Turbulence over LAX

Re “Council members seek boost in tourism,” Feb. 24

The Los Angeles Airport Commission has been feeding an elephant for so many years that it can barely fit in the room. The solution to the myriad problems of passenger traffic at LAX is simple: relocate cargo and maintenance to nearby airports such as Palmdale, Ontario and Long Beach.

Most of the real estate at LAX is used for aircraft maintenance and cargo operations, while passengers are forced to use a small horseshoe called World Way. Until the commissioners realize this and reclaim land along Century Boulevard (which was where the main passenger terminal was located until the 1960s), Imperial Boulevard (remember the Imperial Terminal?) and World Way West, we all will be forced to use a second-rate airport.

It’s too bad -- we deserve better, and it’s costing us time and money, and I haven’t even mentioned how it has compromised our security.

SCOTT SHULMAN

Los Angeles

*

The idea of international travelers being able to fly directly to their final destinations in the U.S. -- bypassing LAX rather than landing and changing planes -- sounds pretty logical to me. Maybe if they didn’t have to stop and change planes, they wouldn’t need new facilities. On top of that, Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa is encouraging airlines to start up service at other L.A.-owned facilities because LAX is overcrowded. How can we be overcrowded if we’re losing all these flights? And why not spend some money encouraging airlines and passengers to use the other airports and relieve the pressure on LAX? Maybe Los Angeles World Airports or the airlines simply want a showpiece, but most travelers I know couldn’t care less about an airport as long as they can get through it.

ANDY PEARLMAN

Marina del Rey

*

Re “LAX watches world go by,” Feb. 23

I work for United Airlines. I don’t recall the state of the facilities at Los Angeles International Airport ever being mentioned to us when we inquired about the shifting of West Coast international flights from LAX to San Francisco. We were told it’s because a survey showed that passengers arriving at San Francisco tend to be customers on our connecting flights more than those at LAX.

A lot of us don’t think the survey results sound convincing. I’d like to see another survey.

CONNIE ELLIOT

Studio City

*

Not only is the world “going by,” it mocks how ugly and uncomfortable LAX is. My associates, who live in 108 other countries, tell me this when they come to L.A.

I don’t blame Qantas Airways for switching to San Francisco. L.A. doesn’t have a clue how a world-class city needs to have world-class hospitality to make a good first impression. Even Albuquerque’s leadership has figured this out -- what a pleasing airport to be welcomed into New Mexico. But LAX remains the first impression of L.A. (and perhaps of the U.S.), an inhospitable, ugly mess.

TOM STEERS

San Pedro