FlyerTalk Forums

FlyerTalk Forums (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/index.php)
-   Singapore Airlines | KrisFlyer (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/singapore-airlines-krisflyer-500/)
-   -   Parking at remote stand at LAX as F pax. Itís just not right!!! (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/singapore-airlines-krisflyer/1891729-parking-remote-stand-lax-f-pax-s-just-not-right.html)

zrs70 Feb 1, 18 1:48 pm

Parking at remote stand at LAX as F pax. Itís just not right!!!
 
First world problem rant...

enjoyed a a great flight NRT-LAX in F. We arrived at the remote stand. There was no separate transport for first-class passengers. This meant we got off first, got onto the bus first, and then were in the interior of the bus - causing us to be last off the bus. I know, I know, not the biggest issue in the whole scheme of things. Not the best way to end the good trip!

24left Feb 1, 18 2:31 pm


Originally Posted by zrs70 (Post 29367860)
First world problem rant...

enjoyed a a great flight NRT-LAX in F. We arrived at the remote stand. There was no separate transport for first-class passengers. This meant we got off first, got onto the bus first, and then were in the interior of the bus - causing us to be last off the bus. I know, I know, not the biggest issue in the whole scheme of things. Not the best way to end the good trip!

Yup, and it's not going to get any better re bus stands, at least until the new midfield terminal is built.

P.S. I flew NH F LAX-NRT and NRT-SFO and there was no F escort on departure or arrival at either LAX, NRT or SFO.

In case anyone is curious, this will be the future


.

Top of climb Feb 1, 18 4:00 pm

Bus stands are not in themselves an issue, but there should be a separate bus for F pax. I arrived in FLR once off a LX (operated by Helvetica) E190 and they had a separate bus for the six J pax; and RJ had a separate bus at AUH for the 3 J pax. If these airlines can do it for what is basically an intra-Europe premium cabin then SQ can certainly do it for 4 F pax.

I have found the soft reception for F at SQ outports quite varying. The high water mark for me was at CDG recently, where the station manager was hovering in the corridor between the BP scanning point and the airbridge (if the plane is at the right stand at CDG-1 SQ can use three boarding gates for the 777, one for F, one for J, one for Y, even though only two airbridges are operational) waiting to intercept us, take our bags, take us on board and introduce us to the crew etc. Not that this is necessary, but it certainly made us feel special!

lobo411 Feb 1, 18 11:54 pm

LAX is a pathetic joke of an airport. I've literally been to Third World airports that are more efficient and more intelligently designed than LAX.

Kacee Feb 2, 18 8:47 am

So they should have parked at the gate, let the privileged in F disembark, then shut the door, taxied back out to a gate stand and allowed the huddled masses in Y and J to be bused to the gate?

Let them eat cake.

azepine00 Feb 2, 18 10:51 am


Originally Posted by lobo411 (Post 29369817)
LAX is a pathetic joke of an airport. I've literally been to Third World airports that are more efficient and more intelligently designed than LAX.

yes because they were all designed and built in recent years.. most major airports were built long time ago with much lower capacity; most are a nightmare and lax is not any worse than transferring for example in fra, cdg or lhr...

lobo411 Feb 2, 18 5:29 pm


Originally Posted by azepine00 (Post 29371674)
yes because they were all designed and built in recent years.. most major airports were built long time ago with much lower capacity; most are a nightmare and lax is not any worse than transferring for example in fra, cdg or lhr...

I think that lets LA World Airports off way too easy. Ontario International is about 40 miles outside of DTLA, and there's a straight shot public right of way along the I-10 corridor. LA has managed or owned ONT since 1967 (only recently returning control to Ontario). Anyone could have predicted that LAX would become overcrowded, and it should have been obvious that the difficulty of acquiring land around LAX would make expansion impractical.

LAWA could and should have dramatically expanded ONT and built a dedicated rail line from ONT to DTLA. It should have treated ONT like one of the region's major airports, but instead LAWA treated it like a colony to be exploited. Considering how badly LAWA managed things, I think LAX's bad rep is well earned.

azepine00 Feb 2, 18 5:58 pm


Originally Posted by lobo411 (Post 29373194)
I think that lets LA World Airports off way too easy. Ontario International is about 40 miles outside of DTLA, and there's a straight shot public right of way along the I-10 corridor. LA has managed or owned ONT since 1967 (only recently returning control to Ontario). Anyone could have predicted that LAX would become overcrowded, and it should have been obvious that the difficulty of acquiring land around LAX would make expansion impractical.

LAWA could and should have dramatically expanded ONT and built a dedicated rail line from ONT to DTLA. It should have treated ONT like one of the region's major airports, but instead LAWA treated it like a colony to be exploited. Considering how badly LAWA managed things, I think LAX's bad rep is well earned.

having multiple major airports (eg international etc) in a single city is rarely practical; the biggest challenge for LAX is complete lack of any public transportation infrastructure and this is outside LAWA control.. there are many issues that contribute to current mess and it's unlikely to get bette
ONT is no different from arguably much better positioned BUR, SNA which still can only support WN type domestic travel. Given a choice any major carrier will still pick LAX to benefit from international connections.

zrs70 Feb 3, 18 1:15 am


Originally Posted by Kacee (Post 29371129)
So they should have parked at the gate, let the privileged in F disembark, then shut the door, taxied back out to a gate stand and allowed the huddled masses in Y and J to be bused to the gate?

Let them eat cake.

Yes, that is precisely what Iím saying! :)

Annalisa12 Feb 3, 18 1:33 am


Originally Posted by Kacee (Post 29371129)
So they should have parked at the gate, let the privileged in F disembark, then shut the door, taxied back out to a gate stand and allowed the huddled masses in Y and J to be bused to the gate?

Let them eat cake.

Agree.

24left Feb 3, 18 8:31 am

Aside from the fact that many of us who have to fly to or through LAX "intensely dislike" the place, OP made it clear from their opening line that the post was a...


Originally Posted by zrs70 (Post 29367860)
First world problem rant....

So, for those who seem to think of Marie Antoinette, the universe is all us vs them, and in the world of flying, often more so. Look at zone boarding and priority lanes. Frankly, the airlines created this mess in the first place.

As for OP's expectation of better service from SQ on arrival at LAX, well I expected an escort on arrival with LH F for my flights with them. Of the dozen or so departures and arrivals in F for international long-haul flights, I can count the few times this was available. Certainly not provided with NH, but did get it with LX F at LAX.

Parts of LAX (e.g. T2) were built in 1961. Like many or most U.S. airports, the authorities who run/manage them had no clue about the huge increase in pax traffic to come, or planners did tell them, but they made the decision to put it off.

I have the "luxury" of not alway having to transit via LAX for my international flights. But my advice for SQ pax and anyone else is, deal with it or find ways to avoid it.

Where I live, all tickets issued have an airport improvement fee added on. No one likes it, but we have new and efficient airports and maybe it was worth it.

Mlee888 Feb 3, 18 12:49 pm

I do this journey quite often in J so I completely see where OP is coming from. Itís pointless being able to disembark first when all this means is a longer wait on the bus and most probable you end being one of the last to exit = longer wait at immigration.

Its just something Iíve come to accept. But I believe this is only while theyíre going through their multi-million dollar renovation that seems to be happening at the moment.

longtimeflyin Feb 4, 18 8:58 am


Originally Posted by zrs70 (Post 29367860)
First world problem rant...

enjoyed a a great flight NRT-LAX in F. We arrived at the remote stand. There was no separate transport for first-class passengers. This meant we got off first, got onto the bus first, and then were in the interior of the bus - causing us to be last off the bus. I know, I know, not the biggest issue in the whole scheme of things. Not the best way to end the good trip!

I'm surprised about this, actually. I recently flew J from SIN to IST, and once we got to IST, J deplaned (no F on the 772), got on the bus, and then we immediately were whisked away once everyone in J was on the bus.

That's the way it should always be done. I should not have to interact with Y/PY.

lokijuh Feb 4, 18 8:28 pm

[QUOTE=zrs70;29367860This meant we got off first, got onto the bus first, and then were in the interior of the bus - causing us to be last off the bus. [/QUOTE]

Those of us well versed in such bus trips (TG .. SIN-BKK ... Y ... in particular) know to move immediately beside the entry door, such that you don't block the door but will still be one of the first off! This of course doesn't work when they open the opposite doors when it comes to disembarking the bus ...:rolleyes:

Having said that a couple of cars, or small mini bus on the tarmac for F passengers you think would be sufficient ...

miuk Feb 6, 18 6:54 pm

Same thing happens on CX as well when you luck out with the bus gates.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:40 pm.


This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.