Bypassed LAX! Loved it!
 

Within a short span of notice from my company, I had to go to Anaheim for a meeting. Instead of taking CX's direct HKG-LAX, I took a mini connection via SFO today. Flew CX872 HKG-SFO then connected to AA3167 SFO-SNA in complete bypassing of LAX for the trip. What a sense of civilized journey I experienced by paying the extra $70.00 (the extra difference between HKG-SFO-SNA & HKG-LAX). Airport staff at SFO & SNA were by far more courteous than the dracula attitude I have experience at the hands of baggage handlers, parking attendants, ground staff at LAX. Nor did I have to go through the shambles and dilapidated infrastructure of KLAX's 3rd world refugee-like facilities.

I read in past threads that this is one of the ways to fly CX and avoid LAX and am I ever grateful I can do so. Don't know why some people still don't.

TBIT may not be the greatest terminal, but I have came to appreciate that it is functional. There are very few, if any, weather delays, and baggage do not get lost like LHR.

IMO, SFO is leagues better than LAX, as I have long considered TBIT the armpit of the United States and a disgraceful gateway to this country. That said, on my recent pass through TBIT, significant cosmetic improvements were underway in many of the public areas (following the reconstruction of the lounges last year). It's a bandaid until the long-term plan to demolish terminals and build new ones can get underway, but at least it's something. In comparison, SFO is arguably the finest gateway to the United States, at least the International Terminal is.

I agree that LAX experiences few weather-related flight delays, but LA World Airports can't claim credit for that.

Does AA have good connections SFO - ORD? Would be interesting to break up the journey from HKG and maybe have a short layover.

Yes, ~5x daily. ORD is a big AA hub (although I imagine UA has more frequency, as both SFO and ORD are big hubs for UA).

Let's hope CX doesn't make the dumbest mistake of adding a 4th daily flight to LAX. Currently there are no Asian carriers having 4 dailies to LAX and hope they see this as an indication that a 4th flight will not work. They should be worrying about how to fill seats on CX885 the next two years which have been brought up often as having poor loads. :rolleyes:

As a matter of fact SQ will be reducing 7 weekly flights effective Oct 1st.

MIA is much, much worse than TBIT.

SNA is beautiful (but I am a bit biased ;) )

SNA is quite nice. Used to be my home airport. That runway is a little short, though, and the strict closing time was annoying.

I'd be curious as to when the miracle day will arrive when the words "Acceptable" or "Good" can even be mentioned in the same sentence pertaining to the description of LAX. As of now and perhaps the next 5 years or so, those two adjectives are of remote distances to describe this terminal & airport as the distance between California & Asia's coastal edges. ;)

LAWA doesn't control the weather, so they have 0% credit to minimal weather delays.

TBIT is scores better than JFK, IAH, ATL, IAD, LHR, CDG, FRA, EWR & even ORD; but SFO is better than LAX.

Folks !

Before this thread turns ugly, may I please remind everyone here that the main topic is LAX vs SFO, and not what ethnic group does who or what. I have edited out some comments and deleted posts altogether.

So unless you want this thread closed, please stick to the topic.

Thank you

Guy Betsy
Cathay Pacific Asiamiles forum co-moderator

Disagree on the JFK part...I'm no expert on the rest, but I am a regular at TBIT and JFK on intl flights (probably like most other CX DMs) and take JFK over TBIT.

Ditto SFO is quite convenient for intl. Domestic is straight out of the 70s.

My comment was comparing TBIT to other US international gateways. I don't know about MIA, so can't comment on that. It may well be the other armpit of the United States.

Have to disagree in part re JFK: T4 makes quite a statement and is also very functional. Delta does need to take a wrecking ball to T2 and T3, though. Can't comment on the other terminals.

ATL's Concourse E is nothing to write home about, but it's pretty good, and it's functional.

EWR Concourse B is fine. Nothing spectacular, but nothing offensive either.

Haven't gone through IAH for international, so can't comment.

My beef with TBIT is that it was built for the Olympics, the 1984 Olympics. Until the lounge reconfiguration and refurbishment got things going int he right direction, no one had put one red cent into the place--more than 20 years. And it showed. Things are getting better. But the simple truth is: it's ugly, and it's not suited for purpose. No comparison with SFO. Not even in the same league.

I agreed that SFO is better than LAX. LAX and TBIT both need much work... lets keep our fingers crossed, we certainly don't want it ended up like another LHR.

The TBIT/MIA comparison is a tough one, but I'm pretty sure the award goes to TBIT. My main complaint for MIA is the 1hr+ lines at immigration that often happen in the afternoon as flights from every country in central/south america/caribbean arrive at the same time. But my beef with TBIT goes beyond that... haphazard lines at immigration, no elite/FC security line, waiting in line once to check in only to wait in line again to see that your checked luggage is x-rayed. There's nothing inside past security, save for a sandwich shop, mobile phone rental, and the lounges. I once had the misfortune to only realize, once inside, that there is not one ATM in the whole terminal beyond security. I had to leave and clear security again. At least you don't have to ride the foolish little bus out to the J lounge that's conveniently located in the middle of the tarmac anymore.

I admit it's not too bad if you have lounge access and are connecting through. But it's a royal embarrassment that this is, for many passengers, their first introduction to the US.