, why not Melbourne? :)

http://www.travelandleisure.com/slid...-us-airports/1

According to Travel & Leisure Magazine Portland, Oregon has the best Airport in the United States; followed by Salt Lake City and San Diego.

That list is based only on the rate of flight delays. Which I guess is the primary important thing.

It isn't like I've ever said "hey, let's go to Akron, they have a really nice airport."

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex (Post 233017)

That list is based only on the rate of flight delays. Which I guess is the primary important thing.

It isn't like I've ever said "hey, let's go to Akron, they have a really nice airport."

Well of course. But lets say you live in the midwest and want to fly down under....assuming cost is about the same would you want to have your layover at LAX or San Diego.....?

Or,

"Hey, let's go to Portland"

Quote:

Originally Posted by sleepyjeff (Post 233030)

For me, I normally wouldn't care where the layover was. I would rather go to a "lesser" airport and get a shorter layover than go to a more interesting place with a long enough layover to go see some quick sites.

Not always possible I understand, but I have made that decision in the past.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sleepyjeff (Post 232858)

SFO ain't no prize either......they should try PDX. We already serve Frankfurt and Tokyo, why not Melbourne? :)

Also Amsterdam.....come on Melbourne, we want you to join the club:)