Talk:Los Angeles International Airport/Archive 1

Comment

I think it looks great! Danny 04:11 Jan 22, 2003 (UTC)

Thanks. :) Miles and miles of whitespace just bugs me - it makes a visual desert. The very simple justified table takes care of that. --mav

I can’t believe there’s no photo of the LAX sign – I’ll try to get one when I should be in LA next in May. Monucg 02:24, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I added a picture of the LAX sign when one enters off of Century Blvd. Flo

Probably a stupid question, but... what does the "X" stand for in "LAX"? Does it simply mean "International airport" and if yes, why is it "X" instead of "IA"?

LAX is the airport's three letter IATA identification code. see this Wikipedia article.

LA and LP

I have a question - I notice that all international airline listings include even direct destinations, but domestic ones do not. For instance, LAN lists Lima, Santiago and Buenos Aires, even though the last two are not nonstop. Under Southwest, though, I only see nonstop destinations. What's the reasoning?

This is how I understand WikiProject Airports. We list only direct destinations, non-stop or not. This means having the same flight number. However, one will NOT list a city if the route passes through a hub first, so that's what happens to "faux" direct flights, usually with a plane change. Examples are like UA 915 CDG-IAD-SFO, where there is a plane change in IAD. So the CDG article only lists IAD but not SFO because the route passes through a UA hub (IAD). Therefore, with the same reasoning, I removed EZE but not LIM from the LA 601 LAX-LIM-SCL-EZE because the hub is Santiago (LAN Airlines). I also removed GRU from the LP 605 LAX-LIM-GRU flight because the hub is Lima (LAN Peru). Elektrik Blue 82 18:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Would this mean, then, that all the Southwest Airlines destinations would count as well (i.e, a flight that went from LAX-ABQ-Amarillo, or something similar)? What constitutes a Southwest hub?

I have to admit I am not familiar with the business plan of Southwest. You better ask other Wikipedians for advise on this one. The only thing I know is they do not operate a hub-and-spoke system similar to other legacy carriers. Elektrik Blue 82 23:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Quite frankly, I wouldn't remove references to direct destinations as long as they are not change-of-gauge flights. On the LAN flights you are staying in the same seat on the same airplane the whole time, not getting off one plane and on another.

There are flights where it is simply a "timetable-direct" flight, but there is a change of planes. Frankly, I have no idea how to tell whether the plane will change or not, sometimes the Yahoo! timetables indicate it, sometimes it doesn't. I guess the rule of thumb I am following here is that once the airplane touches down at a hub of the airline, then everything else will not be listed. Elektrik Blue 82 08:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

If it is an international flight that does not change gauge, I would list it. What I believe we should not list are international flights that require a change of plane, or domestic "direct" flights that pass through an airline's hub and only incidentally happen to connect two points in a "direct" fashion. Direct flights that miss a hub, like AA's old AUS-HOU-LGA, should probably list both destinations. FCYTravis 02:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Incident Section

I don't understand why rather minor incidents like the jetBlue gear failure and the Air India tire blowout are being included. It is not as if we are including all the incidents through out LAX history where planes have run into each other and ripped holes in wings because of the tight infrastructure at the airport. Only deadly incidents or complete hull losses should be included

Did the Unabomber or some one else threaten to blow up a plane landing or taking off from LAX in June-July of ? year. And if so should that be included?

It was in the early 80's that a waitress was murdered at the old Terminal 2 building. I know because she was a friend of mine during my tenure with Continental Airline"s Contract Services. I first met her when she bought me coffee while I was waiting in line, she was a pretty hispanic woman who worked the small cafe on the upper floor of Terminal 2.

I never really got to know her as I had transfered to the Air Cargo facility in 1980. I read about her murder in the Los Angeles Times and was absolutely crushed, a male co-worker at the cafe was arrested a short time later. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.165.56.62 (talk) 09:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm wondering why PSA 182 is even included here. Merely being a destination in the middle of the flight doesn't mean it was an incident involving LAX....the crash happened on final approach to San Diego...100+ miles away...and had nothing to do with LAX. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.112.208.182 (talk) 07:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

AVIANCA

I looked at Avianca's website and did not see LAX on the route map. Is this a planned route?

Avianca already flies the route, AV 48/49 BOG-LAX-BOG. Elektrik Blue 82 21:58, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Runways

I don't know much about airports, but it seems to me that the length of LAX's runways (the longest? the longest in the US?) is significant because flights with serious malfunctions are redirected there (like the recent JetBlue flight).

'They're the longest runways in Southern California because they have to handle large widebody jets such as the 747 and later the A380. Starcity ai 02:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

International flights

I know United Airlines has Terminal 6 as international arrivals center, but usually international flights occur from the Tom Bradley International Terminal (such as JAL, ANA and British Airways). Do you know if there are international arrival facilities at Terminal 2 (since Northwest Airlines operates a LAX-Tokyo Narita route)?

I'm also thinking why Alaska uses Terminal 3 for departures/domestic arrivals and Tom Bradley International Terminal for international arrivals.

Bigtop 23:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Mattfox22 10:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)I'm pretty sure there are international flights at many of the terminals. Terminal 2 definately.

T2, TBIT, T5/T4 and T6 all have international arrivals facilities. T5/T4 is a common shared area for AA/QF(some QF flights - some still operate from TBIT) and DL. The T2 and TBIT facilites were built some time ago. T5 came online in the early 90's and T6 came on line when UA refurbished T7/T8. --Np sca 02:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Should the format in T3 explaining international arrivals (inspections done elsewhere) be applied for all other terminals? I really don't like double listing airlines (departures here, arrivals there) as if the planes really operate from multiple terminals! HkCaGu 17:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I would do what you have done to T3--my opinionSox23 20:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Distinguishing Delta destination Liberia

User Elektrik_blue_82 keeps reverting my idea to clarify confusion that Delta's destination is 'Liberia, Costa Rica' rather than 'Liberia, Africa'. Given Delta's aggresive expansion to Africa, it is perfectly sensible to show '[CR]' after 'Liberia' in order to avoid confusion to Wikipedia readers. Thanks!--Inetpup 21:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

See my reasons here. I've brought it to the attention of the relevant WikiProject. Cheers. /ɪlεktʃɹɪk bluː/ 22:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Seperation of domestic/international flights

I've noticed that at a few US airports (specifically JFK, EWR, ORD and LAX) some airlines domestic and international destinations are seperated. This is not set up in the standard form as set forth in the ProjectWiki Airport guide. Plus, when it's being done, it's inconsistent even within the airport page - i.e. DL and UA destinations being seperated, but AA and NW remaining intact. So, stop doing it. Thanks. Andrewb729 17:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Delta Connection

Despite the fact that I removed it citing that there was no evidence of this route, someone has readded LAX-Tijuana operated by Delta Connection. I don't want to fight with this person over it, but there is still no evidence in Delta's schedules or other online schedules that this route is happening. I find it believable, but see no proof of it as of now. NW036 01:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Hong Kong Service on Northwest Airlines

Should Hong Kong be listed as a destination? One user stated on the Hong Kong Airport article that Los Angeles should not be listed becuase it is a direct flight. I have removed Hong Kong since it is not a direct flight. I will not restored until it is decided that if it is a destination or not. Bucs2004 05:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't like listing destinations that are not n/s from the specific airport. In NWA's case, the flight probably goes through MSP (which should already be listed) so I don't think HKG should be on the LAX page since there is no n/s flight on NWA to HKG. Sox23 16:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Just so everyone knows, this flight goes through Narita. It is routed LAX-NRT-HKG as Northwest flight 1. NW036 18:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Same point...it's not a n/s flight. (I know WP:Airports says that direct flights can be included I just don't like to list when they're not n/s) Sox23 19:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The flight numbers 1 and 2 are LAX-NRT-HKG and HKG-NRT-LAX. All legs are B744. But most of the days it's just not the same plane servicing LAX-HKG and that fits into "faux-direct". Beside, NRT is a hub. HkCaGu 20:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

At the flight information display, you would definitely see Hong Kong as the final destination for the NW flight. It will be something like Hong Kong via Tokyo-Narita being displayed. As such, I think it's perfectly alright to list Hong Kong as a destination. In any case, if you booked the NW flight to Hong Kong, your baggage tag will have only HKG printed and not both NRT and HKG, which would be the case if it was 2 connecting flights. (Unsigned)

Sorry, it's the plane that counts in Wikipedia, not flight number, not aircraft type, not baggage tag, not ticketing, not airport information display, not frequent flyer benefit. Simply compare gate numbers in NRT and you'll see that more often than not the same plane doesn't transport you between HKG and LAX. HkCaGu (talk) 05:13, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

China Route Bids

I'm in favor of eliminating all the recent additions by various users for the 2008 and 2009 US DOT China route applications until they are approved. As I know the bids are many but routes granted will be few. It is really meaningless to include that many dream routes that far in advance! HkCaGu 22:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The format so far has been to list international flights as pending government approval. Why should China be any different? DB (talk) 07:30, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Because US-China routes are highly restricted and controlled. In the last round 4-5 airlines applied and 1 (UA IAD-PEK) was granted. This time there are more than a dozen routes applied for and unless someone can enlighten me otherwise, it looks like USDOT will grant only a few, and airlines are asking their fans to petition DOT. See related discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports. HkCaGu 05:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

The last round had four applications. In this one I count ten. Six will be chosen. DB (talk) 05:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Eagle Remote Terminal

Should we mention something about the American Eagle terminal? After all, you're only boarding a bus at T4. Should it be listed as a separate terminal? Or should it be a sub-heading under T4? HkCaGu 05:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Subheading or a sentence or two mentioning the terminal would be best, seeing as the point is to inform readers the way to reach each airlines and the remote terminal isn't the way to find american eagle. -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 14:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Gate Count

Should we really get into gate count at individual terminals? Just click the LAWA link and see all you want! The terminal listing is useful because of the different airlines. I think a count including listing the As and Bs is an overkill. And where is the source of that "must cut X number of gates per year" thing?HkCaGu 22:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it's not uncommon for airport articles to have gate counts in the terminal sections; Also, I haven't heard of the "must cut X number of gates per year" thing either...Sox23 22:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

KLAX redirect

I think KLAX should be a disambiguation page, and not redirect here. I believe far more people typing or linking to "KLAX" would expect a TV or radio station article than the article about the airport; and in fact, what few links there currently are to KLAX should actually be linking to KLAX-TV or KLAX-FM. Would anyone object to me making KLAX a disambiguation page? LAX, of course, would continue to redirect here. DHowell 08:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

WestJet

When did WestJet move to Terminal 2? I flew WestJet in 2006 and it was in T3. Did they change it? WestJet (talk) 02:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Marketshare and Network History in The Terminal/Destination List

For the last time, the terminal/airline/destination list area is NOT an appropriate place to list an airline's marketshare, network history, or anything like that, especially if you don't list it for the others.

Gustoj820 (talk)gustoj820 —Preceding comment was added at 01:03, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Listing arrival cities (international processing terminal different from departures)

I reverted an edit which added the city name for Copa's arrival (Copa's departures are from a different terminal). Before I proceed further, I'd like to get a consensus on this proposal: Shouldn't international arrivals into another terminal (passenger processing, not the plane) not contain the city names which are already mentioned in the departure listing, unless arrivals from different international cities (if more than one for that airline) are processed in different terminals? My reasoning is that it's unnecessarily repetitive and divert attention from its "arrival only" nature. After all, that would be a listing of ORIGINS, not DESTINATIONS. If we apply this repetitive principle, wouldn't we repeat every United (mainline) city in Terminal 6? HkCaGu (talk) 16:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup tags

I removed the neutral point of view and original research tags because there was no mention of a dispute on the talk page and no statement tagged as original research. If there is a concern, please explain it on the talk page and re-add the tags. I also removed a redundant citations missing tag; the refimprove tag is still there. Ashill (talk) 21:20, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Gate Numbers

The reason LAX's article should have gate numbers because numerous other airport articles have them, including SFO, OAK, LAS, PHX, DEN, SLC, DFW, JFK, YYZ, and several others have them. Let's be fair, unless it's against Wikipedia policy.

--Limaindia (talk) 21:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I removed them because a) I don't think they're encyclopedic and only serve a travel guide purpose (WP:NOT), b) WP:Airports policy (though certainly not binding) has no mention of gates in the suggested airport page layout, c) the Airports WikiProject talk page archive has two (brief) discussions and a suggestion to remove them.

The gate numbers are also not explicitly cited. The gates in each terminal are in the official web site's terminal maps, so that's not hugely troubling, but the airline gate assignments aren't so clear.

I know that many airports do have them, and I think they should be removed there too, but I'm not going to spend that kind of time all at once; I just happened to be looking at LAX so I removed them here. There may be good arguments to include gates, but the fact that other airport articles have them holds no water as far as I'm concerned. Moreover, there's no requirement that all airport articles be perfectly homogeneous; that sort of logic makes it impossible to make improvements, particularly in a case where many airport articles have unencyclopedic excessive information. ASHill (talk) 22:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Gate number RANGES may be useful, but once they're there, somebody will turn them into As and Bs and individual gate listings. I think for LAX there should be an explanation to gate numbering outside of the terminal listings. Like in T1-T8, the first digit matches the terminal number, and the gate number ranges for TBIT and the remote stands, etc. HkCaGu (talk) 10:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that would be excellent. ASHill (talk) 14:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I should mention that I brought this up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports#Gate numbers. ASHill (talk) 20:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Separate terminals and destinations

I would like to separate the terminals and destinations so there's one, alphabetical list of all the LAX airlines and their destinations separate from the terminals, sort of like Ben Gurion International Airport. I think that in an airport with 9 terminals like LAX, it's hard to find a given airline unless you already know which terminal it uses without using the browser's search function.

I would still mention the airlines that serve each terminal in the prose for the terminal. For example:

• Terminal 1 has 15 gates: 1-3, 4A-4B, 5-14. It was built in 1984 and is the largest of all the terminals in number of gates. Southwest Airlines, US Airways, and US Airways Express operate out of Terminal 1.
• Terminal 2 has 11 gates: 21-21B, 22-22B, 23, 24-24B, 25-28. Terminal 2 was built in 1962, and rebuilt in 1984. Terminal 2 serves as the airport's secondary international terminal after the Tom Bradley International Terminal. Air Canada, Air Canada Jazz, Air China, Air France, Air Mobility Command, Air New Zealand, Avianca, Hawaiian Airlines, KLM, Northwest Airlines, TACA, Lasca, Virgin Atlantic and WestJet operate out of Terminal 2. International arrivals for Frontier Airlines arrive here, but some TACA and Lasca arrivals are processed at the Tom Bradley International Terminal.

Any objections? If not, I'll make the change shortly. ASHill (talk) 14:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I've created my proposed version at User:Ashill/Sandbox. ASHill (talk) 16:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't see this until now, but I've reverted because I disagree that this is helpful. Particularly at LAX, because the terminals operate almost completely independently, and we're helping the reader know which terminal to go to for their flight. It also helps organize and rationalize the sheer number of airlines and destinations here; having them all in one extremely long list is visually disconcerting. With two separate lists, we're disconnecting two important pieces of information - which airline flies where, and what terminal they operate from. They really belong together, IMO. FCYTravis (talk) 17:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

OK. My problem is that it's hard to find a given airline if you don't already know which terminal it operates out of. I don't think that organizing airlines by terminal is rational because the terminal an airline uses has little relation to the destinations it serves or any characteristic of the airline. Therefore, I think a single list of destinations is better for seeing which destinations the airport serves by each airline. Once you know which airline you're flying, my version still has all the terminals listed with airlines operating out of each terminal.

Even a number of foreign carriers don't operate out of the international terminal. What led me to think about the change was that multiple editors added V Australia to TBIT even though it was already listed in Terminal 2. That in itself doesn't mean the change should be made, but I think it's indicative of the unwieldy nature of the nine separate lists of destinations.

I agree that the single long list of destinations is visually disconcerting, but I think that the long list of terminals with all the airlines is as bad or worse. An airport with such a large number of terminals and destinations will have a visually disconcerting appearance if we list them all here (which I think we should, like every other airport). What is the best way to present the information? I don't think the current format is very good. Is there another idea? Should the destination list be collapsible, a la Manchester Airport? ASHill (talk) 17:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

This idea is very confusing and looks like one big paragraph. This discussion should really be taking place at WP:Airports and not on this talk page...Sox23 20:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Ground Transportation > Freeway

Under "Ground Transportation > Freeway" the article states:

"Like all other California airports (with the exception of San Francisco International), LAX does not have direct freeway access; all visitors entering by car must pass at least one traffic light-controlled intersection to transition from the freeway into the airport's main loop road."

First of all, there is no citation regarding "like all other airports."

Second, it is incorrect. I can tell you from personal experience (and it can be verified easily using Google Maps) that you can access SNA directly from the freeway. http://maps.google.com/maps?f=l&hl=en&geocode=&q=airport&near=santa+ana,+ca&ie=UTF8&ll=33.683327,-117.861017&spn=0.004517,0.010042&t=k&z=17

"Like all other California airports (with the exception of San Francisco International)" really adds no value and should be removed completely. The rest of the sentence and section would be fine as is.

166.128.184.213 (talk) 09:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Charter and Cargo Airlines

Recently, an anonymous editor has added sections for cargo and charter airlines. Cargo I don't have a problem with, but I feel that it should only list airlines that operate dedicated cargo flights to LAX. Charter airlines I have a problem with; if they serve LAX on a regular basis they should be listed with the terminal they use. If they don't fly in often enough to have an assigned terminal, they I don't think they should be listed. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 23:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Hawaiian717 about charter airlines, I dont think we can list all the hundreds of one-off or very few flight charters as they would not be notable. Charters should only be listed if they are regularly for the majority of a season. MilborneOne (talk) 17:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you as well Hawaiian717 Sox23 21:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree to on charters. Meanwhile for cargo, should we even list the destinations? Cargo route schedules are very volatile, and it's virtually impossible to draw a line to determine what's regular service and what's irregular/special/one-time service on some cargo airlines. HkCaGu (talk) 00:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

LAX Description(Hubs and FC's)

Let's discuss the foreign airline hub/focus city dispute here please. The airline determines what are and are not their focus cities and Mexicana, Quantas, and VA don't name LAX as either a focus city or a hub on their official websites. Quantas flies only to Sydney and it and Mexicana is no bigger in LAX than WestJet in Orlando and you don't call Orlando a focus city for WestJet. Also, JFK and IAD all have have about the same level of VA service as LAX and they don't list themselves as a VA focus city. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.5.66.240 (talk) 05:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• Official websites don't always list focus cities. Some not even hubs when they're obvious.
• Qantas flies only to Sydney? Have you looked at BOTH terminals? There is a JFK service not listed here which connects passengers to/from several Aussie cities. Sounds like a little hub already.
• Mexicana flies from LAX to almost a dozen cities in Mexico, and WestJet flies from MCO to ONE city that isn't seasonal. You can't define hubs and FCs by the AMOUNT of traffic or passenger. The number of routes and the airlines sizes matter.

LAX article is not the place to dispute this. We only list what's on those other pages. In the case of VX, back-and-forth edits have been simultaneous in airports' and airline's pages. I don't see a dispute for QF and MX. HkCaGu (talk) 06:12, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I did take your advice and have edited all three of the airline articles. Yes, Quantas flies LAX-JFK but you can't board or deplane in LAX when going JFK-SYD or vice-versa because they technically can't fly intra-US but their plane can't otherwise make it all the way to JFK so connections aren't possible unless you've found something that says they are. Cancun to US service is about the same with DL as LAX to MX service with Mexicana and Cancun is not a focus city for DL. Generally if their annual report doesn't list it then it has been my experience that it isn't the case. We could always email Mexicana though and ask. If they replied affirmative I would consider that a good enough source if the reply was posted here. I'd also like to give some others a chance to weigh in on this if you don't mind for 48 hours. 96.5.66.240 (talk) 06:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

LAX-JFK does not exist solely for SYD. Flights from several Aussie cities arrive within a short time period in the morning, and people from either flight can connect to JFK. At night, the JFK flight arrives LAX at around 10 pm and several flights for Australia depart at 11 pm. It's a hub-like connection where people get on and off, the only exception being that you can't fly "just" LAX-JFK. HkCaGu (talk) 06:39, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Well that's good to know. I was obviously not entirely clear. Still would like others to weigh in though and am tired for 2nite(2 AM-CDT). Ceasing editing 4 the night... 96.5.66.240 (talk) 06:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I have put LAX on my watchlist just in case any more edit warring occurs. Cashier freak (talk) 15:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's start discussing this people. A consensus is what we need for a resolution and removal of protection and it can't be reached unless you come out of the wood work and participatte. Best Regards 96.5.66.240 (talk) 20:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Calling the JFK-LAX-Australia feed a hub would be like calling the Continental Hubs-TPA-Other Florida and Carribean cities a hub and it isn't called that so why should this be. That comparison in my oppinion closes the case on the Qantas operation. What do you all think about that and my Mexicana-Delta comparison above? Does that rule these out since we can't find a source and comparative operations don't carry the titles? 96.5.66.240 (talk) 21:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I give up. I genuinely believe that the way the article is right now in its protected state is correct. But I'm not gonna waste enormous amounts of my time arguing this or any other hub and focus city details with you anymore. I've just got too many other things to do with my time in real life and my editing efforts can quite frankly be better used elsewhere. So with that consider my part in this debate over. Thanks and have good evening. 68.52.36.127 (talk) 05:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC) AKA 96.5.66.240 sometimes although the latter is really shared as most all are.

After my weekly break I'd like to state my position, which is similar to much of what NcSchu had said:

• Verifiability does not mean a source for everything. You can't demand a source that 1+1=2.
• Airline websites don't necessarily state their hubs, much less focus cities. Single hub airlines from small countries (where the only airport is the capital's) doesn't need to call their base a hub for it to be a hub. If it quacks likes a hub and walks like a hub, it's a hub. What an airline's website says is authoritative and definitive, but when it doesn't, we go back to watching the duck.
• You can't compare airlines of different sizes and different modes of operations to define, qualify or disqualify hubs and focus cities. Qantas doesn't have 200 cities to serve domestically. The small number of flights for NW in Tokyo and CO on Guam compared to their US domestic cities doesn't make them non-hubs. QF flights from four cities merging into one US airport with possible connection to JFK doesn't mean LAX is not focus city because of other US airlines' sizes of operations in Orlando. The exceptional number of cities serve from LAX to almost a dozen cities in Mexico by MX is the same case.
• For this reason, the discussion shouldn't belong here at LAX. We just carry the consensus there. I'm neutral and too busy to look into VX. But VX aside, let those who know QF and MX decide, not someone who just looks at LAX and compare from the perspective of an airport which has airlines of all continents and sizes.

(P.S. I started typing this more than half hour ago, before the last round of edits from 96.5.66.240/68.52.36.127.) HkCaGu (talk) 05:57, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

The difference is that NW AND CO mention NRT and Guam on their websites and Qantas and Mexicana do not. The VX problem is nearly solved so since there are no sources for the other two things that led to a lock here at all, the one other side is based on original research, and no one ever got fired up about it I am going to request an unprotect tonight if no one opposes and the VX issue really does end today. 45Factoid44 (talk) 22:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Article protected indefinitely

Due to numerous edit warring on this article for the past serveral weeks, this article has been semi-protected indefinitely until disputes such as whether or not Qantas, Virgin America, and Mexicana are focus cities for LAX. Cheers! Cashier freak (talk) 18:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I thoguht I was handling the situation in a pretty professional and friendly manner already but apparently if we make known we are debating at all then you guys for some reason feel the need to the lock the page. Perhaps since you were one of the ones who made an edit in the war you could inject your thoughts into the discussion and maybe actually help us towards a consensus. Participation in the discussion by everyone with an oppinion and who has information is the only way to a resolution and I believe we can easily find one if that happens. Thanks!96.5.66.240 (talk) 20:29, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I have experience in airport articles before (in particular - Manchester Airport), and since I initially semi-protected the article, I feel committed to helping resolve this dispute. If you have any comments about either the context of airport(s) (terms etc.) or the protection of the article, feel free to ask. I understand that the dispute may be over the hub-city aspect - what is the dispute specifically? Could somebody outline it in a sentence maybe? I'll lend a hand where apt. Caulde 20:57, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Essentially we are trying to determine whether Los Angeles is a hub or focus city for Quantas, Mexicana, and Virgin America and we have about 3(me included) who say without sources LAX isn't and about 3 or four who say it is. So we need either a majority in one direction or the other or some kind of definitive source material to justify the inclusion. Thank you very much for offering to help where you can. 96.5.66.240 (talk) 21:04, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

FYI:I'll be at a different location this weekend so I'll include this IP in my signature so you can discern that it is still me and hold all my comments collectively. 96.5.66.240 (talk) 21:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

People disputing this on the Qantas and Virgin America article histories and talk pages have been directed here to participate as well. The Mexicana article is having no dispute over it. 96.5.66.240 (talk) 21:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Qantas was never mentioned in the article as being a "focus city" but it has been mentioned in the infobox of the Qantas page. But Mexicana, it was put on here a while back but it gotten removed. The only airlines that i saw mentioned in the intro paragraph was American Airlines, Southwest Airlines, and Delta Air Lines (Delta WAS a secondary hub before it cut many of its flights and it was merely a focus city). I just put whether the airline infobox says. Cashier freak (talk) 05:00, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Can we clarify as to which airlines definitively use LAX as their focus city or hub? Caulde 11:22, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

There is a sourced inclusion of LAX as a focus city on Virgin America's article. User:96.5.66.240 has had numerous reverts on this article as well simply because the user disagrees with the statement. But if I may, this is not the place to be discussing focus city status of certain airlines, this should only serve to discuss inclusion of focus cities along with hubs. I will not continue any discussion here about this issue as the issue was already discussed and agreed upon on the Virgin America article and any further discussions regarding LAX as a focus city of Virgin America should really only be there. NcSchu_(Talk) 14:48, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

The USAToday hub guide is a source which contains easily provable inaccuracies for several airlines and can not be backed with anything, most notably the Virgin America website and the company itself and this will be taken up again on that article as well if we can't resolve it here. You never reached any consensus in that airline's article by the way. I read it. Also, Cashier freak, you put Quantas on the LAX article several times as either a hub or a focus city which is in the edit history. None of this gives us any progress towards solving this problem by the way and until this useless bickering stops I'd ask the admins to retain the protection of the article. I'd also like to put out there that its odd that Quantas and Mexicana especially have had the same presence at LAX for sometime without change and only recently have a select few started trying to add them to the description without warranting sources based on their own oppinion of what does and does not constitute a hub, secondary hub, or focus city. I'm also not the only one who disagrees per the edit history but am apparently the only one willing to re-iterate it in a constructive way in this discussion. Let me know when you're ready to actually do something. -96.5.66.240 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.52.36.127 (talk) 21:32, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, airline websites almost never, ever, ever talk about focus cities. They don't even mention hubs half the time. That's what secondary sources are for. I am ready to discuss this issue, but you haven't demonstrated any knowledge of Wikipedia policies nor have you provided any Wikipedia-based reason for not including the information. Again, this isn't the appropriate place to be discussing this, and even if a decision is reached on here that doesn't mean it has to be carried over to Virgin America, Qantas or Mexicana articles. NcSchu_(Talk) 22:18, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

If the company doesn't give a title(by the way I can't think of an airline that has FC's who's website doesn't list them) then it isn't an official title and an official encyclopedia article needs official 100% factual information. It's that simple. This is not the place to put information based on your own oppinions. Just the facts. Also, if it can't be debated here then maybe things like that just shouldn't be mentioned in airline articles. If it's in THIS article, then in my oppinion, we should be able to debate it on THIS article's talk page. Why in god's name we have to have a debate about whether we can debate before we actually debate the issue is absurd to me. -96.5.66.240 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.52.36.127 (talk) 22:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Well you're arguing about what focus cities are for specific airlines on an airport's article talk page...it makes much more sense to discuss things specific about an airline on the airline's article. NcSchu_(Talk) 00:19, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

That is now happening. Although the result needs to be carried back to this debate as the answer will have an impact on the LAX article as well. -96.5.66.240 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.52.36.127 (talk) 01:23, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I give up. I genuinely believe that the way the article is right now in its protected state is correct. But I'm not gonna waste enormous amounts of my time arguing this or any other hub and focus city details with you anymore. I've just got too many other things to do with my time in real life and my editing efforts can quite frankly be better used elsewhere. So with that consider my part in this debate over. Thanks and have good evening. 68.52.36.127 (talk) 05:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC) AKA 96.5.66.240 sometimes although the latter is really shared as most all are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.52.36.127 (talk)

Singapore Airlines TPE service

{{editprotected}} Taipei on Singapore Airlines ends today.

• For Singapore Airlines under TBIT, It should now read "Singapore, Tokyo-Narita"

Thanks! Cashier freak (talk) 00:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Done Stifle (talk) 09:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Request Edits

{{editprotected}} I wish to make several clarifications to the Qantas terminal arrangement in this article. Several new terminal arrangements for Qantas at LAX have come into effect today. [1]

• For TBIT, it should now read "Melbourne, Sydney"
• For Terminal 4, it should now read "Auckland, Brisbane, Melbourne"

Thanks in advance. Mvjs (talk) 04:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC) I'm sorry but New York JFK needs to be added to TBIT destinations. A Qantas passenger can arrive in LAX and continue on to JFK a few days later- it does not need to be a same day connection. 124.168.128.33 (talk)map —Preceding undated comment added 23:26, 27 May 2010 (UTC).

JFK should not be listed according to WP:AIRPORT guidelines. However, the Qantas web link can be included if someone wonders where the JFK flight flies. HkCaGu (talk) 05:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, my mistake. Amended. Mvjs (talk) 05:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, V Australia has change the start date for its Sydney services. V Australia's entry should now read:

• V Australia (Brisbane [begins March 1], Sydney [begins February 28])

Thanks again. Mvjs (talk) 07:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Done Stifle (talk) 10:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Also, Delta's flight to Lihue under Terminal 5 have resumed. The "resumes October 1" can be removed from the destinations lists. Thanks! Cashier freak (talk) 19:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, Air France service to London-Heathrow ends November 6, 2008. It should read:

• Air France (London-Heathrow [ends November 6], Papeete, Paris-Charles de Gaulle)

Thanks! Cashier freak (talk) 23:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done SkierRMH (talk) 00:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Table?

Why are the airlines and destinations for terminals 2 and 3 in a table format? 68.38.85.192 (talk) 20:26, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Several IP users (see history) have been putting the destinations into tables. Whether this is the better way of presenting data, that is up to you. MvjsTalking 01:21, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I thought that wikipedia policy had airlines listed, not in a table. I don't know where top find that out for sure, though, so could someone back me up with a source? 68.38.85.192 (talk) 12:29, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, the table format began to pop up in a couple places, and was approved by consensus at WP:AIRPORT (probably in the talk archive). However, formats such as PVG and ICN's are not compatible with the original content consensus but nobody yet apparently has the time to redo it--the code is very complicated compared to the simple bullet listing. HkCaGu (talk) 12:38, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

External links

I removed the link to the architect's web page because we should limit external links. The link is appropriate for the Paul Williams (architect) article and less so here. E_dog95' ^{Hi '} 22:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

CBP points

The section for T2 states that only T2, T6/7 and TBIT have CBP checkpoints. I know for a fact that American in T4 has a checkpoint that is only open some hours in the day (other times passengers are sent to TBIT), so that is clearly not true. Also, I'm pretty sure that Delta in T5 has a checkpoint as well, especially for its Aeromexico partner flights.Grassfire (talk) 05:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

You can verify by checking the flight arrival info online at LAX's website. The display is keyed on passenger arrival terminal, not where the planes park. However, the display is only for 12 hours, so it takes some efforts. HkCaGu (talk) 07:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Good catch. I've cleaned that bit up. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 15:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Fix broken link to new int. terminal?

Hey, I don't do much editing here on wiki, but i noticed one change that should be made. The link to LAWA's website on the new international terminal proposal is broken. In wiki (citation #24) it is http://www.lawa.org/welcomeLAX.aspx?id=1778, but all that needs to be done to make it work is add an underscore between "welcome" and "LAX", or http://www.lawa.org/welcome_LAX.aspx?id=1778

When I try and edit the Reference section, it just comes up with a "list 2", which I have no idea where that is.

Thanks! :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bewilder2 (talk • contribs) 06:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Since it's an inline citation, the link actually occurs in the body of the text within <ref> tags, in this case in the "Tom Bradley International Terminal (TBIT)" section. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 15:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

V Australia flights to Melbourne

Is V Australia still planning on flying to Melbourne? It was recently removed as a destination but I have put it back to begin September 15th. Thanks! Charmedaddict (talk) 22:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Virgin America article

If you would all be so kind as to review the issue being discussed at this article(since it relates to LAX) and weigh in with your opinion I would appreciate it. We'd like to incur a larger, more objective, unemotional share of input then what exists right now. Thank you very much for your time and we really appreciate it. 68.52.42.38 (talk) 04:56, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you stop hiding behind an IP and register a user name? --Cyber Fox (talk) 12:29, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

You're hiding more behind a username b/c it shield your IP and makes you less identifiable. Coming up with some irrelevant username isn't going to reveal my actual name anymore than it is revealed right now. If we don't get enough outside participation to create a landslide in a particular direction on this article then mark my words this article along with the ones about LA, LAX, and the rest of the Virgin brand are about enter a serious rough patch that won't end until the argument gets fully resolved. 68.52.42.38 (talk) 19:26, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

>> Hey all, on http://www.los-angeles-lax.com/terminals.html it shows Virgin America as Terminal 6. The wiki article shows Terminal 3. So which is it? I'm not too familiar with terminal designations and to how often they switch out, but I feel this is worth mentioning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.33.15.234 (talk) 06:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't know who runs that web site, but it doesn't appear to be a reliable source. Virgin America is in Terminal 3, as can be seen on the airport's web site and on the airline's web site. Virgin America was in Terminal 6 when they first started flying, and later moved to Terminal 3. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 06:45, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

UA, FL, and SY at LAX

United does not serve Melbourne or Bangkok nonstop from LAX so I removed them. Airtran no longer serves Indianapolis and has no plans to so I removed that. Sun Country needs to be moved to terminal 2 as they left terminal 6 a while ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FL787 (talk • contribs) 02:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

--I also forgot to ask if CO is ending San Salvador as it appears to be gone after August?-- —Preceding unsigned comment added by FL787 (talk • contribs) 02:23, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

--FL787 (talk) 02:26, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

For UA MEL/BKK, yes...those flights are not non-stop but they are genuine direct as they do not change planes @ Narita Airport. See WP:AIRPORTS....For CO flights to San Salvador, I think that it will be a seasonal suspension and the flights may return for Summer 2010. 74.183.173.237 (talk) 05:25, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I figured out after I typed that that direct flights are fine. For San Salvador they don't even show it returning next summer so I would assume it's gone. Why wouldn't they at least sell it if they weren't sure if it's going to come back? I'm pretty sure it's gone.

--FL787 (talk) 16:54, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

LAX to LGA Direct Flights

• There are NO DIRECT flights on Delta from LAX to LGA! I have checked BOTH www.oag.com and www.delta.com and there are no direct flights to LGA on Delta. The Port Authority does not permit transcontinental flights to LGA due to noise limits and congestion. I live 10 minutes from LGA and the Delta counter there reconfirmed this when I inquired last week. Please visit http://www.delta.com/schedules/travel/reservations/flight_sched/index.jsp and search every Saturday from November 2006 and December 2006. THERE ARE NO DIRECT FLIGHTS! All flights connect in CVG. Delta's website is much more accurate than OAG. OAG is not 100% reliable. --XLR8TION 22:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • So I guess this flight doesn't really exist? DB (talk) 00:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  • There are direct flights on Saturdays, when the perimeter rule is void.

Flights from Los Angeles, CA to New York, NY LAX to LGA Saturday, 23 December, 2006

Select leg Flt From To Dpt Time Arr Time Mkt Carrier AC First Av/Au(Cap) Bus. Av/Au(Cap) Coach Av/Au(Cap) Lists

 1644  LAX  LGA  23DEC  1235P  23DEC  905P  DELTA  757

(There has never been any rule against direct transcon flights into LGA-- it's just nonstops that are allowed on Saturdays only.) Tim Zukas (talk) 00:05, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I have checked recently, and Delta no longer offers non-stops to LGA anytime. 96.251.118.198 (talk) 02:01, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Midwest Airlines

Does Midwest Airlines, including Republic, operate both out of Terminal 4 and Terminal 6? If so, shouldn't it be listed under Terminal 6 as "See Terminal 4" or visa versa? --Golfj21 (talk) 19:05, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

They are moving from Terminal 4 to Terminal 6 on November 3: http://www.lawa.aero/uploadedFiles/LAX/pdf/LAX_Newsletter_200910.pdf -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 19:38, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Spokane & LAX

I think that delta has a new route between Spokane & LAX operated by Skywest Airlines . Just check http://www.delta.com/schedules/travel/reservations/flight_sched/index.jsp —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gongs12 (talk • contribs) 04:24, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The stop in SLC, a Delta hub, disqualifies inclusion. See WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT. HkCaGu (talk) 04:51, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Bus to satellite?

In the history of LAX this article states: "All terminals were originally satellite buildings separated from the ticketing area and accessed by bus." That is incorrect. The satellites and ticket counters were connected by tunnels, several of which are still in use today.

The only reference I can find is an obit for the artist that decorated them in 1961. Is that OK? http://articles.latimes.com/2007/nov/25/local/me-kratka25 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.37.244.76 (talk) 23:35, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks good enough to me; the LA Times is a reliable source. I'd never heard the bus bit before either and know there are tunnels. I've updated the article. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 02:11, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Contradiction with 1 million+ destinations

Introduction says that only LHR, NRT, and TPE have 1 million+ ridership, but under the table listing busiest routes, TPE is not there. the LHR page says the LHR-LAX route has 1 million+, but it is not even #4 on the list. --HXL 何献龙 21:39, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Need an admin to create edit notice regarding Iberia/Madrid

Up till now, Iberia's new Madrid route next April has been added and removed 10 times, as a firm date has yet to be announced, which is a Wikiproject requirement for listing. Can an admin please create an edit notice so the many IPs will give up? This is a recommendation after I raised it up at Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace. HkCaGu (talk) 03:05, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

The flight now seems to be bookable and loaded into the airline's webpage. The launch date for the flight is March 28, 2011. Snoozlepet (talk) 20:55, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Destinations

Can someone please clarify why international direct flight destinations are listed, but domestic ones are not? For instance Malaysia to KUL (stopover @ TPE), but no such domestic connection is listed (e.g., Southwest LAX-ELP-DAL). This has always seemed inconsistent and confusing, especially since there is no qualifying word such as 'connecting' used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.126.125.254 (talk) 22:57, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Southwest "directs" are excluded because they are considered "timetable directs", ones that change frequently and randomly. See WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT for factors considered. HkCaGu (talk) 23:34, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

LAX maps

This has maps of LAX terminals http://www.lawa.org/welcome_lax.aspx?id=256 WhisperToMe (talk) 08:05, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Airline Terminal Changes

Spirit Airlines is moving from terminal 6 to 3 Great Lakes Airlines is moving from terminal 6 to 7 Alaska & Horizon Airlines will be moving from terminal 3 to 6

Source: LAX Facebook Cesarrbls1 (talk) 02:49, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 04:47, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

In popular culture: Susan Raye

"Susan Raye, who has been retired from the music industry since 1986, made a rare public appearance to sing her classic hit at a concert at the celebration and to be on hand when a proclamation was issued to make the song the official song of LAX." Um what song? Krystaleen (talk) 15:41, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Qantas New York

I think it makes sense to include New York as a destination for Qantas, retaining the footnote that is currently in place (that Qantas can't accept local LAX-JFK passengers). This is because Qantas does accept online connecting passengers; LAX is more than just a stop on a direct SYD-JFK flight. The Sydney Airport article indicates that it's possible to fly Qantas to JFK because it's a direct flight, but Melbourne and Brisbane don't, thus there's no way to tell that it is possible to fly Qantas from MEL-JFK via LAX from the destination lists. I think this is relevant to the LAX article because it shows that Qantas has a small connecting operation at LAX without getting into any unsourced interpretation.

I don't see a clear statement on this particular situation at WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT, and there was last a discussion of this on this article's talk page in 2008, as far as I can tell. That discussion was in the context of whether LAX is a focus city for Qantas, not whether the JFK flight should be listed.

I'll refrain from making this change for now in case there's strong disagreement. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 23:40, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

The footnote should have an additional note that says "However, Qantas does not have local traffic rights from LAX to JFK (QF would not let you book a segment only from LAX to JFK)". 68.119.73.36 (talk) 02:12, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd say the inclusion issue is better addressed at WT:AIRPORT. As for this article, I think a "note" is enough. The bigger problem is at JFK's article, where it doesn't even mention where that intermediate stop is (LAX), and its possibilities for connecting onward. Someone looking at MEL/BNE articles will eventually "find their way" to JFK, but not vice versa. HkCaGu (talk) 19:06, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Passenger limit legality

In response to the question of the legality of passenger limitations, I would like to point out that Westchester County Airport (HPN) in New York has operated under maximum passenger limitations of 240 passengers per half hour since the 1980s, but is slightly increased during peak travel periods. Perhaps the City of Los Angeles or the State of California has forbade such limitations.

http://airport.westchestergov.com/airlines — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.31.123.234 (talk) 17:54, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Thai International Airways to Osaka Unbookable

I checked the Thai International Airways website. It still doesn't allow you to book a flight with Los Angeles as your departure city and Osaka as your arrival city. The source is more than 1 month old on the LAX page. 64.164.138.146 (talk) 00:10, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

The source might not be liable. It should be removed. 63.92.242.185 (talk) 01:13, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Iberia to Madrid is Seasonal

Iberia Flight 6170 is not operating any flights to Madrid until April. Can someone please change this? 63.92.242.185 (talk) 00:30, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Done. HkCaGu (talk) 00:42, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Alaska Airlines to begin non stops from 6 cities to Salt Lake City

A source confirms that nonstop LAX-SLC service will begin June 11, 2014. 63.92.245.217 (talk) 02:45, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

AA to Sao Paulo

American Airlines has launched service from LAX to GRU on December 16, 2013. Can someone remove the date as it has passed. Thanks! 68.119.73.36 (talk) 19:10, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Done. HkCaGu (talk) 02:46, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 December 2013

Terminal 3 will be the new home of US Airways starting Feb 12, 2014

Ccompton777 (talk) 22:15, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

• Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Technical 13 (talk) 19:03, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Wrong. US is moving in with AA, which is in T4. HkCaGu (talk) 05:00, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

There was a plan at one point for US to move to T3 early in 2014. It looks like they still are, even with the settlement agreement that sees AA/US giving up 2 LAX gets. It looks like AA/US will have one gate at T3, with a date for the move in mid-February 2014 (I haven't seen any source that backs up the specific date give above). I suggest we hold off on changing things until the changes actually happen; with only one gate in T3, I suspect US will split their operation between T3 and T4, or even move into T4 while certain AA flights operate out of the T3 gate. See: [2]. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 01:36, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Hawaiian Airlines to Kahului

Hawaiian Airlines's flight between LA and Kahului will now operate year-round from July 1, 2014. It is listed as a summer seasonal flight. Source: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/hawaiian-airlines-launch-daily-non-200101030.html;_ylt=A2KJ3CXhr81SYHoAURTQtDMD. 68.119.73.36 (talk) 20:09, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Done - but current service is still seasonal, so will need moving in July. - Arjayay (talk) 12:23, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Delta to Dallas

Dallas-Love on LAX should be Dallas-Love Field — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.92.245.217 (talk) 02:43, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Dallas-Love is correct. Adding "Field" would be equal to saying Dallas/Fort Worth International, Los Angeles International, etc — Preceding unsigned comment added by RicHicks (talk • contribs) 18:32, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Delta Hub at LAX

Does Delta's large presence at LAX count as a focus city or hub. Delta does not list Los Angeles as a hub but their large presence with flights to many nonhub destinations would seem to classify it under the broader definition of a hub or focus city. Sum Christianus (talk) 20:37, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Unless Delta officially says that LAX is a hub, it should not be considered a hub. It has been discussed that Delta does not have any focus city. See WP:Verify. Rzxz1980 (talk) 06:18, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Qantas JFK "destination"

I am adding "New York-JFK" as a destination, and moving the note from displaying beside "Qantas" to display beside "New York-JFK". There was a hidden note: "QF has no traffic rights from LAX to JFK; do not add it as a destination."

Qantas does not have the cabotage right to transport passengers solely between LAX-JFK. Technically, I think they cannot sell itineraries solely between LAX-JFK as, hypothetically, I don't think they can prevent a passenger booking a JFK-LAX-MEL itinerary and leaving LAX and not catching the LAX-MEL flight. From Wikipedia:WikiProject Airports/page content#Body:

List non-stop and direct flights only. That means the flight number and the aircraft, starts at this airport and continues to one or more airports. Avoid using the description 'via' since that is more correctly listed as another destination. If passengers can not disembark at a stop on a direct flight, then do not list it as a destination or as 'via'. Direct flights are not always non-stop flights. However, avoid listing direct flights that contain a stop at a domestic hub, as virtually all of these are simply flights from one "spoke city" to a hub, with the plane continuing from the hub to a second spoke city. Furthermore, these flights often involve plane changes, despite the direct designation. Including these flights dramatically increases the length of destination listings, artificially inflates the airline's presence at a location and requires constant updating, as these "timetable direct" destinations have little rhyme or reason and may change as often as every week or two.

The flight number and the aircraft that fly SYD-LAX-JFK & JFK-LAX-SYD remain the same. However, passengers aren't prevented from disembarking at LAX. In fact many passengers travel JFK-LAX and then disembark to take another Qantas flight from LAX to Australia (and vice versa). Thus JFK is a certainly a "destination" from LAX, there's just the technicality that Qantas can't sell itineraries that only go between LAX-JFK, which should remain a note. AHeneen (talk) 15:26, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I removed New York-JFK as a destination. I understand that you can book a JFK-LAX-MEL flight online. It works. But, passengers cannot fly JFK-LAX and not continue on to Australia. We only list destinations that people are able to fly to solely. If you have any questions, please feel free to leave a note on my talk page. 24.5.180.207 (talk) 21:15, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Where is that policy? Per the above quoted policy, NY-JFK is a destination as: 1)the same aircraft/flight number is used, 2) passengers can embark/disembark, and 3) it's not a "hub" where the aircraft is often changed and/or there is a (nearly) complete turnover of passengers. NY-JFK is a destination, just with a caveat.AHeneen (talk) 01:59, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

It's not right that 24.5.180.207 calls your edits vandalism. You explained quite a bit. However, I think the best place to address is WT:AIRPORT. Australians can travel QF LAX-JFK alone for a day as part of a ticket/itin to tour NYC for a few days and see SoCal for a few days, just as Americans can travel UA SYD-MEL alone for a day as part of a ticket from the US. LAX-JFK is purely domestic, however, UA SYD-MEL is "international" and day SYD-MEL travelers are given a pass to avoid screening when passing customs. And beside UA, many other non-Aussie airlines run such domestic segments in Australia. Therefore we don't want to settle on a standard here at LAX. Nevertheless, people aren't going to buy a $2000 ticket US-AU just to fly JFK-LAX which can be done for $200, same for AU-US ticket just to fly MEL-SYD. People may check baggage for such a "destination", but it's not marketed as such. HkCaGu (talk) 05:22, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

You cannot fly solely from JFK to LAX or from LAX to JFK. 24.5.180.207 (talk) 03:04, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

For one particular day, yes you can. I just explained that. And if you buy a round trip ticket from NYC, and get off at LAX and not board LAX-Aus, nobody's going to arrest you. It's just a $2000 ticket that won't save you any money versus buying a US carrier domestic ticket. HkCaGu (talk) 04:17, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I tried to book a flight from LAX to JFK on Qantas.com but it would not let me book that route solely. Unless one boards a flight from JFK, stop at LAX, and if one has a long layover between the flight to Australia from LA, then it is possible. But do JFK-bound passengers clear customs at JFK or do they clear customs at LAX? I believe that only if one is part of a tour group visiting California and New York. But if it is for one particular day, I don't think that it is worth listing it as a QF destination from LAX. But the question is, should it be considered a destination from LAX?? 68.119.73.36 (talk) 04:40, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

LAX-JFK is definitely domestic in terms of security/customs/immigration. Aussies can arrive LAX and spend a few days and continuing to JFK. Plenty of posts in FlyerTalk about that. Same for Americans stopping over at SYD for a few days before going to MEL, or vice versa. Foreign carriers in Australia though operate behind customs/immigration. One who travels domestic solely (for that day) gets a document to bypass inspection after getting off the foreign-flown domestic flight. HkCaGu (talk) 04:51, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you but should JFK still be listed as a destination (that is the dispute on this page). You can still fly from JFK to LAX as QF107 but only if one is making connections at LAX to BNE/MEL (QF107 operates JFK-LAX-SYD). I think the footnote should stay as it is but the "Qantas does not have local traffic rights to transport passengers solely between LAX and JFK" should be removed. I believe modifying the footnote was discussed before. 68.119.73.36 (talk) 04:59, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

US Airways Express terminal information

Does anyone know which terminal US Airways Express will be located in when it starts service (part of AA/US cross-fleeting operations)? It is listed to be in Terminal 4 but its mainline ops are in Terminal 3. 68.119.73.36 (talk) 04:11, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Flights operate out of Terminal 4 (Satelitte) as per http://www.latimes.com/travel/deals/la-trb-lax-terminal-usairway-express-20140731-story.html. 68.119.73.36 (talk) 16:10, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Addition/Comment

Greetings!

First of all, many thanks for the amazing work that you do in maintaining this page. While I no longer live in LA, LAX is and always will be my favorite airport, and I religiously follow your page to find out the current airline and destination rosters.

Two points, if I may:

1. Will LAX become one of those "all-inhabited continents" airports when Ethiopian begins service in June?

and,

2. Will you be bringing back the destinations served map that used to grace the page? I loved it, personally, and commented once before about Saudi Arabia being missing...

That's all for now. Again, thanks for everything that you do with this page!

Bob Dineen alamobob17@yahoo.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.21.136.107 (talk) 16:07, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm glad you appreciate the articles we work on—I certainly follow them myself to find out any changes to my home airport. As for your points:

1. I'm not sure if the "rules", so to speak, allow for a stopover in another country en route to the destination continent.
2. After a discussion on the airports WikiProject [3], it was decided that destinations maps should be removed from airport articles. I don't necessarily agree with that point of view, but that's how decision-making on Wikipedia works.

—Conifer (talk) 22:36, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

AA resumes or begins, discussion at SYD

I've started a discussion about whether AA's LAX-SYD service is a resumption or a beginning of new service at Talk:Sydney Airport#AA resumes or begins?, since that's been reverted a few times both here and there. Please discuss there to keep consolidated. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 13:59, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

BizAir service

A lot of people are removing BizAir from the table as it is not flying into LAX and the reference stated as "invalid". However, http://www.bizairshuttle.com/lax/ (BizAir's official site) have flight schedules released and the airline operates from Terminal 3. Please do not remove again! 97.85.113.113 (talk) 04:42, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Qantas SYD-LAX-JFK

Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Airports#Qantas_SYD-LAX-JFK - TheChampionMan1234 02:33, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 9 external links on Los Angeles International Airport. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100310112004/http://www.allbusiness.com:80/north-america/united-states-california-metro-areas/838272-1.html to http://www.allbusiness.com/north-america/united-states-california-metro-areas/838272-1.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070929124516/http://www.aci.aero/cda/aci_common/display/main/aci_content07_c.jsp?zn=aci&cp=1-5-54-55_666_2__ to http://www.aci.aero/cda/aci_common/display/main/aci_content07_c.jsp?zn=aci&cp=1-5-54-55_666_2__
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070929124536/http://www.aci.aero/cda/aci_common/display/main/aci_content07_c.jsp?zn=aci&cp=1-5-54-4819_666_2__ to http://www.aci.aero/cda/aci_common/display/main/aci_content07_c.jsp?zn=aci&cp=1-5-54-4819_666_2__
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140915002115/http://www.airports.org/cda/aci_common/display/main/aci_content07_c.jsp?zn=aci&cp=1-5-54-55_666_2__ to http://www.airports.org/cda/aci_common/display/main/aci_content07_c.jsp?zn=aci&cp=1-5-54-55_666_2__
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101206022153/http://www.aci.aero/cda/aci_common/display/main/aci_content07_c.jsp?zn=aci&cp=1-5-212-1376-1379_666_2__ to http://www.aci.aero/cda/aci_common/display/main/aci_content07_c.jsp?zn=aci&cp=1-5-212-1376-1379_666_2__
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080201083229/http://archives.cnn.com:80/2002/US/09/04/lax.shooting/index.html to http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/09/04/lax.shooting/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070702090044/http://www.natca.org/natca/06archieleaguewinners.msp to http://www.natca.org/natca/06archieleaguewinners.msp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070929101248/http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20070821X01217&key=1%20 to http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20070821X01217&key=1%20
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131113133402/http://www.metroinvestmentreport.com:80/mir/?module=displaystory&story_id=442&format=html to http://www.metroinvestmentreport.com/mir/?module=displaystory&story_id=442&format=html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:10, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

DL hub or focus city at LAX

Please do not Delta as a hub or focus city in the infobox. There is currently a discussion at the DL talk page where consensus is currently being reached. Please post your comments on that page. 97.85.113.113 (talk) 00:51, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Air Berlin to Düsseldorf

There are multiple reports saying that Air Berlin's nonstop flight from Los Angeles to Düsseldorf will become year round on May 2, 2016, which is the first flight out of Los Angeles next year. By October, the service will operate daily. November 2016 schedule has not yet been announced by Air Berlin. 2601:646:C401:9A42:3D5A:BECF:9DE3:C8A (talk) 18:56, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Air Tahiti Nui

We should not list Auckland as a destination for Air Tahiti Nui because the direct flight goes through Papeete, a hub for the airline. 2601:646:C401:9A42:A433:1454:4880:26F8 (talk) 02:14, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Below is copied from My argument regarding this on the Auckland Airport page.

WP:AIRPORTS says "..avoid listing direct flights that contain a stop at a domestic hub, as virtually all of these are simply flights from one "spoke city" to a hub, with the plane continuing from the hub to a second spoke city." My reading of this (there is a reason the authors of this sentence said avoid rather than don't) is that in a true Airline Hub many flights are routed into and out of the hub for no other reason but convenience and there is no expectation that many people will truly use this flight as a direct connection to the further destination. This appears especially true in large US hubs where often the flight numbers continue on but nothing else including the aircraft does. This is however not the case here.

1. Air Tahiti Nui has only three destinations from Papeete, Auckland, los Angeles and Tokyo. Three routes does not make an Airline hub

2. The Tokyo flight which is entirely Japanese holidaying in Tahiti and has no connecting traffic to Auckland or Los Angeles - It would be a long way out of the way.

3. And the Auckland - Papeete - Los Angeles flight, carries people going to Tahiti but also many people connecting to Los Angeles. ie the only connecting passengers ie the thing that makes a hub a hub are from the very service people want removed. Oh the irony.

4. The flight number and presumably the plane is the same for the whole flight.

5. Direct flights to Los Angeles are actively marketed as such from NZ to LAX.

So I think there is ample evidence that Los Angels should be reinstated as a destination from Auckland. Andrewgprout (talk) 07:23, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Air China to Shenzhen

This is a same flight number, same plane service, so there is no terminal change at PEK. Verify it in FR24 here. Sources here and here.

Also see WP:Airports page content, #7. For examples of this elsewhere on wiki:

• AI 127 HYD-DEL-ORD same plane: HYD is listed on ORD page.
• AKL and CHC on the DXB page, as EK operates direct service through multiple cities on to these airports. - ✈Sunnya343✈ (talk) 14:30, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

See PEK airport page. International flights by CA use a totally separate terminal (3E) than domestic flights (3C). HkCaGu (talk) 18:00, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Los Angeles International Airport. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100722070218/http://www.redorbit.com:80/news/technology/318661/deal_cut_to_halt_los_angeles_airport_lawsuits/ to http://www.redorbit.com/news/technology/318661/deal_cut_to_halt_los_angeles_airport_lawsuits/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:29, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 17 external links on Los Angeles International Airport. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140522122852/http://www.ecquants.com/2012_LAX.aspx to http://www.ecquants.com/2012_LAX.aspx
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160419190701/http://www.lawa.org/uploadedfiles/LAX/statistics/aircarrier-2016.pdf to http://www.lawa.org/uploadedfiles/LAX/statistics/aircarrier-2016.pdf
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140127140626/http://tbitatlax.com:80/2012/12/05/premier-dining-retail-coming-to-new-tom-bradley-international-terminal/ to http://tbitatlax.com/2012/12/05/premier-dining-retail-coming-to-new-tom-bradley-international-terminal/
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110707092223/http://www.afcoinc.com/properties-lax.html to http://www.afcoinc.com/properties-lax.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130628190317/http://www.segd.org/design-awards/2001-design-awards/lax-gateway.html to http://www.segd.org/design-awards/2001-design-awards/lax-gateway.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140522124754/http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/united-begins-200m-terminal-expansion-at-lax-228375/ to http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/united-begins-200m-terminal-expansion-at-lax-228375/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20010512114707/http://aviation.hntb.com/4d8.htm to http://aviation.hntb.com/4d8.htm
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070322164257/http://abclocal.go.com:80/kabc/story?section=local&id=5132965 to http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=local&id=5132965
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150924043647/http://www.skyteamcargo.com:80/en/About-us/Our-members/China-Southern-Cargo/ to http://www.skyteamcargo.com/en/About-us/Our-members/China-Southern-Cargo/
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20151119123315/http://www.lawa.org/uploadedfiles/airops/pdf/CSPP%20Reference%20Materials%20-%20Air%20Carriers%20and%20Tenants.pdf to http://www.lawa.org/uploadedfiles/airops/pdf/CSPP%20Reference%20Materials%20-%20Air%20Carriers%20and%20Tenants.pdf
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20151119074859/http://www.airportia.com/flights/m76823/los_angeles/mexico_city to http://www.airportia.com/flights/m76823/los_angeles/mexico_city
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150302022138/http://www.airlogisticsgroup-usa.com:80/handling.htm to http://www.airlogisticsgroup-usa.com/handling.htm
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150913042806/http://www.singaporeair.com/contactUs.form?conatctfromErr=true to https://www.singaporeair.com/contactUs.form?conatctfromErr=true
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150216225139/http://www.seapowermagazine.org/stories/20150205-cg-los-angeles.html to http://www.seapowermagazine.org/stories/20150205-cg-los-angeles.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20071020022121/http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20050921-0 to http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20050921-0
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131016081548/http://www.sfgate.com/news/crime/article/AP-Newsbreak-Arrest-in-LA-airport-ice-explosions-4896621.php to http://www.sfgate.com/news/crime/article/AP-Newsbreak-Arrest-in-LA-airport-ice-explosions-4896621.php
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131019220931/http://www.sfgate.com/news/crime/article/Official-2nd-LAX-worker-also-set-off-dry-ice-bomb-4908443.php to http://www.sfgate.com/news/crime/article/Official-2nd-LAX-worker-also-set-off-dry-ice-bomb-4908443.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:28, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

American Eagle Remote Satellite Terminal Changes

As of May 16, 2016, the gates in the American Eagle remote satellite terminal have been renumbered. They are now gates 60A–I (no longer 44A–I). Along with this change, all check-in and baggage claim operations for American Eagle origin/destination passengers is now handled exclusively at Terminal 6. Shuttle buses to the satellite now depart T6 from a door between gates 60 and 62, as well as shuttles going to T4. Shuttles will still operate between the satellite and T4, as well as to the TBIT, but primarily for connecting passengers only.

I will gradually update the sections regarding Terminals 4 and 6 to reflect these new changes. --Kmk1011 (talk) 19:11, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Split article

Support split - This article is well above 100 kB. I suggest splitting this article into one or more of the following pages:

1. History of Los Angeles International Airport
2. Terminals of Los Angeles International Airport
3. Airlines and destinations of Los Angeles International Airport

Please let me know your thoughts. Thanks! --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:56, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Oppose - Each aspect on their own does not look encyclopedic. Taking this info out of the main article does not make sense. HkCaGu (talk) 23:38, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Reply - @HkCaGu:, many large articles have a separate article about the history. Why should History of Los Angeles International Airport not be split off? --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:39, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Reply LAX terminals, unlike Singapore or Heathrow, are not historical stages of the airport, as in first there was T1 and then there was T2, etc. Do we have an airport with as many terminals that have separate articles? If the article is getting too long, are we just too lazy or behind to trim things that have become less relevant? HkCaGu (talk) 05:09, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

For/Aginst - I think that splitting the history and terminals section off will be beneficial. I don't think the Destinations and Airlines section be made into its own article.KDTW Flyer (talk) 20:03, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose—WP:SIZERULE is based off readable prose size, and this article is sitting at 39 Kb, which is under the guideline for such a split. The nominator is using the wrong metric for measuring the size of the article to advocate for the proposal. Imzadi 1979 → 03:03, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

LATAM

There has been some dispute on regarding the listing of LATAM carriers. Please discuss your changes here instead of edit warring. "LATAM" itself is actually the name of the holding company. TravelLover37 (talk) 03:06, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

There are different kinds of mergers. The U.S. model is for two airlines to completely merge. The Europe model is for national carriers to merge into one corporation but maintain separate websites, brandings. The Latin America model has websites and brandings merged but subsidiaries remaining separate national airlines. This is how Copa (Panama and Colombia) and LATAM (many airlines) and Avianca (many airlines) are like.

Booking engines list each airline as "operated by", probably as legally required.

WP:AIRPORT projectwide, we list both branding and legal operating carriers, except for U.S. regionals due to its non-notability. These Latin American "groups" have not been exempted this way.

Most airport articles in Latin America have these legal carriers listed separately by their "sub-" branding. Why should LAX be different? HkCaGu (talk) 03:37, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks TravelLover37, LATAM has been the holding company for the disparate LAN acquisitions for the last few years. Of late LATAM has become the new brand for the merged LATAM airline replacing all of the old LAN and TAM brands throughout South America. Wikipedia editors have perhaps naively just replaced LAN with LATAM in these articles without actually finding out exactly what the situation really is. As far as I can tell from the RS the new brand does not have any sub brands included ie LAN Colombia is now just LATAM NOT LATAM Colombia - I have searched and searched the LATAM website the LATAM timetable and other news and published sources for such mentions (ps booking websites other than the specific airline timetable appear to me to be not RS) and have found nothing compelling.

And all I did was to put a citation needed template on the entry - HkCaGu reverted this which is very very wrong. All he/she needs to do is to do what I asked and provide a sensible recent post merger reliable source to back up his/her claim, that is what the templates were asking. Also user HKCaGu needs to realise that using other wikipedia articles to support his/her views can not be used as justification for making or reverting specific edits. And yes I do realise that this is bigger than Los Angeles but notice I'm not wildly going and changing all the other articles where this could (should) be changed.

On a slightly broader note I think this is symptomatic of a level of pedanticness among some editors of (only) airport articles who fail to understand the bigger picture of what Wikipedia is and is not. The destination tables are of very very questionable encyclopedic content, and are way way too complicated and detailed for an encyclopedia. I am close to suggesting that all such tables be deleted and maybe belong more appropriately in Wikivoyage, failing that I do believe that detail such being suggested here where just listing the brand most recognised by the general public would be an absolutely positive move the right direction. The current pedantic detail aids no one reading airport articles.

Andrewgprout (talk) 06:42, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Calling schedules and booking engines outside of LATAM's website not-RS is beyond me (and many other Wikipedians). Making a CN tag is beyond bureaucratic. Proving there are separate LATAM airlines by asking for citations in the destination table of one airport is not appropriate. Wikipedia is a volunteer project. Everyone contributes wherever he/she has familiarity and the computing/time resource. I found my limited ability best used for maintaining projectwide consistency. I also understand the bigger picture and supported various initiatives in reducing excessive details. If you want to fix the bigger picture you should not pick the fight here at LAX. Go to WP:AIRPORT and argue LATAM entries should be combined, or go further out to challenge the encylopedicity of destination lists. Putting a CN tag here is disruptive. HkCaGu (talk) 05:19, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

However all that is exactly how Wikipedia works. Everything needs to be verifiable, if it is not verifiable any entry can and should be removed. I have re-added the CN tags and you should not remove them without consensus. Andrewgprout (talk) 09:21, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Los Angeles International Airport. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://magazine.continental.com/200907-the-company
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120229215249/https://www.la-next.com:80/ to http://www.la-next.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:48, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Terminals section was Removed; Confusion Between Which International Airlines are in the TBIT and Which International Airlines are in Terminal 2

Hello. I think the terminals column needs to come back since viewers don't know which specific international airlines are in the TBIT and which specific international airlines are in Terminal 2. Please list all the specific airlines in the bold area if you are going to remove the terminals column from the airline-destination list. Thank you. 71.198.231.208 (talk) 08:34, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Please review Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Wikipedia is not a travel guide. We focus in Wikipedia articles on big picture, high-level issues --- in this case, what airlines link Los Angeles to what destinations --- not detailed low-level issues like which terminals are used by an airline at each airport. --Coolcaesar (talk) 20:42, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

As mentioned above, Wikipedia is not a travel guide. This is a broad consensus that has been discussed in depth at WT:Airports. Garretka (talk) 14:56, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

If you wish to contribute, there is a Request for comment on removal of terminal information in airline and destination tables. Wykx (talk) 17:56, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Level Airline

The route LAX-Barcelona will be seasonal. You can check the information in this link (spanish). In the airline's website, you can book PUJ/OAK/EZE to BCN for 2018 but LAX-BCN only from 1 June 2017 through 26 October 2017. --by---->Javierito92 (Talk to me) 17:38, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Terminal information

Somewhat against the consensus gained at thr rfc at WT:AIRPORTS this unencylopaedic information is being reinstated when deletedAndrewgprout (talk) 01:57, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Maybe the proof that the 'average user' is using it... But the RfC presumed that the 'average user' doesn't need it... Wykx (talk) 07:01, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

average user is not necessarily the average fanboy editor me thinks Andrewgprout (talk) 11:41, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Los Angeles International Airport. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160426100832/http://www.polaraircargo.com/contact-list.html to http://www.polaraircargo.com/contact-list.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121004023628/http://www.nefafoundation.org/miscellaneous/US_v_Ressam_9thcircuitappeals0210.pdf to http://www.nefafoundation.org/miscellaneous/US_v_Ressam_9thcircuitappeals0210.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:17, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Xiamen Airlines to Qingdao

Go check Google Flights or Xiamen Airlines website for proof that Nonstop Los Angeles to Qingdao service on Xiamen Airlines Flight 858 starts on December 11, 2017.

What you need is a sensible secondary reference that the flight is starting on a particular date. Deriving that information from an airline or meta search engine is WP:OR. That is how Wikipedia works please read WP:BURDEN, WP:V and WP:RS Andrewgprout (talk) 23:07, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Has now been found by another editor - thanksAndrewgprout (talk) 23:30, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Los Angeles International Airport. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120301162643/http://nefafoundation.org/miscellaneous/FeaturedDocs/U.S._v_Ressam_Complaint.pdf to http://nefafoundation.org/miscellaneous/FeaturedDocs/U.S._v_Ressam_Complaint.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:30, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

RfC at WT:AIRPORTS

Hello, your input would be appreciated at this RfC about how we should give references for the "Airlines and destinations" tables of articles about airports. Thank you. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 11:53, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Los Angeles International Airport. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160517114932/http://www.china-airlines.com/en/cargonewsen/ to http://www.china-airlines.com/en/cargonewsen/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:07, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Update on FAA airport diagram for LAX replacement

Hello and good day. The diagram there now in the inbox is outdated as runway 7L/25R has been extended to 12,923 feet. Go to external links below to view diagram dated October 11, 2018, please replace old diagram with new diagram that is in external links. Thank you and have a good weekend.2601:581:8000:21B0:304C:CD3D:3958:6A95 (talk) 21:09, 19 October 2018 (UTC) Was done 10/22/18. Thank you.2601:581:8000:21B0:304C:CD3D:3958:6A95 (talk) 22:47, 22 October 2018 (UTC)