5 airports to avoid
Aug 19, 2003 | 6:25 pm
#1
Original Poster
Moderator: CommunityBuzz!, OMNI, OMNI/PR, and OMNI/Games & FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: ORD (MDW stinks)
Programs: UAMM, AAMM & ExPlat, Hyatt Globalist, Marriott lifetime Plat, IHG Plat, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 24,157
5 airports to avoid
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Here we go:
1. New York's three major airports:
1a. Newark Liberty International Airport (EWR);
1b. LaGuardia Airport (LGA);
1c. John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK).
It's a three-way tie for first! These are awful, awful airports any way you look at it. (And yes, I know I said my top five airports, so OK, I'm cheating a bit in my numbering system.) Newark is an enormous construction site, a dreadful, disorganized mess of a terminal. There's an almost-constant traffic jam in front of JFK, and I find it astounding that it recently opened another terminal (as if that would somehow make things better). But LaGuardia is in a class by itself, with its dark terminals, predictable delays and reports of lax security. Even New Yorkers, who are used to crowds and rude service, avoid this airport despite its proximity to Manhattan. The numbers are telling. The government reported that 20% of all flights arriving at LaGuardia and Newark were late. At JFK, almost a quarter of arriving flights were tardy.
I'm a regular user of all three airports.
2. Miami International Airport (MIA). What a mess. Just the thought of flying into Miami is enough to make me want to cancel my next trip. Like New York's infamous airports, Miami welcomes you with an almost-constant traffic jam. The bottleneck on Highway 836, which parallels one of the airport runways, never ends. I've driven along it at 3 a.m., and it's still bumper-to-bumper. Inside, the pandemonium continues. The check-in areas are dark, noisy, claustrophobia-inducing enclosures that make you wish for the soothing roar of a jet engine in your ear. Security lines are almost always long. Once in the departure area, your options are day-old, warmed-up hot dogs or day-old, warmed-up cinnamon rolls. And arrivals? Pray that your flight is diverted to Fort Lauderdale, because landing here is a pain. I often can't even find my way to the arrivals area — and I live in South Florida.
3. San Jose International Airport (SJC). This was a surprise choice, since most of my memories of using San Jose International were relatively positive. Then again, most of my positive memories date back to 1984, when there were fewer people living in Silicon Valley, and the airport was really more of an airfield. SJC is just slightly better than the New York airports with its on-time statistics — about 17% of its arrivals and departures are more than 15 minutes late. But most of the criticism of SJC is that it simply wasn't built to accommodate the influx of travelers and the increase in security.
4. Los Angeles International Airport (LAX). Friends don't let friends fly into LAX. That was the joke when LAX is simply too big for its own good.
Getting there is difficult at any hour (the 405 freeway is usually a parking lot in front of LAX). The circular design by architect William Pereira, the man who coincidentally also masterminded my alma mater's campus, isn't well-suited to a desperately needed expansion. Neither is the fact that almost every inch of real estate around Los Angeles International is built up. "LAX is oppressive," says traveler Pete Maclean. "It's dingy and dilapidated, noisy and overcrowded, unfriendly and with poor facilities."
5. Boston Logan International Airport (BOS). The usual complaints here: big crowds, long lines, never-ending construction. Sound familiar? The on-time numbers at BOS are better than its competitors in this category (the most recent numbers say only 15% of its flights left late) and that kept the airport from being ranked higher. I generally prefer one of Boston's alternate airports — Providence, R.I., or even Hartford, Conn. </font>
1. New York's three major airports:
1a. Newark Liberty International Airport (EWR);
1b. LaGuardia Airport (LGA);
1c. John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK).
It's a three-way tie for first! These are awful, awful airports any way you look at it. (And yes, I know I said my top five airports, so OK, I'm cheating a bit in my numbering system.) Newark is an enormous construction site, a dreadful, disorganized mess of a terminal. There's an almost-constant traffic jam in front of JFK, and I find it astounding that it recently opened another terminal (as if that would somehow make things better). But LaGuardia is in a class by itself, with its dark terminals, predictable delays and reports of lax security. Even New Yorkers, who are used to crowds and rude service, avoid this airport despite its proximity to Manhattan. The numbers are telling. The government reported that 20% of all flights arriving at LaGuardia and Newark were late. At JFK, almost a quarter of arriving flights were tardy.
I'm a regular user of all three airports.
2. Miami International Airport (MIA). What a mess. Just the thought of flying into Miami is enough to make me want to cancel my next trip. Like New York's infamous airports, Miami welcomes you with an almost-constant traffic jam. The bottleneck on Highway 836, which parallels one of the airport runways, never ends. I've driven along it at 3 a.m., and it's still bumper-to-bumper. Inside, the pandemonium continues. The check-in areas are dark, noisy, claustrophobia-inducing enclosures that make you wish for the soothing roar of a jet engine in your ear. Security lines are almost always long. Once in the departure area, your options are day-old, warmed-up hot dogs or day-old, warmed-up cinnamon rolls. And arrivals? Pray that your flight is diverted to Fort Lauderdale, because landing here is a pain. I often can't even find my way to the arrivals area — and I live in South Florida.
3. San Jose International Airport (SJC). This was a surprise choice, since most of my memories of using San Jose International were relatively positive. Then again, most of my positive memories date back to 1984, when there were fewer people living in Silicon Valley, and the airport was really more of an airfield. SJC is just slightly better than the New York airports with its on-time statistics — about 17% of its arrivals and departures are more than 15 minutes late. But most of the criticism of SJC is that it simply wasn't built to accommodate the influx of travelers and the increase in security.
4. Los Angeles International Airport (LAX). Friends don't let friends fly into LAX. That was the joke when LAX is simply too big for its own good.
Getting there is difficult at any hour (the 405 freeway is usually a parking lot in front of LAX). The circular design by architect William Pereira, the man who coincidentally also masterminded my alma mater's campus, isn't well-suited to a desperately needed expansion. Neither is the fact that almost every inch of real estate around Los Angeles International is built up. "LAX is oppressive," says traveler Pete Maclean. "It's dingy and dilapidated, noisy and overcrowded, unfriendly and with poor facilities."
5. Boston Logan International Airport (BOS). The usual complaints here: big crowds, long lines, never-ending construction. Sound familiar? The on-time numbers at BOS are better than its competitors in this category (the most recent numbers say only 15% of its flights left late) and that kept the airport from being ranked higher. I generally prefer one of Boston's alternate airports — Providence, R.I., or even Hartford, Conn. </font>
Aug 20, 2003 | 8:10 am
#2
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: New York, USA,
Programs: Amex Centurion. Amanjunkie. AA & DL Platinum
Posts: 432
[b]
I disagree wholeheartedly abouth JFK. I am a regular user there also (both domestic and international) and find it to be changing dramatically from an antiquated airport to one of the most modern airports in the world. Most of the terminals are new and architecturally pleasing (very open spaces and well lit), and I never find any problem with traffic getting into the airport or within the airport proper.
I believe JFK will be one of the best airports in the world in a few years when all the construction is complete. LGA and EWR are a completely other story. They are both horrible and reminds me of the Port of Authority bus station in New York City.
[This message has been edited by plumbar (edited 08-20-2003).]
[This message has been edited by plumbar (edited 08-20-2003).]
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Here we go:
1. New York's three major airports:
1a. Newark Liberty International Airport (EWR);
1b. LaGuardia Airport (LGA);
1c. John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK).
It's a three-way tie for first! These are awful, awful airports any way you look at it. (And yes, I know I said my top five airports, so OK, I'm cheating a bit in my numbering system.) Newark is an enormous construction site, a dreadful, disorganized mess of a terminal. There's an almost-constant traffic jam in front of JFK, and I find it astounding that it recently opened another terminal (as if that would somehow make things better). But LaGuardia is in a class by itself, with its dark terminals, predictable delays and reports of lax security. Even New Yorkers, who are used to crowds and rude service, avoid this airport despite its proximity to Manhattan. The numbers are telling. The government reported that 20% of all flights arriving at LaGuardia and Newark were late. At JFK, almost a quarter of arriving flights were tardy.</font>
1. New York's three major airports:
1a. Newark Liberty International Airport (EWR);
1b. LaGuardia Airport (LGA);
1c. John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK).
It's a three-way tie for first! These are awful, awful airports any way you look at it. (And yes, I know I said my top five airports, so OK, I'm cheating a bit in my numbering system.) Newark is an enormous construction site, a dreadful, disorganized mess of a terminal. There's an almost-constant traffic jam in front of JFK, and I find it astounding that it recently opened another terminal (as if that would somehow make things better). But LaGuardia is in a class by itself, with its dark terminals, predictable delays and reports of lax security. Even New Yorkers, who are used to crowds and rude service, avoid this airport despite its proximity to Manhattan. The numbers are telling. The government reported that 20% of all flights arriving at LaGuardia and Newark were late. At JFK, almost a quarter of arriving flights were tardy.</font>
I believe JFK will be one of the best airports in the world in a few years when all the construction is complete. LGA and EWR are a completely other story. They are both horrible and reminds me of the Port of Authority bus station in New York City.
[This message has been edited by plumbar (edited 08-20-2003).]
[This message has been edited by plumbar (edited 08-20-2003).]
Aug 20, 2003 | 8:31 am
#3
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 874
I've touched all airports (though LAX was only a connection) and agree that they are some of the worst around. However, they may not be all that bad -
MIA - The international activity really kicks off around midnight, so nightime may be one of the worst times for traffic. Though traffic on the freeways there is almost always bad. The local roads are a good alternative and can cut some time off the trip. Also, I've had just about no wait at the United security checkpoint.
BOS - even the public transportation there is horrible. Why not extend the train a few 100 yards so you don't have to take a bus the final way?
LGA - Cramped and old, but I had no trouble getting out and in to a rental car on my way to Westchester. (However, after that I flew in to HPN everytime. That airport has its own set of issues - one small security checkpoint and two gates, with a large number of flights. Even a long backup on the freeway to turn in. It could just about be added to the NY group)
One that should be added:
DEN - Its way out in the middle of nowhere. Rental cars are also miles away. Public transit there is barely existant (a bus). Yet once you go through secuity, you are REQUIRED to go on a train (unless in the Frontier terminal). Not even an option to walk like Atlanta. And when the train is 'running slowly' you may have to wait for a couple full trains to go by before getting on. Not many options to avoid this place. COS is a long hike. However, I did notice that Centennial airport had a near continuous stream of GA traffic. Looks like people have learned a good way to avoid the nightmare. Perhaps Boulder's commercial traffic will resume...
MIA - The international activity really kicks off around midnight, so nightime may be one of the worst times for traffic. Though traffic on the freeways there is almost always bad. The local roads are a good alternative and can cut some time off the trip. Also, I've had just about no wait at the United security checkpoint.
BOS - even the public transportation there is horrible. Why not extend the train a few 100 yards so you don't have to take a bus the final way?
LGA - Cramped and old, but I had no trouble getting out and in to a rental car on my way to Westchester. (However, after that I flew in to HPN everytime. That airport has its own set of issues - one small security checkpoint and two gates, with a large number of flights. Even a long backup on the freeway to turn in. It could just about be added to the NY group)
One that should be added:
DEN - Its way out in the middle of nowhere. Rental cars are also miles away. Public transit there is barely existant (a bus). Yet once you go through secuity, you are REQUIRED to go on a train (unless in the Frontier terminal). Not even an option to walk like Atlanta. And when the train is 'running slowly' you may have to wait for a couple full trains to go by before getting on. Not many options to avoid this place. COS is a long hike. However, I did notice that Centennial airport had a near continuous stream of GA traffic. Looks like people have learned a good way to avoid the nightmare. Perhaps Boulder's commercial traffic will resume...
Aug 20, 2003 | 8:36 am
#4
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: The road less traveled
Programs: UA Gold MM, AA EXP, Delta Platinum, Marriott Titanium, HHonors Diamond, Natl EE, Hertz Platinum
Posts: 5,189
Let's not forget LHR (London Heathrow) airport here either, people. Long messes of hallways going up and all over... strange shuttle systems through the dark bowels of the airport... convoluted passenger security policies... To quote Henry Kissinger, "Give me heaven or give me hell, but don't make me go through Heathrow."
------------------
"There are those who travel, and those who travel well."
------------------
"There are those who travel, and those who travel well."
Aug 20, 2003 | 12:22 pm
#5
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: SoCal to the rest of the world...
Programs: AA 1MM EXP. UA 2MM Lifetime Plat
Posts: 6,742
JFK is improving, I'll give it that...
My worst airports I still have to touch are
- SFO: Domestic areas .. Yeah the nice shiny new International terminal is great, but the rest of the airport has the charm of a crummy train station.
- LAX: With the exception of the AA terminal, all other terminals are really dated now. Even the Intl/Bradley terminal is horrendous airside (landside, it's great)... The UA remodel a few years ago doesn't look like anything ever happened. I can't believe all the money was spent and it looks 10 years old already. I also don't believe the Mayor's plan will EVER see the light of day.
My worst airports I still have to touch are
- SFO: Domestic areas .. Yeah the nice shiny new International terminal is great, but the rest of the airport has the charm of a crummy train station.
- LAX: With the exception of the AA terminal, all other terminals are really dated now. Even the Intl/Bradley terminal is horrendous airside (landside, it's great)... The UA remodel a few years ago doesn't look like anything ever happened. I can't believe all the money was spent and it looks 10 years old already. I also don't believe the Mayor's plan will EVER see the light of day.
Aug 20, 2003 | 12:59 pm
#6
Join Date: May 2002
Location: In the home of the "brave"?
Programs: Whatever will get me out of Y and into C or F!
Posts: 3,748
Bad Airports:
BOS due to the poor layout and lack of a master plan. Also the attitude of the employees and security personnel including the State Police (How are they allowed access to automatic weapons?!?)
LGA because of the mentioned darkness and pigeon droppings. C'mon PANYNJ! DCA was a mess and yet it was fived up. You CAN do it. (Exception to LGA is the Marine Terminal used by DL Shuttle, I'm glad it has survived!)
JFK and EWR are more bearible than before. Both will be better when the JFK AirTrain starts up, and the EWR AirTrain/Monorail is finally made reliable.
(Tip: JFK is a ghost-town if you avoid the 2pm to 8pm window)
LHR is a pain to change at if you are changing terminals. As an arrival departure point, especially with Heathrow Express, I find it quite bearable even with the extreme security.
CDG2 is a pit with not enough area between the street and the gates for security and services/concessions/shopping. CDG1 is dated, dated, dated! Give me ORY!
SVO smells funny and really needs a steam cleaning. Thank goodness for DME.
I am biased, but LAX is OK for me. I avoid Terminal 1 due to the lengthy security lines that seem to exist at all times save evening. T3 is dingy, especially on the arrivals/baggage level. But as I tend to fly airlines with which I have club access, I guess I am able to avoid these things?
Delta's Termnal 5 is quite nice, IMHO.
BOS due to the poor layout and lack of a master plan. Also the attitude of the employees and security personnel including the State Police (How are they allowed access to automatic weapons?!?)
LGA because of the mentioned darkness and pigeon droppings. C'mon PANYNJ! DCA was a mess and yet it was fived up. You CAN do it. (Exception to LGA is the Marine Terminal used by DL Shuttle, I'm glad it has survived!)
JFK and EWR are more bearible than before. Both will be better when the JFK AirTrain starts up, and the EWR AirTrain/Monorail is finally made reliable.
(Tip: JFK is a ghost-town if you avoid the 2pm to 8pm window)
LHR is a pain to change at if you are changing terminals. As an arrival departure point, especially with Heathrow Express, I find it quite bearable even with the extreme security.
CDG2 is a pit with not enough area between the street and the gates for security and services/concessions/shopping. CDG1 is dated, dated, dated! Give me ORY!
SVO smells funny and really needs a steam cleaning. Thank goodness for DME.
I am biased, but LAX is OK for me. I avoid Terminal 1 due to the lengthy security lines that seem to exist at all times save evening. T3 is dingy, especially on the arrivals/baggage level. But as I tend to fly airlines with which I have club access, I guess I am able to avoid these things?
Delta's Termnal 5 is quite nice, IMHO.
Aug 20, 2003 | 2:12 pm
#7
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 874
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by NickP 1K:
- SFO: Domestic areas .. Yeah the nice shiny new International terminal is great, but the rest of the airport has the charm of a crummy train station.
</font>
- SFO: Domestic areas .. Yeah the nice shiny new International terminal is great, but the rest of the airport has the charm of a crummy train station.
</font>
I'll always fly in to SFO, even when going to the southbay, just to avoid the nightmare of SJC.
Aug 20, 2003 | 2:25 pm
#8
In Memoriam, Original Member
Join Date: May 1998
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 6,879
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by NickP 1K:
I also don't believe the Mayor's plan will EVER see the light of day.
</font>
I also don't believe the Mayor's plan will EVER see the light of day.
</font>
Aug 20, 2003 | 2:28 pm
#9
In Memoriam, Original Member
Join Date: May 1998
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 6,879
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...nes-california
"Hahn has said that by limiting the number of gates at LAX he could persuade airlines to take flights to other airports in the region."
What a putz...
"Hahn has said that by limiting the number of gates at LAX he could persuade airlines to take flights to other airports in the region."
What a putz...
Aug 20, 2003 | 3:41 pm
#10
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Honolulu, Hawaiʻi [+MKK4 EBBER R577 EDSEL R577 ELKEY EXERT]
Posts: 15,913
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by L Dude 7:
BOS - even the public transportation there is horrible. Why not extend the train a few 100 yards so you don't have to take a bus the final way?
</font>
BOS - even the public transportation there is horrible. Why not extend the train a few 100 yards so you don't have to take a bus the final way?
</font>
Aug 20, 2003 | 6:52 pm
#11
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: PHL (and sometimes BKK)
Programs: aa/ua gold; mar titanium. SPG till I die.
Posts: 15,649
How about OAK..too small for its own good. The airport is just TOO SMALL for all its traffic, including car traffic. SFO is easier to fly in/out of.
Aug 21, 2003 | 12:57 pm
#12
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Manchester, United Kingdom
Programs: Hilton Gold, Priority Club Platinum (until December), FB Explorer, BA Blue, M&M Pleb
Posts: 8,616
I don't think I've been to a "bad" US airport (Mid Continent was as dull as though). For bad, try BOM or NBO (though people who've been Lagos, Kigali and Algiers tell me that these airports are really grim).
Imagine what someone who has only ever experienced dodgy African airports might think of LAX. Actually LAX might be a bad example because the really peeved M.... M.... M.... Members of the human race working at one of the Burger Kings there might ruin the experience for them.
Regards
I
Imagine what someone who has only ever experienced dodgy African airports might think of LAX. Actually LAX might be a bad example because the really peeved M.... M.... M.... Members of the human race working at one of the Burger Kings there might ruin the experience for them.
Regards
I
Aug 21, 2003 | 1:33 pm
#13
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: MSY, BJX, QRO; previously NYC, BOS, AUH
Programs: AA EXP, 6MM
Posts: 18,348
I am new to this board, but I am a frequent domestic business traveler, so please let me respectfully disagree with many of the prior posts. To me, the most important factor in assessing an airport is convenience: how quickly can I get from the city center to the airport, and how quickly can I get from the parking garage or my car to the plane, and vice versa. Airport amenities are nice, but of secondary concern to me. That said, here are some of my most and least favorite:
Most Favorite:
1. BOS. Yes it's my home city, but it's spitting distance to downtown, and while it historically has taken far too long to drive those few short miles, now that the Big Dig is nearing completion, that ride already is much improved. (And for many of us locals, we have always been fairly successful in finding alternative routes to beat the traffic. But ever since the Ted Williams Tunnel and the MassPike extension have opened, I have not had to use any of my tricks.)
2. LGA. Like Boston, and as evidenced by this discussion, it takes a lot of heat. But it's relatively close to the city, its relatively small, making it easier and quicker to get from curb side to airplane and back, and if you don't mind public transportation, it is VERY easy to get to from the city. (From my NY office at 53rd and 3rd, I take the E or V train to Jackson Heights, Queens, and grab a cab from there. I do the same in reverse to get from LGA to the city. Total travel time 25-35 minutes. It has taken me longer only once -- in a snow storm. Total cost $2 subway fare plus $10 (plus tip) cab fare.)
3. The old Denver Stapleton. Do you see a theme here? I like the older, close-in airports for their convenience.
Least Favorite:
1. The new Denver airport. Isn't it false advertising to have "Denver" in the name? How much time does one need to alot from when the door of the plane is opened until one gets on the train, gets out of the airport, gets in a cab, and after an interminable drive, gets anywhere close to downtown Denver?
2. ATL. Too big. Everything's too far away. I generally hate airports that require trains or busses to get to the gates. So add in LAS as another airport that I don't like because of the train. For some reason, however, TPA is tolerable, perhaps because although they require a train ride, the airport is on an appropriate scale and the train ride is very short.
3. DFW. I am lifetime Platinum on AA, so I hate to dis them, but could they have put the gates any further away from each other? Pretty much everything about this airport sucks. The new food options in the AA terminals have helped, but only marginally. And I get bummed out any time an airport authority takes over responsibility for transporting customers to the rental car lots. The rental car companies are incented to run their busses so frequently, that one rarely needs to wait more than a few minutes. Contrast that with an government-controlled organization that runs the busses when it feels like it. (For this reason, SFO and SJC slipped considerably in my rankings, although I have not been back to SFO since the train has replaced the bus. But then again, you know how I feel about trains!)
4. MIA. Chaos, chaos, and more chaos.
5. ORD. Gee, a lot of AA hubs are making this list. In good weather, ORD runs fairly smoothly for an airport of its size, and one can get from plane to cab fairly quickly. But it looses considerable points due to the massive traffic one must endure to get downtown on the Kennedy Expressway (now there's a misnomer). Perhaps I need to try the CTA next time?
Honerable mention. SJC. I am sure that there are worse. But remember when SJC used to be so convenient? You'd walk from the plane right accross the street to your rental car and you'd be gone. Now they think they're in the big leagues, so they feel they need to take you on a bus tour of the metropolitan area in order for you to get a rental car. What a disappointment.
A quick caveat: all of my comments relate to my feelings when I originate or terminate at the specified airport. If I'm making a connection, my views are very different. I hate ATL under any circumstances, but ORD is fine (assuming good weather; they have a sizable Admirals Club and a good number of Starbucks). Even MIA can be tolerable as a gateway to (but not from) South America (on the way to S.A., you don't have to exit the security area and join the chaos in the ticketing area; on the way back, however, you've got to clear customs, get dumped back out with the masses, and then fight your way back through security).
Another quick note on MIA: a Virgin Atlantic 747 pilot once told me that he finds MIA to be the scariest airport to fly into. He said many of the pilots flying in and out of MIA don't speak English very well, making communication with the tower difficult and thus the likelihood of an unauthorized movement higher. And he told me that the accents of the controllers at MIA even make it difficult for him to understand instrutions some time.
[This message has been edited by Blumie (edited 08-21-2003).]
Most Favorite:
1. BOS. Yes it's my home city, but it's spitting distance to downtown, and while it historically has taken far too long to drive those few short miles, now that the Big Dig is nearing completion, that ride already is much improved. (And for many of us locals, we have always been fairly successful in finding alternative routes to beat the traffic. But ever since the Ted Williams Tunnel and the MassPike extension have opened, I have not had to use any of my tricks.)
2. LGA. Like Boston, and as evidenced by this discussion, it takes a lot of heat. But it's relatively close to the city, its relatively small, making it easier and quicker to get from curb side to airplane and back, and if you don't mind public transportation, it is VERY easy to get to from the city. (From my NY office at 53rd and 3rd, I take the E or V train to Jackson Heights, Queens, and grab a cab from there. I do the same in reverse to get from LGA to the city. Total travel time 25-35 minutes. It has taken me longer only once -- in a snow storm. Total cost $2 subway fare plus $10 (plus tip) cab fare.)
3. The old Denver Stapleton. Do you see a theme here? I like the older, close-in airports for their convenience.
Least Favorite:
1. The new Denver airport. Isn't it false advertising to have "Denver" in the name? How much time does one need to alot from when the door of the plane is opened until one gets on the train, gets out of the airport, gets in a cab, and after an interminable drive, gets anywhere close to downtown Denver?
2. ATL. Too big. Everything's too far away. I generally hate airports that require trains or busses to get to the gates. So add in LAS as another airport that I don't like because of the train. For some reason, however, TPA is tolerable, perhaps because although they require a train ride, the airport is on an appropriate scale and the train ride is very short.
3. DFW. I am lifetime Platinum on AA, so I hate to dis them, but could they have put the gates any further away from each other? Pretty much everything about this airport sucks. The new food options in the AA terminals have helped, but only marginally. And I get bummed out any time an airport authority takes over responsibility for transporting customers to the rental car lots. The rental car companies are incented to run their busses so frequently, that one rarely needs to wait more than a few minutes. Contrast that with an government-controlled organization that runs the busses when it feels like it. (For this reason, SFO and SJC slipped considerably in my rankings, although I have not been back to SFO since the train has replaced the bus. But then again, you know how I feel about trains!)
4. MIA. Chaos, chaos, and more chaos.
5. ORD. Gee, a lot of AA hubs are making this list. In good weather, ORD runs fairly smoothly for an airport of its size, and one can get from plane to cab fairly quickly. But it looses considerable points due to the massive traffic one must endure to get downtown on the Kennedy Expressway (now there's a misnomer). Perhaps I need to try the CTA next time?
Honerable mention. SJC. I am sure that there are worse. But remember when SJC used to be so convenient? You'd walk from the plane right accross the street to your rental car and you'd be gone. Now they think they're in the big leagues, so they feel they need to take you on a bus tour of the metropolitan area in order for you to get a rental car. What a disappointment.
A quick caveat: all of my comments relate to my feelings when I originate or terminate at the specified airport. If I'm making a connection, my views are very different. I hate ATL under any circumstances, but ORD is fine (assuming good weather; they have a sizable Admirals Club and a good number of Starbucks). Even MIA can be tolerable as a gateway to (but not from) South America (on the way to S.A., you don't have to exit the security area and join the chaos in the ticketing area; on the way back, however, you've got to clear customs, get dumped back out with the masses, and then fight your way back through security).
Another quick note on MIA: a Virgin Atlantic 747 pilot once told me that he finds MIA to be the scariest airport to fly into. He said many of the pilots flying in and out of MIA don't speak English very well, making communication with the tower difficult and thus the likelihood of an unauthorized movement higher. And he told me that the accents of the controllers at MIA even make it difficult for him to understand instrutions some time.
[This message has been edited by Blumie (edited 08-21-2003).]
Aug 21, 2003 | 3:05 pm
#14
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Houston, Texas
Programs: United 1K, Marriott Plat, HHonors Diamond
Posts: 653
I couldn't agree more with EWR. I've never, ever had an on-time flight into EWR -- I'm 0 for 12. Even on the nicest spring days with nary a cloud on the East Coast, I could fly BWI to EWR, and, whoops! Delayed ... I think everybody has an airport like that.
The new Denver airport, too, is pretty bad. It seems like it's in Colorado Springs, and it looks like a circus big-top. DFW is a nightmare. I've never liked STL, either, because I always have to go from gate A1 to Z125 ;-)
The new Denver airport, too, is pretty bad. It seems like it's in Colorado Springs, and it looks like a circus big-top. DFW is a nightmare. I've never liked STL, either, because I always have to go from gate A1 to Z125 ;-)
Aug 21, 2003 | 10:18 pm
#15
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Northern California
Programs: UA Premier Gold, 1.5 Million Mile Flyer
Posts: 3,696
It's always fun to see these kinds of threads. 
First, I don't judge airports nearly as much on traffic or distance from city center etc. as I do on the interior of the airport itself. As in "which airport would you rather have a 4 hour layover in".
OK, that said, Some of my favorites in no particular order.
Domestic:
ATL
DEN
LAX
MIA
EWR
SAN
International:
AMS
ICN
NRT
SIN
GRU
Most all airports in Brazil except GIG
Most disliked Airports.
Domestic:
ORD
JFK
DFW
DTW
MDT
International:
MNL
MUC
GIG
And probably a lot more that I haven't seen yet
[This message has been edited by braslvr (edited 08-21-2003).]
First, I don't judge airports nearly as much on traffic or distance from city center etc. as I do on the interior of the airport itself. As in "which airport would you rather have a 4 hour layover in".
OK, that said, Some of my favorites in no particular order.
Domestic:
ATL
DEN
LAX
MIA
EWR
SAN
International:
AMS
ICN
NRT
SIN
GRU
Most all airports in Brazil except GIG
Most disliked Airports.
Domestic:
ORD
JFK
DFW
DTW
MDT
International:
MNL
MUC
GIG
And probably a lot more that I haven't seen yet
[This message has been edited by braslvr (edited 08-21-2003).]