Skacorica

I just asked a question in another thread, which prompted me to do a search and I found a few threads related, but no definitively titled one.

What do you guys find to be the best airports you frequent? How about the worst? What I mean is flight timeliness/reliability, connections, staff availability and friendliness, and overall experience?

I realize there are different classes of airports (comparing John Wayne to LAX is obviously not a fair comparison) but in general?

I am fortunate that my home base (DIA) is fairly reliable and generally have helpful staff. The fact that the land is huge and there are a lot of runways means not a lot of delays.

On the other hand, I have to connect through ORD quite often and I am almost always delayed, the staff seem much more rude in general, and I always feel a bit unhappier after having spent time there.

andrewk829

Aside from such factors as how delay-prone they are, my favorite airports generally have these traits:
(1) All post-security areas are connected, permitting maximum access to shops and restaurants and opportunities for extended strolling.
(2) They are clean and shiny, with pleasant waiting areas that don't use orange and lime green chairs from 1970s-era bus depots that have gashes in them (I'm talking about you, JFK terminal 7).
(3) They are spacious and architecturally interesting and have a lot of natural light.
(4) They have some quiet and peaceful places to pass the time other than airline lounges. And they offer free WiFi that is reasonably fast.
(5) They don't seem like they have been obviously retrofitted . . . e.g., security screening does not happen in converted hallways (Hello, LAX).

A couple of my favorites are:
Minneapolis . . . bright and airy
Denver . . .modern and clean and bright; good restaurant options
Most any large airport in Asia . . . they'll put U.S. airports to shame . . . NRT, HKG, PEK, PVG, BKK, and the granddaddy of them all, SIN.

Many smaller stations are quite pleasant . . . Indianapolis and Madison (WI) come to mind with their recently constructed or remodeled terminals.

Some of my least favorites are:
All of the New York Airports . . . they are national embarrassments . . .
Atlanta . . . too little natural light; you lose "sense of place".
LAX . . . many parts of it are looking stale and frumpy.

lax2010

BOS: train to downtown costs $1.35 with connecting shuttle bus right outside of the main terminal.

MIA: rapid non-stop bus to South Beach costs $2.35 right outside of terminal E.

TimInSF

Wirelessly posted (BlackBerry9630/5.0.0.591 Profile/MIDP-2.1 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 VendorID/105)

IAD always seems to me that it would be more appropriate for Nigeria's capital city than that of the United States.

Tim

dfreeman02

What does this have to do with UA?

lax2010

Yeah, you are right. Perhaps, they will have to update the title to add the word UA like the "best UA airport to walk"...

euslaner

Yes, you'd think that an advanced industrial nation would have a well-functioning airport--e.g., FRA or CDG?

mahasamatman

Sorry, but I'd say FRA is far from well-functioning. Any airport that regularly uses stairs for mainline flights (including 747s) is a third-world airport.

vandalby

Well, the qualifying criteria from the OP are kind of all over the place, so that being said:

My bane right now is LGA. This is mostly based on physical plant of the terminal, which is an abomination. Fortunately the RCC remains comfortable. UA staff at this location are top notch, at least to this GS. Robert at the check in desk and Dennis in the RCC take amazing care of me.

As far as very enjoyable terminals, it's just a small UX station, but I was really struck by how nice a job they did in MSN - granite countertops at the check in desks, limited by decent food options and an overall comfortable airport considering lack of RCC, etc.

Thunderroad

I suspect that some of the nicest airports served by UA are some of the smaller ones since they are easier in terms of lay-out, short security lines, friendly feel, etc. But I don't get to those too often, so among the larger ones...

I may well be biased because it's my home airport (and my more general bias in favor of northern California), but I like SFO a lot. That being said, it can get fogged in with resulting delays, and security lines can be long for non-elite flyers (and sometimes for elite ones). Still, I like the lay-out, food choices, usually friendly personnel there, spaciousness, views from some spots, etc. I tend to think that it's the nicest major airport in the USA.

I love Singapore's airport for different reasons: It's almost like a mini-city, yet quite efficient. Hong Kong too--not as interesting as Singapore, but beautiful views from some spots and quite easy to navigate even though it's such a major facility.

I've come to intensely dislike FRA as a complex, unwieldy center that can be tough to figure out even having been there before. Security and otherwise transferring between flights can take a long time, with posted information often incomplete or missing. Someone somehow seems to have left out the very admirable German efficiency in designing and running this airport.

Domestically, not a big fan of LAX, JFK, LGA, ORD and especially IAD, for various reasons.

Skacorica

Well the fact that Denver is a united hub means that I am a mostly united customer talking to other united customers, that probably have more airports in common. Now, play nice.

N1120A

I base my favorite stations on the following:

1) Quality of ground staff - This is absolutely huge in the case of IRROPS or TSA moronic behavior.

2) Ease and speed of reaching gates - A pretty terminal isn't much good if I have to go on a long run when delayed.

3) At least one quality place to eat.

4) Bells and whistles

Of the hubs - I rank them in this order.

LAX - I don't care if it isn't a giant shopping mall, or about connecting to other airlines. Its the most ideal airport in the world for O&D (and I'm O&D) and has the best people on the ground.

IAD - The aesthetics aren't great, but the ground staff saved my whole vacation last summer.

SFO - Basically tied with IAD, only without the cool personal experience. Better looking airport and the food is a little better.

ORD - Mad house and lots of IRROPS.

DEN - Crazy distances possible, especially if you are connecting to/from UAX. Ground staff are, by far, the worst in the system.

Of outstations, these are great:

YYZ - Amazing staff in a station that doesn't have a massive number of 1K/GS, so those of us who are regulars there are always taken care of.

BUF - Very similar to YYZ - must be the water in Lake Ontario.

These can be lacking:

MSY - They had a good station manager, but most of the ground staff I couldn't stand.

MCO - No clue how to treat high level elites

Any UAX handled station.

Uh, you do realize IAD isn't the only airport in the US, right?

I disagree.

1) I love using stairs.

2) Its a far more efficient use of space.

3) Its faster, even with bussing.

FriendlySkies

Like: DEN,MCI,SFO,PWM,MCO,RDU,FRA

Dislike: LAX,IAD,IAH,EWR,LGA,

ORD4R

+1 ^ FRA, CDG, LHR are no match for SIN, HKG, BKK

ffI

Agree with the stairs bit. Slows things down. Otherwise it is better than CDG and LHR.

Then consider IAD until recently terrible. The train improves it a bit in some respects.

ORD before 15 years ago was a great place. One could walk from one end to the other with very little hassle for connections. Now with the intl terminal and train and even the domestic ones partly cordoned off by security, it looks ugly.
There should be more connections from terminal to terminal underground perhaps inside security so one can connect from UA to DL etc.

LAX is OK for O & D, but terrible for connections, esp with different airlines.