Parking at remote stand at LAX as F pax. It’s 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!

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


.

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!

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.

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 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.

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.

Yes, that is precisely what I’m saying! :)

Agree.

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...

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.

I do this journey quite often in J so I completely see where OP is coming from. It’s 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.

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.

[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 ...

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

If possible I go through SFO, though admittedly connections aren't as great as LAX. I wish SQ would fly to SEA, but if wishes were horses...

Slightly off-topic.

Does anyone know if SQ7 is still using a remote parking stand for departure from LAX to ICN/SIN still?

is this remote parking only for SQ or for all foreign airlines arriving at LAX?

Tks!

wow this would suck if all asian flights have to disembark using buses.

Must be something new at LAX as this didnt happen last year.

That would make sense. SQ12 > SQ 7 13:25-17:50 (4h 25m ground time).
SQ8 > SQ11 06:40-10:00. (3h 20m gound time)

Maybe between the 1 hour less gate occupancy time and early morning they let SQ8/11 use a gate?

FWIW, I’ve flown on both SQ7/8 & SQ11/12 this year and was never at a remote gate for the in-bound or out-bound. Perhaps I was the anomaly?

I've had bus gates twice this year for SQ7.

I believe there is some construction or other issues ongoing at LAX currently. Recently I've noticed multiple morning arrivals going to the remote stands where they would typically park at TBIT, while gates sit empty. Whenever I've flown SQ from LAX they never used the remote stands. I think it is a temporary issue, and not just related to SQ or Asian carriers. I've seen it with Virgin Australia, Qantas, and LATAM as well. I just arrived yesterday from HND on AA and we parked at a remote position, although AA handled it so well. They had at least 10 buses lined up for our arrival and didn't wait to fill them; they were sent to the terminal 25-30 people at a time. I didn't mind, as we disembarked via stairs from the second (L2) door and passed right by the big beautiful Dreamliner GE engines!

Try theprivaesuite.com

You would have done something like this:

I remember landing at DXB in J at a remote stand ... sneaking onto the F shuttle bus there.

It's almost not fair to compare to that experience

Buses are operated by the airport, not by the airline. This is why they will not operate a dedicated bus for a few F passengers: they only leave when they are full because they have limited resources available. Honestly, being upset that the F passengers have to share oxygen with the J passengers is not even a first world problem, but a personality disorder. F is just an absurd novelty at this point for people who think they are special, but cannot afford to fly private. I am glad that many airlines are eliminating it completely now that J is better than what F was just a few years ago. Do you really need anything beyond a semi-private suite with a lie-flat bed??

Having done the remote gate/bus to plane at LAX in F, it really is an underwhelming start to the trip. I remember discussing with my wife how disappointing the process was. I don't even recall they differentiating between F/J & Y while boarding the buses. At most, there are only 52 pax for F/J, 2-3 buses would've sufficed...

First world problems for sure but definitely a sub-par way to start a trip in SQ F at LAX.

For me this is not accurate. There is a difference between F and J especially the amount of disturbance and service you get in F is much better experience. For example, In J they turn on the light 2+ hours before landing and make a lot of noise. In F, this doesn't happen so I get a much better rest. There are many more small things and that is why people pay for F.

Flying Private is a huge price difference... you may want to do some research on that. Yes, they are eliminating F on some routes but that is not because people are flying Private it is because demand for F is less (mainly due to company policies). However, on the routes that I frequent LHR/JFK they are quite often full and I sometimes have to waitlist even a couple of months in advance on a paid ticket.

I do agree the bus experience is not nice when you compare to EK in DXB but given airline has no control over LAX, I don't blame CX or SQ at all. Just accept it and move on. Many things in F are not perfect but I definitely notice the appreciate the difference in F vs. J.