LAX: does anyone actually _like_ this airport?

[kentauros]

Thanks to the nightmare of nightmare-traveling experiences recently, out of six airports visited in about a week, LAX was by far the very worst. Employees that either didn't know what they were doing or, worse, contradicting information given by previous employees of the same airline (Continental, Qantas, American Airlines), ridiculous layout and ability to get to other terminals in a short time, and terminals that looked 30 years out of date. The last terminal I connected through was Terminal 4 and it seemed okay for modernity, but Terminal 6 seemed like I had landed in the 70s. I especially don't understand the reason for the clumping-layout of the gate chairs. What's wrong with rows?

The International Terminal building was a breath of fresh air when I had to go through it on the way to New zealand. It was like a whole other airport! Modern, clean, nicely laid out, polite and infinitely helpful employees. Why so very different from the rest of the airport? Although I'm far more familiar with Houston's IAH, it's not like I go on trips even every other year to understand it's still a better designed airport, yet LAX does more business. Houston has both an underground and overhead rail connecting the terminals and the one at DFW is even better. I was truly impressed with it. I would have liked some kind of rail or slidewalks at all the rest. The airports at both Sydney and Auckland sure could have used at least slidewalks because all of their in-between services (security, baggage, customs) required very long walks.

Oh, TSA security at LAX was not bad at all. Going through was just fine, although it took going through security at all the other airports and then return flight before someone didn't understand what my little AlphaSmart-dana wordprocessor was and had to do an additional check (and resulting pat-down of me) before they were satisfied it wasn't something nefarious. Oh, and you don't have to take your shoes off in either NZ or Australia ;)

So, are there any plans to make the rest of LAX like their International Terminal? Any plans for overhead or underground rail to efficiently and intelligently connect the terminals? Or is that looping bus-system all it's ever going to be? I did walk from Terminal 6 to the International Terminal upon getting to LAX the first time and that was a helluva walk, too. But, I was going in the opposite direction of the buses, and by all others' advice, still got there quicker than the buses would have.

Just not a very good impression from me that one of the nation's busiest airports lacks so much in efficient design. I sincerely hope it will be improved that way in the future :)

[HopeHoops]

1. It ranks third for me in "where not to go"

First is easily Newark and O'Hare is an easy second.

[kentauros]

2. Ok, that's good to know.

This was my first ever international trip and easily the worst flying experience I've ever had. My boss said I became a "seasoned traveler" in one week and that it's really rare to get all the problems I had in one trip (major rain-delay, missed flights, rebookings, one cancelation and other minor delays.) Maybe next time nothing will go wrong ;)

[HopeHoops]

3. Yeah, right.....

I was supposed to have a 767 back from LAX to Boston and it was canceled for "mechanical problems" (translation: underbooked). So, I had to pull an OJ Simpson from the old Hertz commercials to get to another terminal about six miles away (seemed like it) to catch a flight on an MD-80 to Dallas, had to wait about four hours for the NEXT MD-80 to Boston. If you've never been on an MD-80, think old, loud, charter bus with wings and you're sitting over the engine (wherever you are in the plane). Fortunately, Dallas has a nice airport and the bar was open.

[mwooldri]

5. Funny, I thought Newark isn't too bad as airports go.

Now London Heathrow... naaa. I try to get into Gatwick rather than Heathrow, but since some regulation changes all the transatlantic airlines are going for slots there and discontinuing their Gatwick operations, Continental being one of those airlines (and for economy they're not that bad... of course British Airways is better but they're more expensive usually).

Mark.

[tjwmason]

19. Heathrow is truly nasty

Gatwick is pretty bad too - fundamentally I don't like airports though.

City is the only decent London airport, but it only serves very short-haul flights.

[LeftyMom]

4. I haven't been through LAX since LA is close enough to drive

LaGuardia is horrible. Security took forever. Somebody swiped my hoodie on the way through. The building is decrepit. The roof was leaking and it was sunny outside. There were just buckets on the floor to collect the brownish drippage, nobody seemed to be fixing the leaky pipes or whatever. They schedule too many flights for the runway, so my plane waited in a long traffic jam of planes on the tarmac with the fasten seatbelt sign on. But it was an "on time" flight because it left the gate on time. :eyes:

Other than that I don't have any airport horror stories. I try to avoid Atlanta since it's so damned big and it takes ages to change planes if you have to go to another area (though they do have that shuttle thing) but other than that my gripes have to do with relatively minor stuff like bad food and not having outlets at the gate so I can plug in and recharge my phone and laptop.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

6. My dear kentauros...

I'm sorry you had so many problems (or really, ANY problems there.)

We use it all the time, and are used to the layout. And since we take off and land there, there are no problems with transfers...

As far as I know, there are no plans for modernization...

:hi:

[Initech]

7. Horrible airport.

And I live in LA. It's such a sprawled out, horrible, crappy mess. I flew KLM LAX - Amsterdam and landing in Schipol was literally like another world. Schipol is a great airport. Hell even Ontario and Santa Ana are sooooooooooooooooooooooo much better than the shithole that is LAX.

Even last year I flew LAX - Detroit. The Northwest terminal in LAX is horrible. The Northwest terminal in Detroit is ultra modern and very nice, with friendly employees. Much different.

Oh and another thing - if you lose any items on your flight don't bother trying to locate them - I spent HOURS on the phone trying to locate my missing MP3 player - and no results whatsoever - every agent I talked to referred me to someone else, who then referred me back to the agent I had previously talked to. I finally wound up buying a new one. :banghead:

[Sequoia]

8. I used to like it.

I would volunteer to pick up people flying in for business. Where I worked was very close to LAX. Of course, this was back in the late 1980s so things weren't bad then.

[GoddessOfGuinness]

9. I would if it weren't so lax.

Sorry. Couldn't resist.

[kentauros]

21. Since LAX is always capitalized

my first thought is usually LOX (liquid Oxygen) :P

[WritingIsMyReligion]

10. LAX is pretty bad. So is Atlanta-Hartsfield.

O'Hare is obnoxious, but Midway is sleek, so overall you can't knock the Chicago area airports too badly.

In short, any hub airport is likely going to suck at least somewhat because of the absurd traffic flow through it.

[SacredCow]

11. I flew into LAX on 4/18 and out of LAX on 4/25....

smooth sailing both times, but it was all domestic flights and no changing terminals.

[Iggo]

12. LAX ain't so bad....

...as long as you remember to keep kind of a combination Rock Concert/L.A. County Men's Central Jail mentality.

[kentauros]

22. As I don't ever intend to end up in the L.A. County Men's Central Jail,

I'll just have to take your word for what that actually means ;)

[Iggo]

25. Oh it's a wonderful experience.

I highly recommend it!

:sarcasm:

[Mike 03]

13. I've seen a lot worse, but LAX is not much fun either. The cabbies scare me. NT

[Initech]

18. True. The old Detroit airport comes to mind.

Thank god they finally modernized it. It's really nice now.

[Bertha Venation]

14. YES! Yes, I do. It is one of the gateways back to my family.

So no matter how it sucks, if I have to go through there, I am grateful that it is there.

[kentauros]

20. Oh, I'm not saying it shouldn't be there,

only that it could have been better designed. At the very least, eliminate the antiquated terminal-bus system and add a nice, sleek electric rail system. I haven't been through as many airports as most here, but I was truly impressed with the overhead rail system at Dallas. It seems to me that something like that could be added to LAX without much trouble. At DFW, all access to that level was by interior escalators, so it really wouldn't be that difficult for LA to add one.

The one at DFW is called Skylink and it appears that Heathrow is going to install a version, too (or already has.) :)

[huskerlaw]

15. I refer to the pick-up/parking area

as the 10th circle of hell. The layout is absolutely ridiculous, practically begging for accidents (of which there are many). I live in LA, but I refuse to do airport runs there, unless it's an international flight and therefore unavoidable. I almost always fly in/out of Burbank, and ask my guests to do the same. That airport sucks.

[Fleshdancer]

16. It's better flying out of their international terminal than flying into it

I've never been more frustrated flying back to the States than the time I flew into LAX. I swear they create random lines for the hell of it AFTER you go through customs. The security guards never know what the hell is going on which might be why they're so damn bitchy all the time.

[kentauros]

23. I understand about the random lines bit.

I remember after checking in with American Airlines that you had to go up an escalator (that was "metered" like those stoplights on freeways to prevent too many people from going up) just to get to two other lines going to Security. That was when I started talking to other people about how odd their methods were for handling large amounts of people in addition to the other shortcomings of the place.

[av8rdave]

17. No.

[carlyhippy]

24. Only drove past it, never entered, looks like a friggin big city

We land at John Wayne(orange co) instead, less hassle

[petronius]

26. I miss the observation platform - spent many hours up there as a kid

LAX doesn't bother me as much as other places - I never transfer there, and I'm used to the ins and outs of the layout...

[MineralMan]

27. I don't know. I've been flying in and out of LAX since 1965,

and I've never minded it at all. Security lines are fast-moving, and I know all the terminals. Going between terminals is just a short bus ride. Walk out, get on the bus, ride a few minutes, get off the bus.

Heck, I used to go down there and have lunch in the International Terminal, just to watch people, but that was years ago.

[kentauros]

28. Sure, if you're used to it, ANY inefficiently-designed part of the world is fine and dandy.

But first impressions mean a lot to many folks, including local governments trying to get people and businesses to move there. LAX does not engender a good impression at all. I have to wonder what impression International travelers "just passing through" end up with not only towards LA's airports but the US's other airports before they get to any of them...

I suppose if I flew through there every week, I'd "get used to it" as well, but why should I have to "get used to it"? Why not design it intelligently to begin with?

[MineralMan]

30. That'd be great, except for one thing:

LAX was designed in the early 1960s. Air travel was a lot less busy then than it is now. So, like a lot of aiports, it added onto what was already there...one terminal at a time. Today, it's one of the busiest airports in the world, but it still has its 1960s core.

It won't get any better until it's torn down and a brand new airport is built. When that happens, it will happen somewhere other than the current site and, like most large cities, the new airport will be far from the core of Los Angeles.

It'll all cost several billion dollars, and that's money nobody has. The airlines can't pay for it...they're barely keeping their heads above water. The taxpayers in CA don't want to pay for it. The city of Los Angeles doesn't want to pay for it. So, how do you feel about paying for it, so it will be more convenient for you when you pass through LAX? How does that sound to you?

The bottom line is that it's working as it is now. As long as you don't try to put too little time between flights, especially if you're changing airlines, you'll make your connecting flight. Just read the signs and follow them, and you'll be all set.

Frankly, it's no worse than O'Hare, Logan, JFK or any of the major city hubs. All have multiple terminals and require you to take some form of ground transport between them. Moving that many people through a complex just isn't easy.

As for international travelers, they have crappy airports in their own countries, too. If you travel a lot, you're used to it. I don't know if you've noticed, but airline magazines have terminal maps in them. If I'm flying to a strange airport, I study the terminal map before I get off the plane. It seems to work pretty well, and I haven't missed a connecting flight in years.

So, which major airport do you find to me a model of how things should be?

[kentauros]

31. First off, I have said that I don't fly very often, and this was my first ever international trip.

I had more problems outside of my control than most travelers get in a year (major rain-delays, rebookings, mechanical delays and a cancellation because of that and more rebookings after that.) So, the "problem" of not having any time between flights was not due to my lack of experience in booking things. Still, having to deal with a confusing airport and inept personnel did not give me a very favorable impression of your airport. As for the locals and the state not wanting to pay for making it better, well, I would have no problem with either the levying of fees (taxes) on travelers going through it so long as that money went strictly to improvements or a fund for rebuilding it. If that was not feasible, then yes, I would be all for the federal government using my tax dollars to rebuild it. Pull some of that money out of the "black budgets" and use it for something constructive and ultimately profitable to all :)

That'd be great, except for one thing:
LAX was designed in the early 1960s. Air travel was a lot less busy then than it is now. So, like a lot of airports, it added onto what was already there...one terminal at a time. Today, it's one of the busiest airports in the world, but it still has its 1960s core.

I guess I was close in my initial assessment that it felt like I had walked into an airport from the 1970s. If I'm getting a feel that it's that out of date, then isn't it about time it was remodeled at the very least to 21st century standards?

The bottom line is that it's working as it is now. As long as you don't try to put too little time between flights, especially if you're changing airlines, you'll make your connecting flight. Just read the signs and follow them, and you'll be all set.

I would assess that it's barely working as it is now. As others have pointed out, there are major problems with personnel not knowing what they are doing, not communicating with their counterparts (as I discovered for both Continental and AA personnel; at Houston, the Continental people seemed to know there jobs, whereas all I found at LAX was confusion and conflicts) as well as the fact that unless you pass through the airport regularly, simply studying the airport map just isn't enough. I didn't use the buses because airport personnel at the gate I came in at (69A) strongly suggested that I walk, due to the inefficiency and slowness of the buses. Obviously, it's pretty bad when even the resident personnel suggest walking is a better means of getting around...

Frankly, it's no worse than O'Hare, Logan, JFK or any of the major city hubs. All have multiple terminals and require you to take some form of ground transport between them. Moving that many people through a complex just isn't easy.

That's why I have had nothing but praise for those airports that use overhead and underground rail. It moves masses of people quickly and efficiently and with little to no impact on the other forms of people-moving within and outside the airport. Look at the link I gave for Dallas' Skylink rail.

As for international travelers, they have crappy airports in their own countries, too. If you travel a lot, you're used to it. I don't know if you've noticed, but airline magazines have terminal maps in them. If I'm flying to a strange airport, I study the terminal map before I get off the plane. It seems to work pretty well, and I haven't missed a connecting flight in years.

Even with planning ahead and looking up a PDF on LAX's website, it still was not the same as going through the airport in person. The maps did not prepare me for all the problems listed. Of course, I wouldn't expect their site to tell me the employees there were incompetent, either :P There were a few that were helpful, and most of those were in the International Terminal.

I went through three different airports in other countries, though only two were large airports (Sydney, Australia and Auckland, New Zealand) so that's the extent of my experience with the airports of other countries. And yet, I found both Auckland and Sydney superior in every way to LAX. Still had to walk a lot in both, but the layout and signage was better. Sydney also used a bus-system and the airport personnel recommended it, so I used it. Otherwise I would have been walking for twenty minutes to get to the proper terminal. I had plenty of time to do that, but I would have been tired and sweaty.

So, which major airport do you find to me a model of how things should be?

I understand you're probably defending the airport because you're a native, but even natives can dis and criticize what they have to "put up with". Just expect it from those of us that aren't natives, too.

As for a model airport to copy, I would say DFW was the best of all the ones I've been through, and that's saying a lot coming from a native Houstonian. You may not be aware, but Houstonians don't have much respect for the city of Dallas and vice versa. And yet, I can recognize a better design when I see and experience it and would take flights through DFW over IAH any day. If LAX wants to pattern their new airport after DFW, it would please people the world over :D

[RFKHumphreyObama]

29. I know what you mean

My first experience in the United States was flying into LAX after a 13-hour flight from Australia -meaning that I was already tired, hungry and exhausted. After getting through the long and tedious immigration line, I had to catch a connecting flight to San Diego. I hadn't realized that LAX had the system of different terminals for domestic flights -I thought that it would be like most airports where you just had one terminal for everything and that it would have restaurants, shops, etc. So, not knowing what to expect, I decided to get in early for my connecting flight and took the bus over to the terminal that they directed me to. It was only when I got to the seperate terminal that I realized what I was in for. The terminal was hot and the only food available was from the vending machines, which I couldn't use, because I only had large amounts of cash ($50, $100 etc) which I couldn't just put into a vending machine. To make it worse there was a backlog of flights because the blackout of the Northeast and Canada had happened the day before. So I ended up waiting for about 5-7 hours in a terminal that was hot and uncomfortable, just waiting away the time being thoroughly bored. It was not a good start to my US trip, although thankfully the rest of it was wonderful

Yes, I think LAX should be more efficiently designed and user-friendly